Electron is not a point particle mathematically

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 2:17:52 PM7/15/05

to

[reference line was too long for my server; had to start a new thread]

No. He doesn't do that. You really need to study his books. Most of
the values he derives starting with his model of energy (really two
photons) and geometric principles. I think you could backtrack all of
his values to the input parameter of two photons with energy equal to
2*m_e*c^2. So starting with the rest mass enegy of electrons and
positrons and using geometrical configurations, he derives all the rest.
Except for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. He makes an
adjustment for that also.

But the big thing that really gets me curious, is how he gets a massive
amount of nuclear binding energies very close using magnetic coupling of
nucleons and using his derived mag moments of the proton and neutron
from his models. IOW, he is getting the proper photon energies for
binding using,

e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

Where mu_p and mu_n are *his* derived values for the magnetic moments of
the proton and neutron. Let's convert this to cgs units and make some
substitutions.

alpha*hbar*c(e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

alpha*e*c/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)

So this expression does give us the proper photon wavelength of the
binding energy using his values of mu_p and mu_n as input. Now, how is
this connected to nuclear physics? There has to be a connection
somehow. Using his geometrical scheme, he just gets too much correct.
Way too much!!

| > | > He is trying to make one photon out of two photons.
| > |
| > | I did not notice that so far. Where does he do that?
| >
| > Out of his "model" for energy (his single photon) he creates an
electron
| > and positron. We know that takes at least two photons.
|
| Oh, yes, I remember telling this him before... ;-)
|
|
| > | > Two photons and his concept somewhat works OK.
| > | >
| > | > What he takes to be an electron neutrino, I take to be a
Goldstone
| > | > boson. Funny how those Goldstone bosons popup even in the SM.
| > |
| > | A neutrino has spin 1/2, so how can you take it to be a boson?
| >
| > What Tom is calling a neutrino in his model has zero spin in his
model.
| > It must be a boson.
|
| Neutrinos have zero spin in his model? Wow. How does he explain
| conservation
| of angular momentum in beta decay? He doesn't bother, right? (after
| all, he thinks that angular momentum and linear momentum are
| convertible into each other...)

Yes. I do think the neutrino part of his concept is seriously flawed.

| > | > So that leaves two of his vector particles
| > |
| > | Were you able to figure out what he means with "vector"?
| >
| > Loosely. He is basically connecting up orthogonal vectors of equal
| > length.
|
| And what has that to do with constructing models of composite
particles?

Did you snip out the part that leads to that?

FrediFizzx

particle p6

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 4:01:43 PM7/15/05

to

Really? Gee maybe I have to read the entire book after all.
I hope someone with good knowledge in classical electrodynamics
can help analyze his "geometric scheme". In the following is
chapter 1 and 2 which gives complete details of how the EM
vector can be allegedly made into geometric cubes that form
particles. I start with chapter 2 which details the cube
construction. Chapter 1 details how the properties such as spin,
rest mass, charges are made from the geometric confinement.
(To Lockyer, don't worry I won't post other chapters. Just this
crucial first two for our scrutiny)

Lockyer wrote:

Chapter 2

THE NATURE OF LEPTONS
THE SHAPE OF PARTICLE MODELS

To preserve the orthogonal arrangement that exists between the
(E) and (H) photon field vectors, the particle models are
constructed in the form of vector cube frameworks. This form
factor is admirably suited to scaling of nested cubes, and
forming the composite proton, neutron, pion and muon models.
Setting vector lengths equal to wavelengths allows the cube
particle geometry to show that subatomic particles spin at
(1/2 h bar) with charge e.

RULES FOR CONSTRUCTING BASIC PARTICLES

Figure 1.2
http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/PHOTONmodel.gif

showed that the wavelength rate of vector growth will
change from zero to the e and back twice each cycle. The calculus
of related rates can be used to show that absolutely perfect cube
structures form, as the length rate of each member changes at
exactly 'c'. Equation (2.1) calculus demonstrates that the cube
face perimeter ceases to change, when side rates of length change
are all (simultaneously) equal.

Perimeter P = 2(x + y) : dP/dt= 2 [dx/dt + dy/dt]

setting dP/dt = 0 then dx/dt = - dy/dt

In Equation (2.1) the perimeter will stablize when (x)(S)
Poynting vectors and attached (v) (E) electric or (H) magnetic
vectors are exactly the same length at exactly the velocity of
light. Visualize the (E), (H) and (S) rate of change going from
(and to) the peak 1.414 c value, so they will instantaneously and
simultaneously have exactly the same wavelength when the time
rate of both is exactly the rms velocity of "c". At the resulting
precise pair energy the vecto rs connect, one to the other,
forming int o the cube structures. By assuring vector directions
going into and out of each (S) vector edge, only the three known
lepton pairs can form. This immediately establishes a boundary
condition on the number of basic leptons possible, and the
particle models are naturally self-limiting. The resulting
electron and neutrino structures are shown in Figure 2.1.

http://www.pbase.com/image/46224915/original Figure 2.1

Anticipating later results, the Figure 2.1 models are labeled as
the leptons they mimic. The electron and positron have a
structure that adds the momentum of the photons in their front
and back cube faces, as the mechanism for particle spin. In
Chapter 1. Equation (1.5), it was shown that particle mass
(energy) is exactly equal to the energy stored in the spill
angular momentum. The electron and positron models immediately
have acquired mass by virtue of their spin. The anti-particle
conjugation is revealed as having an (E) where the mate has an
(H) and the reverse. In Figure 2.1, the model labeled "Electron
Type Neutrino" does not show a conjugate. The electron type
neutrino is its on anti-particle, by a space rotation of 180
degrees about any axis. Electron type neutrinos, being their own
anti-particle, have profound effect when we construct the
composite proton and neutron model. The muon type neutrino shows
an anti-particle. Pair production is modeled as a breaking apart
of a photo n fireball, and annihila tion as recombining of
vectors, back into the photons.

It should be noted here, that these models were given
automatically by the modeling process, not invented. The models
are ALL constructed (blindl)) by simply combining the energy
model in all possible ways. In fact, any average student could
show the structure of the electron, positron, electron type
neutrino, and muon type neutrino pair, by simply combining the
energy model in all possible ways. This is the way particles must
be 9 created in nature, automatically and precisely. In Chapter I
the balancing of forces for pair production of the electron and
positron were given ill Equations (1.1), (1.2) and (1.3). This is
now shown schematically in Figure 2.3

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/pairsep.gif Figure 2.3

The pair production is possible because the strength of the near
field opposing magnetic moments exceeds that of the enormous
electric attraction. Forces balance at the null distance shown
and calculated in Equation (1.3).

Neutrino pairs have never been seen to annihilate. The
theoretical reason in these models, is that neutrinos do not
move, when energy is applied. Neutrinos' unique structures are
postulated to force them to get smaller, rather than move, when
energy is applied, and this provides for the scaling of the
nested cubes, forming the composite proton, neutron, moon and
pion.

In the next chapter, the two types of neutrino characteristics
will be discussed in detail.

CHAPTER 1
THE NATURE OF ENERGY

SETTING THE STAGE

Particle are photo produced in pairs, from electromagnetic
energy (photons). For example, the creation of the electron
positron pair is the product of photon energy, in the presence
of matter. The matter serves to turn the photons back into a
fireball and to reduce the energy to the exact energy required
for electron-positron creation. Fig 1.1 dramatically shows a
typical cloud chamber record of the photo production of the
electron-positron pairs.

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/photopair.gif Figure 1.1

In Figure 1.1 three
electron-positron pairs were created by 330MeV energy (x-ray)
photons in the presence of a lead (matter) target. The target
lead plate serves to Compton scatter the x-ray photons, reducing
fireball energy to the required (1.0121998 Mev) electron pair
energy to form each of the pairs. An external magnetic field
serves to separate and measure the pair characteristics. It
can be shown that the pairs form, at their exact and exclusive
energy, on account of the balance between non linear electric
and magnetic forces, each that vary at different rates.

BALANCING FORCES FOR PAIR PRODUCTION

A newly created electron and
positron will have an enormous electrostatic attraction due to
the formation of their negative and positive charges. The pair
develops their positive and negative attractive charges as they
spin up in the same direction. By spinning in the same direction,
the (negative) electron and (positive) positron, develop internal
charge currents. that create magnetic moments that oppose. In the
near field, the opposing magnetic force (Ue-, Ue+ ) varies
inversely as the fourth power of the separation, and thus is
larger than the attracting electric (e-,,e+) force, which only
varies inversely as the square of the same separation distance
(m), Equations (I.1) and (1.2).

(Eo is permittivity, Uo is permeability of vacuum)

Fe = [e^2/4piEo(m^2)] Electric force, Newton (1.1)

Fu = [2UoUe-(Ue+]/2pi(m^4) Magnetic force, Newton (1.2)

In Equation (1.3) we combine (Fe) (Fu) and solve for a common
separation distance (m) where electric and magnetic forces
will be equal (null). The result is a separation distance (m).

m = Sqrt [4UoEoUe-Ue+/e^2]
m = 3.86607074 x 10^-13

Equations (El), (1.2) and (1.3) demonstrate that it is possible
for the (e-,e+) pairs to form and then separate, by magnetic
moments ( Ue-,Ue+ ) despite the enormous (e- ,e+) electric charge
attractions. Were it not so, matter, as we know it. could not
exist.

THE ENERGY MODEL

As demonstrated in Figure 1.1, (photon fireballs) with an energy
twice the electron's rest mass energy, (1.021998 MeV) can create
the electron-positron pair. It will now be shown that the
electron's rest mass energy is entirely the energy stored (Joule
seconds) in the spin angular momentum and that the angular
momentum conserves that photon's linear momentum exactly.
Equations (I.4), (1.5) and (1.6)

spin = h/4pi = J(sec)/4pi = Rm(me)c (1.4)

Where: Rm = mass radius [wavelengthc/4pi]
me = electron mass
c = velocity of light
sec = total time (wavelength@e/c)

: J(wavelengthe)/4pi(c) = me(c)wavelength@e/4pi

finally J = me(c^2) (1.5)

Energy of photon. Jp = h fe = hc / wavelength@e

Momentum of photon = P = Jp/c

Then P Rm = h wavelength@e / wavelength@e 4 pi = h /4 pi check (1.6)

Equation (1.4) gives the source of the quantized (h /47r) spin
angular momentum as simply the mass (Me,) times the radius of
gyration (wavelength/4pi) times a velocity of gyration (c). Using
the electron's mass and the velocity of light gives us a mass
radius equal to one half of the electron's rationalized Compton
wavelength or (wavelength/4pi). This value will also be obtained
and verified from the electron model. See Chapter 4. In
Equation (1.5) the algebra shows that the entire rest mass energy
is stored in the spin angular momentum. Equation (I.6) shows that
the linear momentum, of the photon energy that created the
electrons, is conserved in the resulting spin angular momentum.
Figure 1.2. shows the model for the photon derived from a
schematic for a traveling wave of electromagnetic energy, as a
dynamic Poynting vector representing wavelength, not amplitude.

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/PHOTONmodel.gif Figure 1.2

The waveform is a sinusoid, and undulates, from peak wavelength
to zero twice each cycle, but must conserve energy over all time.
This is accomplished by an exchange of energy, in the
relativistic frame, between the two conjugate electromagnetic
resonances. In free space. the ratio between electric field
strength (E = volt per meter) and magnetic field strength (H=
Ampere per meter) is equal to the impedance of the vacuum (Zo),
Equation (1.7).

E = V/m ; H = A/m; Zo = Sqrt (Uo/Eo) = E/H = kg.m.s^-3.A^-1/A.m^-1

Zo = 376.7303135.kg.m^2.s^-3.A^-2 (Ohm)

There is a resonant exchange of energy that dithers between the
permeability (Henry per meter) (Uo) and the permittivity (Farad
per meter) (Eo) of the vacuum, in the same fashion as a (LC)
resonant circuit. Referring to Figure 1.2, the action perfectly
conserves the energy (straight lines the quantity) by shifting
the energy from the lateral to axial, and back again as the
photon travels, inch worm style at the rms velocity of light. The
energy is conserved by the well-known trigonometric identity
sin^2 theta + cos^2 theta = 1), which, for the two conjugate
resonances of Figure 1 ,2. becomes Equation (I.8).

VPP = 0.5 [sin^2 theta E.H) = (cos^2 theta H.E)]

Notice that the energy loss by the lateral (sine) is gain by the
axial (cosine) and the reverse. This well-known action, by a
resonant circuit, conserves the energy (over all time). The
energy maintains a constant value, regardless of the angle (0) by
an electric to magnetic and magnetic to electric energy exchange.
The motion of the photon is (thus) discontinuous as the energy
cycles between lateral top dead center and the axial development,
so that the velocity of light is a rms (root mean square) value
from zero to -T2. c . The photon energy model (Figure 1.2) forms
the basis for Quantum Vector Particle Physics (QVPP). This will
have profound effect when we construct leptons directly, from the
photon energy model, in the next chapter.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 4:42:38 PM7/15/05

to

"particle p6" <parti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121455796.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

The geometric scheme I was referring to above is for combining of the
nucleons.

| In the following is
| chapter 1 and 2 which gives complete details of how the EM
| vector can be allegedly made into geometric cubes that form
| particles. I start with chapter 2 which details the cube
| construction. Chapter 1 details how the properties such as spin,
| rest mass, charges are made from the geometric confinement.
| (To Lockyer, don't worry I won't post other chapters. Just this
| crucial first two for our scrutiny)

This probably has to do with the electrodynamical configuration of the
quantum "vacuum", IMHO. Plus rotate a cube and it defines a cylinder.

FrediFizzx

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 5:31:12 PM7/15/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>[reference line was too long for my server; had to start a new thread]

I had the same problem. I'll repeat what I just posted below:

>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <bjoern.fe...@pci.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
>message news:db7qib$j6d$1...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>| FrediFizzx wrote:

>| I haven't seen much of his book so far. But e.g. when he claims to
>| calculate the binding energy of the deuteron and the magnetic moments
>| of the proton and the neutron, he puts these values into his
>| calculation right from the start. Same for the mass, charge and
>| magnetic moment of the electron.

>No. He doesn't do that.

Yes he does: Here is a repost of something I just tried to post.

===========================================================================

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:db8mso$qho$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>|
>| You have to dig deeper, namely where he derives the two constants he
>| calls "undamped magnetic moments of the proton and neutron". In one
>of
>| the other gifs he has posted he derives these "undamped magnetic
>moments"
>| as the two roots of a quadradic equation with (ta-da!) the measured
>binding
>| energy of the deuteron as an input. It is much more complicated than
>his
>| usual x=x proofs, but still an x=x proof nonetheless.

>You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.

Not deep enough.

Thanks, you made me have to hunt down that other .gif of his where
Tom introduces the deuteron binding energy into the equations to derive
the "undamped magnetic moment" variables, from which he pulls out the
deuteron binding energy. I found it, it is:

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif . Look in the VARIABLES LIST
and you'll see him introduce it to define "C", a term of some quadradic.
He doesn't even try to hide it; in fact he writes in bold type "We use the
known binding [energy?] of the deuteron and quadradic to find Upm and Unm
undamped mag moments".

Then he defines C as e^4/(64*pi^2*E0^3*U0*(2.224573E6)^2). The
2.224573E6 term is the deuteron's binding energy in electron volts.
(I'll ignore the incorrect units here)

Then he goes off and creates a quadradic with this C as a term (but he
flubs some signs) and solves it to get these Upm and Unm values.
Now remember the identity I told you about in my last post? Multiply
the two roots of a quadradic equation and you get C/A. The way he flubs
the sign it's best to consider the unmentioned A term as -1 because of how
he writes the term under the square root sign when defining Upm and Unm.
This term should be B^2-4*A*C. He writes B^2+4*C. Again because how
he writes the quadradic terms he winds up flipping the sign of Upm but
the sign of Unm is correct. (remember the denominator is 2*A)

C/A = -C but because he flipped the sign of Upm, the flip and minus cancel
out and thus Upm*Unm = C. So whereever you see the roots Upm and Unm
multiplied together you can replace them by C, or his definition of C
above, which includes the deuteron's binding energy! Now look at
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif and in the equation where he
solves for Bpn, replace the (Up*Un) term with C, or the e^4/(64*pi^2....)
definition of C. Voila! lots of terms cancel and we get Bpn =
e^2/sqrt(e^4/(2.224573E6)^2) or e^2/(e^2/(2.224573E6)) or ta-da! the
2.224573E6 he introduced at the start. Notice that had he started with 1,
pi, e, googol or whatever instead of 2.224573E6 he would have pulled out
that very same number instead.

Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
I'm surprised you didn't catch it.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 15, 2005, 7:12:19 PM7/15/05

to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:db99v0$t4i$2...@pcls4.std.com...

OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
originally derived a different way.

But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
the deuteron using,

e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion. Nuclear
coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe. So how can
he get good binding energy values using *magnetic coupling*. Somehow
this magnetic coupling formula must be a result of pion exchange. ???

FrediFizzx

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 1:13:59 AM7/16/05

to

>
> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
> see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
> presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
> the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
> get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
> gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
> originally derived a different way.
>
> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
> the deuteron using,
>
> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

------------

what is the heaviest Nuc and Atom that he decoded???!!!

>
> and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.

yess the geometric structure is a main issue
yet
how can you know about the geometric structure while the dimensions
of the nuc are so small??- is is in contradiction to the HUP!!!!!

----------

Nuclear
> coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe.

believed ???
i believe that is is done by witches on broomstiks
----------

So how can
> he get good binding energy values using *magnetic coupling*. Somehow
> this magnetic coupling formula must be a result of pion exchange. ???
>
> FrediFizzx

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 12:00:27 PM7/16/05

to

Michael Moroney wrote:
> "FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >news:db8mso$qho$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> >|
> >| You have to dig deeper, namely where he derives the two constants he
> >| calls "undamped magnetic moments of the proton and neutron". In one
> >of
> >| the other gifs he has posted he derives these "undamped magnetic
> >moments"
> >| as the two roots of a quadradic equation with (ta-da!) the measured
> >binding
> >| energy of the deuteron as an input. It is much more complicated than
> >his
> >| usual x=x proofs, but still an x=x proof nonetheless.
>
> >You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.
>
> Not deep enough.

Tom writes;
Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
results, you claim x=x.

> Thanks, you made me have to hunt down that other .gif of his where
> Tom introduces the deuteron binding energy into the equations to derive
> the "undamped magnetic moment" variables, from which he pulls out the
> deuteron binding energy. I found it, it is:

> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif . Look in the VARIABLES LIST
> and you'll see him introduce it to define "C", a term of some quadradic.
> He doesn't even try to hide it; in fact he writes in bold type "We use the
> known binding [energy?] of the deuteron and quadradic to find Upm and Unm
> undamped mag moments".

>snip<

> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif and in the equation where he
> solves for Bpn, replace the (Up*Un) term with C, or the e^4/(64*pi^2....)
> definition of C. Voila! lots of terms cancel and we get Bpn =
> e^2/sqrt(e^4/(2.224573E6)^2) or e^2/(e^2/(2.224573E6)) or ta-da! the
> 2.224573E6 he introduced at the start. Notice that had he started with 1,
> pi, e, googol or whatever instead of 2.224573E6 he would have pulled out
> that very same number instead.
>
> Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
> I'm surprised you didn't catch it.

Mike,. The deuteron is simply a binding between a single proton and
single neutron and was used to show QVPP was giving the correct value
for the un-damped proton magnetic moment, and was using the correct
approach in calculating binding energy..

Here is the QVPP un-damped magnetic moment derivation, and the proof
that there is a damping loss in the published nuclear magnetic
resonance method.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/undampedcorrection.gif

You owe me an apology for giving everyone the wrong impression about
QVPP.

I begged you to get a copy of my books and you as much as said (sight
unseen) that they were a waste of paper. You have not studied my
methods so have NOT earned the right to comment as an authority.

Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 3:01:06 PM7/16/05

to

"Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
news:1121490839.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| >
| > OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
think I
| > see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
| > presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value
of
| > the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
procedure to
| > get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
| > gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
| > originally derived a different way.
| >
| > But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he
gets
| > very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides
just
| > the deuteron using,
| >
| > e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
|
| ------------
|
|
| what is the heaviest Nuc and Atom that he decoded???!!!

I believe he has done most main nuclei up to and including the Sulfur 32
nucleus. Tom's prediction is ~= 272.07 MeV and the measured BE is ~=
271.78 MeV for Sulfur 32 according to his book.

| > and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
|
| yess the geometric structure is a main issue
| yet
| how can you know about the geometric structure while the dimensions
| of the nuc are so small??- is is in contradiction to the HUP!!!!!

No, not necessarily contradicts HUP. If the right answers are obtained,
this *can* be a clue that the proposed geometry has something to it.
There will certainly be an uncertainty associated with the measured
energy values. IOW, the measured value of Sulfur 32's BE will have a
range of uncertainy specified along with it. Tom does not quote that
and he probably should. Plus I didn't notice a reference as to where he
obtained his measured BE's from unless it is from Audi and Wapstra.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps

p6

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 5:03:26 PM7/16/05

to

Y.Porat wrote:
> >
> > OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
> > see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
> > presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
> > the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
> > get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
> > gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
> > originally derived a different way.
> >
> > But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
> > very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
> > the deuteron using,
> >
> > e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
>
> ------------
>
>
> what is the heaviest Nuc and Atom that he decoded???!!!
>
>
> >
> > and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
>
> yess the geometric structure is a main issue
> yet
> how can you know about the geometric structure while the dimensions
> of the nuc are so small??- is is in contradiction to the HUP!!!!!
>
> ----------
>
> Nuclear
> > coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe.
>
> believed ???

> i believe that is is done by witches on broomstiks> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------

Y.Porat.. in more than a decade stay at sci.physics. What
have you learnt. What physics textbooks have you finished?
I think you don't even know what is the HUP and its details
as taught in convensional physics. I suggest you first get
familiar with the ins and outs of the convensional concepts
before going to examine far out thing. Start with thermodynamics,
electrodynamics, classical mechanics, then slowly get into QM,
etc. Without doing this. It would be a waste of too much time
on yourselves and others examining other models when you are
not even thoroughly familiar with the concept as taught. That's
why I decided to focus on thermodynamics and electrodynamics
first before going to QM and relativistic quantum field
theory. Try to do what I said so that in the next 10 years,
you could do something fruitful and not just waste time
chasing after wild goose. In 5-10 years. I don't want to
be like you or other crankpots trapped in their own
delusions. That's why I'd spend the next few months mastering
convensional concepts and especially the mathemetics. That's
the logical option if you want to arrive at the truth.
Also I think no crackpots can help me understand the physics
of qi. I have to explore and derive the physics of it myself.

So long.

P6

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 6:36:44 PM7/16/05

to

Another killfile entry!

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 10:42:18 PM7/16/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
>originally derived a different way.

Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere. Oh
something else I should check. He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE
with dimensionality volts rather than the proper joules, as usual. If we
change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those "adjusted"
magnetic moments have?

>But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
>very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
>the deuteron using,

>e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at the start!

>and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion. Nuclear
>coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I believe. So how can
>he get good binding energy values using *magnetic coupling*. Somehow
>this magnetic coupling formula must be a result of pion exchange. ???

I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything beyond
the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there was no need.
I don't know how much he made available on the web anyway.

However, if we ignore the bogus deuteron proof and consider all the others
as being based on the deuteron's binding energy (an input), that *might*
be interesting. As long as he doesn't sneak their binding energies in
there. It would be a series of ratios of binding energies to the
deuteron's BE. However, Tom dismisses the SM's prediction of particle
masses as ratios as worthless, perhaps he can dismiss his own predictions
as worthless ratios. :-)

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 10:50:25 PM7/16/05

to

The best description of an electron is the Dirac Equation
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DiracEquation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_Equation

Just about everything else is analogy.

Paul Stowe

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 11:20:00 PM7/16/05

to

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC), mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
(Michael Moroney) wrote:

>"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I think I
>>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
>>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value of
>>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this procedure to
>>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
>>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
>>originally derived a different way.
>
> Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.

Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

> Oh something else I should check.

Yes, you should.

> He mistakenly inputs the deuteron's BE with dimensionality volts rather
> than the proper joules, as usual.

Post the section that demonstrates that and then, SHOW WHERE!

> If we change it so the BE is in proper units, what units will those
> "adjusted" magnetic moments have?
>
>> But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he gets
>> very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides just
>> the deuteron using,
>
>> e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

Hmmm,

[kg/sec]^3[m/sec]/(kg/m^3][kg-m^2/sec^2])
=> [kg^3-m/sec^4]/[kg^2/m-sec^2]
=> kg-m^2/sec^2

Yup, dimensionally correct for energy...

> That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
> the start!

Show it... Show this 'start'.

>> and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
>> Nuclear coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I
>> believe. So how can he get good binding energy values using
>> *magnetic coupling*. Somehow this magnetic coupling formula
> must be a result of pion exchange. ???
>
> I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
> beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
> was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
> web anyway.

Did ya'ever think to ask???

> However, if we ignore the bogus deuteron proof and consider all
> the others as being based on the deuteron's binding energy (an
> input), that *might* be interesting. As long as he doesn't sneak
> their binding energies in there. It would be a series of ratios
> of binding energies to the deuteron's BE. However, Tom dismisses
> the SM's prediction of particle masses as ratios as worthless,
> perhaps he can dismiss his own predictions as worthless ratios. :-)

And all arrogant cynics are alike :(

Paul Stowe

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 16, 2005, 11:22:39 PM7/16/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.
>>
>> Not deep enough.

>Tom writes;
>Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
>judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
> results, you claim x=x.

No, I didn't look at "isolated results". I looked at your so-called
proof and saw how you did put the deuteron binding energy in at the
start and pulled it out again. I just pointed that out.

Don't believe me? Do the exact same math and the exact same proof but with
one small change. Input the binding energy of He-4 or Pu-239 or something
instead of that of the deuteron at the start and see what you come up with.

>> Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
>> I'm surprised you didn't catch it.

>Mike,. The deuteron is simply a binding between a single proton and

<snip>

You just regurgitated the same claims without addressing my analysis
of your math.

>Here is the QVPP un-damped magnetic moment derivation, and the proof
>that there is a damping loss in the published nuclear magnetic
>resonance method.

>http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/undampedcorrection.gif

That's nice. Show me a derivation of the deuteron's binding energy
without plugging it in at the start and I might be impressed.

>You owe me an apology for giving everyone the wrong impression about
>QVPP.

You gotta be kidding me! I point out your sleight of hand and you think I
should apologize for doing so?!?!

> I begged you to get a copy of my books and you as much as said (sight
>unseen) that they were a waste of paper.

I said it would be a waste of my money. For $25 or whatever, I'd rather
buy a toy for my daughter. I WILL look at it if I spot it in a library
or whatever.

> You have not studied my
>methods so have NOT earned the right to comment as an authority.

I don't have to be an authority to point out algebraic irregularities
(that is, "x=x" proofs).

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 12:04:25 AM7/17/05

to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:RHjCe.158969$x96.412@attbi_s72...

Sheesh Sam, you are getting as bad as the googlegroup posters by
dropping the thread attributes. Getting lazy in your old age? ;-)

A better description of an electron is what Weisskopf did with the Dirac
Equation for an electron in 1939 in his famous article "On the
Self-Energy and the Electromagnetic Field of the Electron," Phys. Rev.
56, 72 (1939). The free online link for this article is no more, so
those that are interested will have to go to the library. Or buy it
from APS. If you really want to know the scoop about an electron, this
is the article that tells plenty.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 12:07:52 AM7/17/05

to

Thanks.
-Sam

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 12:17:05 AM7/17/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Y.Porat" <map...@012.net.il> wrote in message
> news:1121490839.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | >

> | > | > But this is really besides the main point here. The fact that he
> gets
> | > very good values on *many many* nuclear binding energies besides
> just
> | > the deuteron using,
> | >
> | > e^3*c/(8pi*eps0*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))
> |
> | ------------
> |
> |
> | what is the heaviest Nuc and Atom that he decoded???!!!
>
> I believe he has done most main nuclei up to and including the Sulfur 32
> nucleus. Tom's prediction is ~= 272.07 MeV and the measured BE is ~=
> 271.78 MeV for Sulfur 32 according to his book.

------------
Hi Fred
it seems tha the places that i start to come back from
and forget abouthtthem---
*you havent even been there*'
ie you dont even understand what i say!!

just have a short look in my site
and see how far i was doing:

Ton is computiong th e * overall binding of ther nuc*
while what i did not untill Sulphore but
all along the periodic table!!-- not the all together sum of it
but ecplicit detailes of any bit and peace of it
*in any corber of the nuc*
do you get it??
it seems that it is far beyond even your dreams !!

it is methaphorically the difference between saying:
tis biliding is 100 tall and weight 2000 tons and ......
and describing the building in detaile
each srory each appartment
and each wall to the last of them
morover
th ebinding energy not of the whole summ
but of any story to the next one
the binding ebergy of any wall to the next wall

do you start to understand the historic difference??

if not just have a look at my amatour builder of sites
not of nuclear structure.....:

------

>
> | > and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
> |
> | yess the geometric structure is a main issue
> | yet
> | how can you know about the geometric structure while the dimensions
> | of the nuc are so small??- is is in contradiction to the HUP!!!!!
>
> No, not necessarily contradicts HUP. If the right answers are obtained,
> this *can* be a clue that the proposed geometry has something to it.
> There will certainly be an uncertainty associated with the measured
> energy values. IOW, the measured value of Sulfur 32's BE will have a
> range of uncertainy specified along with it. Tom does not quote that
> and he probably should. Plus I didn't notice a reference as to where he
> obtained his measured BE's from unless it is from Audi and Wapstra.

------------
i was 'pulling a legg' about that HUP preventing geometric knowlwdge!!

ie acting the innocent question
actually see my thred:
'does the HUP prevent us fromknowing geometric properties of the nuc'
not too long ago
i did it to refute the genious from Hedelberg
that claimed that my model is dead by arival just because of the HUP./
i whanted other people to realise that this man is a fool.
and a crook
so now you agree with me
that the HUP does not prevent us from knowin geometric
properties of the nuc.
because you can bypass it and know properties of it
even without noting exact distances etc !!!
there is a lot to learn and make use of even by knowing it
partially
not tomention again that indirect knowlwdge and even simple logic
can tell us more
and i brough the example of the Deutron
in which we can know that the proton there is located next to the
Neutron, consiquently you get some longish structure of the Deutron!!

*it is very important to realise it because scince will be
unjustified paralised!!
(on that important issue
no one will work on it if 'knowong what Feuerbacher is 'teaching'

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 12:31:01 AM7/17/05

to

yu are on the right way
to be another
PARROT!!

first of all your asumption that i know nothing about the above is
wrong!!

2 it is only after knowing some of it that i realised how existing
scince is in a dead end
and to waht extent it i sa ctually became more like a 'religioon'
ie too much involved in *synergetic* [rocess of unsupotted claimes and
paradigma.
now i promis yopu that once you will folow exatly the conventional root
you are syrely falling to the trapp tha tthere is no way out of it
sort of a :
approaching to close to black hole !! (;-)

3 you must realise that amthematics *canot and should not be * the
leader of scince!!
it must be first of all and above all the - physics logic
and you bett that i shave quit a lot of it!!

not only by being an outsider but knowing 'a bit from inside' and a bit
from ouside!!
anyway
the chice is yourse
yet do not say later that i was not warning you about the trapp of the
existing scince!!
may be anothe alterbnative:
do waht you suggest to do but ...
always keep in mind what the 'old crackpot' Porat told you !!

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 12:41:46 AM7/17/05

to

"Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:ahhjd1hptkbqdn1mn...@4ax.com...

| On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),
mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
| (Michael Moroney) wrote:
|
| >"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:
| >
| >> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
think I
| >>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
| >>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value
of
| >>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
procedure to
| >>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
| >>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
| >>originally derived a different way.
| >
| > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.
|
| Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
| get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
| balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom. ;-)
Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to get
Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there is
plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have all
of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on one
disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct predictions
that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being nuclear
binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still quite
an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based on
slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments that
he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment that
could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment values.
And it looks good to me.

Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone to
do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and present
it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the article
for you before you present it.

It is even easier to see in the form,

(alpha*e*c)(hbar*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

(alpha*e*c)/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n)) = 1/(photon wavelength)

This produces the correct wavelength of the binding energy photon.

| > That constant is just the deuteron binding energy he input at
| > the start!
|
| Show it... Show this 'start'.

Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the rest
of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to work
out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR obtained
magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above expression
yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of the
~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true" proton
and neutron magnetic moments.

Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this works
at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are supposed
to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM magnetic
coupling!

| >> and geometrical configuration should be the main discussion.
| >> Nuclear coupling is supposed be mainly by pion exchange I
| >> believe. So how can he get good binding energy values using
| >> *magnetic coupling*. Somehow this magnetic coupling formula
| > must be a result of pion exchange. ???
| >
| > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
| > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
| > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
| > web anyway.
|
| Did ya'ever think to ask???

It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably do
better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 11:46:56 AM7/17/05

to

Michael Moroney wrote:
> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >> >You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.
> >>
> >> Not deep enough.
>
> >Tom writes;
> >Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
> >judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
> > results, you claim x=x.

> No, I didn't look at "isolated results". I looked at your so-called
> proof and saw how you did put the deuteron binding energy in at the
> start and pulled it out again. I just pointed that out.

You did not realize that using the deuteron was to test the NEW idea
that the strong force was due to the near field magnetic forces
exceeding the electric forces in the near field, between nucleons.

Using the nucleon magnetic moments in the NEW binding energy equation
explains how proton binds to proton, proton binds to neutron., and
neutron binds to neutron in nuclei.

> >> Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
> >> I'm surprised you didn't catch it.

> >Mike,. The deuteron is simply a binding between a single proton and
> <snip>
>
> You just regurgitated the same claims without addressing my analysis
> of your math.

What you snipped was the crux of the reason for using the deuteron .
As noted above it was to PROVE that the strong force was
electromagnetic in origin, and that QVPP new magnetic moment for the
proton was correct. IT WAS.

> >Here is the QVPP un-damped magnetic moment derivation, and the proof
> >that there is a damping loss in the published nuclear magnetic
> >resonance method.

> >http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/undampedcorrection.gif

> That's nice. Show me a derivation of the deuteron's binding energy
> without plugging it in at the start and I might be impressed.

Mike, it is not my purpose to IMPRESS. Damn, QVPP is the correct model
for the structures of energy and matter, and that is what should
impress.

Proof of the pudding is that the QVPP methods correctly structured the
proton to give the correct (un-damped) proton magnetic moment, as
proved by the deuteron binding energy calculations, which you nicely
verified as correct.

Nice things about QVPP is that it is a coherent theory, accept any of
its results, you must accept ALL of the postulates and resulting
structures leading up to that result.

So, the fact that the QVPP proton gets the previously unknown value for
the proton's magnetic moment,

must now be accepted, as you nicely pointed out in what you thought
was just x=x. It is much more, it is the final proof that QVPP and
all it's postulates ARE CORRECT.

> >You owe me an apology for giving everyone the wrong impression about
> >QVPP.

> You gotta be kidding me! I point out your sleight of hand and you think I
> should apologize for doing so?!?!

You completely misjudged the purpose of the deuteron binding energy
calculation. The deuteron was simply used to derive a value for the
binding magnetic moments between nucleons (in the year 2000) and to
test the brand new binding energy equation, by using near field
magnetic moments, that were derived (in 1992).

The results showed that the values derived (in the year 1992) for the
un-damped magnetic moments, were correct.

Thus QVPP and all it's postulates prove to be correct, because QVPP
postulates build on each other. The ends justify the means.

Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 17, 2005, 4:33:56 PM7/17/05

to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message

news:sQkCe.160820$_o.49807@attbi_s71...

[snip]

| Thanks.
| -Sam

Another good reference for the description of an electron based on
Weisskopf's paper and others is Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum: An
Introduction to QED".

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 1:09:38 PM7/18/05

to

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 1:17:10 PM7/18/05

to

For some reason Google just repeated your article before; Try this:

FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <p...@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:ahhjd1hptkbqdn1mn...@4ax.com...
> | On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 02:42:18 +0000 (UTC),
> mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
> | (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> |
> | >"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:
> | >
> | >> OK, I will have to look this up his book when I get home, but I
> think I
> | >>see the source of the confusion due to Tom's inadequate 'net
> | >>presentation. I believe originally he derived the "adjusted" value
> of
> | >>the proton's mag moment from his proton model and used this
> procedure to
> | >>get the neutron's "adjusted" mag moment. It turns out that it also
> | >>gives the same value for the "adjusted" proton mag moment as he
> | >>originally derived a different way.

Mike said;

> | > Betcha he slips the deuteron's binding energy in there somewhere.

Paul said;

> | Fine, back it up, show us all! I don't know about others, but I
> | get pretty damn sick & tried of cynics that spout off without the
> | balls to sustantiate their claims! The devil is in the details.

Fredi sez;

> Hey Paul, this has been going on for years now between Mike and Tom. ;-)
> Probably close to 8 years now. The solution would be for Mike to get
> Tom's book but I think he even turned down a free one. Well, there is
> plenty of stuff in Tom's book that I don't agree with either (I have all
> of his books (3) plus helped Tom with re-authoring his DVD to fit on one
> disc instead of two) but there are a few close or correct predictions
> that Tom does make that are very difficult to ignore. One being nuclear
> binding energies all the way from deuteron to Sulfur 32. Even if he
> does start with deuteron binding energy as a starter, it is still quite
> an achievement. But as you can see below, his deuteron BE is based on
> slightly different values for proton and neutron magnetic moments that
> he does in fact derive independantly. Tom even found an experiment that
> could be done to check the proton for the corrected mag moment values.
> And it looks good to me.

> Tom, if you are reading this, you need to try harder to get someone to
> do that experiment. Write a separate article just about it and present
> it at an APS meeting, etc. I would be happy to proof-read the article
> for you before you present it.

Tom sez;
Just read this article today. I don't like to use my computer in the
upstairs bedroom when the temp gets above 78, so only go online in the
mornings.

Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
chosen at random.

Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a stranger.
You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.

I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.

>snip<

Fredi sez;

> Since Mike doesn't have the book, he doesn't really know about the rest
> of the equations that are based on the above expression in order to work
> out the rest of the binding energies. But as I have shown, the
> expression above does tell a story. And if we plugin the NMR obtained
> magnetic moment values for the proton and neutron, the above expression
> yeilds about 2.9 MeV for the binding energy of deuteron instead of the
> ~= 2.2 MeV obtained using the values that Tom derived via his proton
> model. So it only works using Tom's derived values of the "true" proton
> and neutron magnetic moments.

> Well of course, the big thing that has me mystyfied is that this works
> at all using magnetic coupling for nucleons. The nucleons are supposed
> to be held together via the strong force (pion exchange) not EM magnetic
> coupling!

Fredi, that old idea does not account for the creation of a photon that
exits the nucleous and removes the binding energy, for the mass defect,
so that old pion exchange theory is not the correct mechanism.

Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes it
is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
first time ever) by QVPP.

> | >> snip<<

Mike said;

> | > I haven't looked how he derives the binding energy for anything
> | > beyond the deuteron; once I saw this was bogus I figured there
> | > was no need. I don't know how much he made available on the
> | > web anyway.

Paul said;

> | Did ya'ever think to ask???

> It's pretty involved for putting on the web, but Tom would probably do
> better with this if he did a short PDF article explaining it better.

Yes, I am thinking of doing that, but I only have a knockoff software
that I have not tried to use. My oldest daughter (Pat) has the whole
suite of photo shop.

(BTW, Pat designed the cover and back cover of the new book. All can
see a scan of it on Amazon.com, inside of the 0963154664 book.)

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 1:34:05 PM7/18/05

to

Paul Stowe wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2005 08:54:17 -0700, "tnlock...@aol.com" <tnlock...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> >"Michael Moroney" <moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

> >> >news:db8mso$qho$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> >> >|
> >> >| You have to dig deeper, namely where he derives the two constants he
> >> >| calls "undamped magnetic moments of the proton and neutron". In one
> >> >of
> >> >| the other gifs he has posted he derives these "undamped magnetic
> >> >moments"
> >> >| as the two roots of a quadradic equation with (ta-da!) the measured

> >> >binding

> >> >| energy of the deuteron as an input. It is much more complicated than
> >> >his
> >> >| usual x=x proofs, but still an x=x proof nonetheless.

> >> >You are wrong Mike. I have dug very very deep into this.
> >> Not deep enough.
> >Tom writes;
> >Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
> >judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
> > results, you claim x=x.

> >> Thanks, you made me have to hunt down that other .gif of his where
> >> Tom introduces the deuteron binding energy into the equations to derive
> >> the "undamped magnetic moment" variables, from which he pulls out the
> >> deuteron binding energy. I found it, it is:
> >> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif . Look in the VARIABLES LIST
> >> and you'll see him introduce it to define "C", a term of some quadradic.
> >> He doesn't even try to hide it; in fact he writes in bold type "We use the
> >> known binding [energy?] of the deuteron and quadradic to find Upm and Unm
> >> undamped mag moments".
> >>snip<
> >> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/pnbind.gif and in the equation where he
> >> solves for Bpn, replace the (Up*Un) term with C, or the e^4/(64*pi^2....)
> >> definition of C. Voila! lots of terms cancel and we get Bpn =
> >> e^2/sqrt(e^4/(2.224573E6)^2) or e^2/(e^2/(2.224573E6)) or ta-da! the
> >> 2.224573E6 he introduced at the start. Notice that had he started with 1,
> >> pi, e, googol or whatever instead of 2.224573E6 he would have pulled out
> >> that very same number instead.

> >> Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
> >> I'm surprised you didn't catch it.
> >Mike,. The deuteron is simply a binding between a single proton and

> >single neutron and was used to show QVPP was giving the correct value
> >for the un-damped proton magnetic moment, and was using the correct
> >approach in calculating binding energy..

> >Here is the QVPP un-damped magnetic moment derivation, and the proof
> >that there is a damping loss in the published nuclear magnetic
> >resonance method.
> >http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/undampedcorrection.gif

> >You owe me an apology for giving everyone the wrong impression about
> >QVPP.

Paul Said;
> Only if you can explain the forms used. Where for example does the
> factor [Sqrt(2)/2]^18 (which BTW is simply [1/Sqrt(2)]^2) come from?

Tom said;
Paul, good to hear from you. Did I not give you a copy of VPP (1992)
book when we attended the same conference in the Gold Country?

Look in the Chapter 8 derivation of the proton magnetic moment, damping

correction etc. The scaling that gets the core particle dimension is
shown in Chapter 7.

> How do you get the MMA (0.001153) correction as geometric? You have
> defined lamba(e) and not shown basis. In fact, one cannot determine
> any validity of this derivation from what you've referenced. If this
> cannot be validated it cannot be used to validate anything else.
> Foundation is critical.

That is based on the correction to tha starting positron's anomalous
magnetic moment. See Chapter 1, page 4.

Regards, Tom;
www.amazon.com 0963154664

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 2:32:30 PM7/18/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>> >Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
>> >judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
>> > results, you claim x=x.

>> No, I didn't look at "isolated results". I looked at your so-called
>> proof and saw how you did put the deuteron binding energy in at the
>> start and pulled it out again. I just pointed that out.

>You did not realize that using the deuteron was to test the NEW idea
>that the strong force was due to the near field magnetic forces
>exceeding the electric forces in the near field, between nucleons.

No, using the deuteron was to introduce its binding energy into the
equation so that you could pull it back out again.

>> >> Classic x=x proof. Much more sophisticated than most of his others.
>> >> I'm surprised you didn't catch it.

>> >Mike,. The deuteron is simply a binding between a single proton and
>> <snip>
>>
>> You just regurgitated the same claims without addressing my analysis
>> of your math.

>What you snipped was the crux of the reason for using the deuteron .

You really really don't get it, do you? All you did was come up with a
complicated way of saying "Given that the deuteron's binding energy is
2.225 MeV, I will show that the deuteron's binding energy is 2.225 MeV!"
It is a version of the very old parlor game "Guess the number I'm thinking
of". It goes something like this for your so-called proof:

"Think of a number, from negative infinity to infinity." (2.22573*10^6)
"Don't tell me that number, but square it, multiply it
by 64, then multiply it by pi squared...."
...
"Solve for the two roots of that quadradic and tell me (1.79254*10^-26 and
the two roots. Give them nice names, Upm and Unm." 1.34817*10^-26)

"Now I'll multiply these numbers together and by 64 and
by pi squared and epsilon-naught cubed and by mu-naught.
Now I'll take the square root, divide e^2 by the result,
was the number you were thinking of, umm, 2.22573*10^6? (Yes!)

Now try your parlor game with some other number. Note that for
many cases the two roots will be complex numbers, but their product
will be real.

Oh, if I correct your units so the deuteron's binding energy has the
proper units of energy, "C" will have units of meters^4, and in the
quadradic, adding the square of the sum of two magnetic moments would
be mixing units in addition, which, of course, is wrong. Not that it
matters much, since the "B" terms of the quadradic cancel out (remember
the products of the two roots of any quadradic is C/A) so you can pick
anything you want for the "B" term so long as it has units of area.
It turns out that dimensionality goes through your algebraic meat grinder
intact (as long as you choose "B" with proper dimensionality each time)
so that fact you put volts in as input and get volts out works, and if
you put energy in as input and you get energy out also works doesn't mean
anything. Remember, x=x works for units, too.

>As noted above it was to PROVE that the strong force was
>electromagnetic in origin, and that QVPP new magnetic moment for the
>proton was correct. IT WAS.

You proved nothing, other than 2.224573*10^6 = 2.224573*10^6.

>> That's nice. Show me a derivation of the deuteron's binding energy
>> without plugging it in at the start and I might be impressed.
>Mike, it is not my purpose to IMPRESS. Damn, QVPP is the correct model
>for the structures of energy and matter, and that is what should
>impress.

Well, all those x=x proofs of yours are going to impress nobody.

> must now be accepted, as you nicely pointed out in what you thought
>was just x=x. It is much more, it is the final proof that QVPP and
>all it's postulates ARE CORRECT.

Well "x=x" proofs being 'correct' means nothing. Here's an earthshaking
equation: 5=5. It's absolutely correct. But it reveals absolutely
nothing of any use. So many of your so-called proofs are just as useless
if you simply bother to simplify the algebra, which you never do.
How about this proof: Pi = C/SS. C is the circumference of a circle
whose diameter is your shoe size, and SS is your shoe size. Amazing! I
just calculated pi in terms of your shoe size, and I didn't even have to
know your shoe size to do so!

>> >You owe me an apology for giving everyone the wrong impression about
>> >QVPP.

>> You gotta be kidding me! I point out your sleight of hand and you think I
>> should apologize for doing so?!?!

>You completely misjudged the purpose of the deuteron binding energy
>calculation. The deuteron was simply used to derive a value for the

I misjudged nothing. I just showed you your so-called proof is a parlor
game where you plug in a number and get the same number back. An x=x
proof.

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 10:29:34 PM7/18/05

to

quadratic
That's not a quadratic.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 18, 2005, 11:49:24 PM7/18/05

to

"Autymn D. C." <lysd...@sbcglobal.net> writes:

>quadratic
>That's not a quadratic.

I left out several steps. See the .gif Tom made available for the gory
details.

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 12:30:50 AM7/19/05

to

yet the srrive fo r better understanding of its structure
is of cuicial importance for advance of science

a new world is hiding behind it! new unsrstanding of the structure of
matter.!

only smug mathenaticians delude themselves that they are remain smugg

ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 2:50:36 AM7/19/05

to

<tnlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121707030....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
rarely works.

| Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a
stranger.
| You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
| was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.

Most will throw it away unless you have something that really knocks
them out right away.

| I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
| age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.

Maybe that should tell you that some adjustments are needed to your
models. IMHO, what you think are neutrinos are not. Massless spin zero
quantum objects can only be Goldstone bosons. Your electron and
positron models are generic fermion models. An electron is a quark that
has lost its color charge. Or a quark is an electron that has gained
color charge. Now how could that be? Maybe the Goldstone bosons have
something to do with that?

But you should be able to think up a slick way to get someone to do the
proton mag moment experiment. You make a prediction and have found an
experiment that can either prove it or discount it. And I can tell you
right now that slammin' the Standard Model ain't going to get it done.
You are up against a literal mountain of experimental evidence. I can
already see ways in which your concepts are not so contrary. But as it
stands right now, you just have way too much in your ideas that are
contrary. Especially that a massless spin zero particle could be a
neutrino. That ain't never going to fly. The best thing I see that you
have going is the concept of magnetic coupling of nucleons.

Well, I am trying to find a derivation for it now. We will see. There
has to be EM involved with pions also.

| Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
| forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes
it
| is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
| bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
| first time ever) by QVPP.

Are you sure the binding energies have never been derived using the
strong force and pion exchange? I find that hard to believe but maybe
that is why I am having trouble finding an online derivation. Old Man
mentioned a nuclear physics book a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I will
have to invest in that book.

It doesn't take photo shop. A word processor will do the trick. If you
have MS Word, learn how to use Equation Editor that comes with it if you
don't already know. It's easy. Then print it to a postscript file
using a dummy postscript printer driver like one of the Apple ones if
you want color. Or email me the Word doc. I can make a PDF and a
postscript file for you.

| (BTW, Pat designed the cover and back cover of the new book. All can
| see a scan of it on Amazon.com, inside of the 0963154664 book.)

I guess you forgot that you sent me a book? Yes, very cool modern
looking cover.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 11:29:28 AM7/19/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>| Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
>| chosen at random.

>In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
>rarely works.

>| Image you were they, and you got something in the mail from a
>stranger.
>| You might glance at it, but as soon as you saw something you thought
>| was WRONG, you might just file it, or, as Bjoern did, throw it away.

>Most will throw it away unless you have something that really knocks
>them out right away.

It would be interesting if it were possible to find out, of the DVDs that
were looked at, how many were tossed when the viewer recognized an "x=x"
proof for what it is vs. how many were tossed when they saw a gross
violation of conservation laws without explanation (such as neutrinoless
B+ decay) vs. how many were tossed because of too many instances of
phrases such as "failed SM model".

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 12:54:14 PM7/19/05

to

Michael Moroney wrote:
> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >> >Mike, that is my complaint about you. You look at isolated results and
> >> >judge that it is trivial. When you can't find a technical error in the
> >> > results, you claim x=x.
>
> >> No, I didn't look at "isolated results". I looked at your so-called
> >> proof and saw how you did put the deuteron binding energy in at the
> >> start and pulled it out again. I just pointed that out.
>
> >You did not realize that using the deuteron was to test the NEW idea
> >that the strong force was due to the near field magnetic forces
> >exceeding the electric forces in the near field, between nucleons.

> No, using the deuteron was to introduce its binding energy into the
> equation so that you could pull it back out again.

Mike, you never cease to amaze me, are you really that dense that you
cannot see the purpose of the exercise, with the deuteron binding
energy, was to verify the QVPP un-damped magnetic moments for the
proton and neutron,

and to test the theory that the binding energy was due to the new field
magnetic moments of the nucleons.

It was thus proved that QVPP had the correct magnetic moments, and
indeed, the strong force is due to the near field magnetic moments.

Both un-damped magnetic moments and the near field magnetic moment
strong force, are brand new results that physics missed over the last
100 years.

Accept this, or spend another 100 years trying to make existing
bankrupt physics theories get tangible results.

The QVPP binding energy teachings not only allow calculating binding
energy of complex nuclei,

but show the details of why certain nuclei have isomeric states,

why certain nuclei beta decay and convert to other isotopes,

how certain isotopes disintegrate by gamma rays, slow neutrons and slow
protons, and the exact nature of atomic energy processes.

It's all in the book you refuse to buy.

>snip<

> >As noted above it was to PROVE that the strong force was
> >electromagnetic in origin, and that QVPP new magnetic moment for the
> >proton was correct. IT WAS.
>
> You proved nothing, other than 2.224573*10^6 = 2.224573*10^6.
>
> >> That's nice. Show me a derivation of the deuteron's binding energy
> >> without plugging it in at the start and I might be impressed.

> >Mike, it is not my purpose to IMPRESS. Damn, QVPP is the correct model
> >for the structures of energy and matter, and that is what should
> >impress.

OK, here are some results of QVPP deuteron binding energy equation.

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPdeuteronbind.jpg

Note that Bpn1 is the deuteron using the quadratic derived values for
proton magnetic moment Upmx of 1.79253796637 E-16 (A.m^2) and neutron
1.34816770377 E-26 (A.m^2).

And that:
Bpn uses QVPP values of Upm=1.81045733 E-26 (A.m^2) and
Unm=1.366087172 E-26 (A.m^2) derived from the QVPP geometric scaling to
the proton and neutron structures.

Then I show that IF the measured binding energy of the deuteron was off
by 13.6 ppm the measurement would have gotten the QVPP value of
2.198970812 E6 MeV. In equivalent volts, using QVPP values for the
un-damped magnetic moments.

So, in the new QVPP book, I use the QVPP values for the un-damped
magnetic moments EXCLUSIVELY for calculating binding energy, with good
results. You have already seen some examples, from the book you refuse
to buy, here is one;

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/Page69.gif

>snip<

Regards: Tom;

www,amazon.com 0963154664

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 19, 2005, 2:46:42 PM7/19/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> <tnlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1121707030....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> |
> | For some reason Google just repeated your article before; Try this:
> |
> | FrediFizzx wrote:

>snip<

> | Fredi, I have recently sent the DVD and letters to about 20 physicists
> | chosen at random.

> In the Hollywood music business, that is called "shotgunning". It
> rarely works.

>snip<

> | I have presented articles to NATURE, SCIENCE etc. to no avail. At my
> | age I don't feel like fighting windmills anymore.

> Maybe that should tell you that some adjustments are needed to your
> models. IMHO, what you think are neutrinos are not. Massless spin zero
> quantum objects can only be Goldstone bosons.

Nope, go back to all of the earlier experiments that tried to get
neutrino characteristics.

Everyone of them were based on radioactive series that were EC or B+
decay processes, and these decay processes can now be shown (see QVPP
page 14) that the neutrino had to be absorbed, not expelled.

Note that (n-1H) is negative when a neutrino is expelled (B- decay)
and positive (EC or B+ decay) when a neutrino is shown to be absorbed
in the daughter. Look at those old experiments, they all used the
characteristics of the expelled photon, not neutrino. That's what
caused their error in conclusions.

>Your electron and
> positron models are generic fermion models. An electron is a quark that
> has lost its color charge. Or a quark is an electron that has gained
> color charge. Now how could that be? Maybe the Goldstone bosons have
> something to do with that?

Fredi, QVPP builds the whole universe of matter, using electrons and
neutrinos. This is true experimentally because electrons and
neutrinos are the final decay particles of ANY decay process (with the
exception of the stable proton).

Try to explain final decay, electrons and neutrinos using the quark
theory, and this should show you that the quark is a false idea.

> But you should be able to think up a slick way to get someone to do the
> proton mag moment experiment. You make a prediction and have found an
> experiment that can either prove it or discount it. And I can tell you
> right now that slammin' the Standard Model ain't going to get it done.
> You are up against a literal mountain of experimental evidence.

Fredi, yes there is a mountain of data, but it was done to adjust the
quark model so it could handle it's own affairs. The results rely on
theory to interpret, which pre-supposes the theory is correct. (For
example see the Foreword, page x, search for the postulated W boson.)

>I can
> already see ways in which your concepts are not so contrary. But as it
> stands right now, you just have way too much in your ideas that are
> contrary. Especially that a massless spin zero particle could be a
> neutrino. That ain't never going to fly. The best thing I see that you
> have going is the concept of magnetic coupling of nucleons.

Fredi, the popular idea that the neutrino spins is technically wrong.

If the neutrino spun, it would store rest mass energy in the spin.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/spinmass.gif

QVPP shows that the neutrino only spins when it's vectors are added to
those of the electrons (see page 12 and 13 of QVPP)

Combining electron and neutrino structures give the neutrino their
spin, so they can contribute mass to the composites.

The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of these.

And by adding the decay electron and neutrino to the proton structure,
one gets the mass of the neutron.

A QVPP result, is to get (n-1H) from the proton and neutron
structures, something the SM has failed to do even after spending
millions of man hours and billions of dollars.

Never work, Fredi. The trouble is there is nothing to hang your hat
on. You have to derive the energy sometime and QVPP does that from
first principles.

> | Creating a photon takes the confluence of BOTH electric and magnetic
> | forces, as QVPP demonstrates. The conjunction of EM forces makes
> it
> | is possible to create a photon and get the correct values for the
> | bindings between (p-p) (p-n) (n-n) as amply demonstrated (for the
> | first time ever) by QVPP.

> Are you sure the binding energies have never been derived using the
> strong force and pion exchange? I find that hard to believe but maybe
> that is why I am having trouble finding an online derivation. Old Man
> mentioned a nuclear physics book a couple of weeks ago. Maybe I will
> have to invest in that book.

No they have not derived binding energy from the strong force. They
gave the NOBEL in 2004 for the asymptotic freedom gig theory for
quarks.. Not a claim for obtaining actual binding energy.

There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
atomic and chemical energy,

the former between nucleons and the later between the proton and
electron.

And Fredi, I know that the binding energy is dependent of the position
of the nucleons, in nuclei, and that the binding energy can thus change
, creating or absorbing atomic energy due to the interplay between EM
fields that accompany each nucleon.

The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
photon says so.

Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 1:21:18 AM7/20/05

to

Hi Tom

tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
[...]

> The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
> basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of these.

Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
cracker. Is that right?
[...]

> There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
> atomic and chemical energy,

[...]

> The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
> photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
> photon says so.
> Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664

Sounds Reasonable
Ken S. Tucker

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 2:21:18 AM7/20/05

to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1121836878.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to hold
it together that I have been able to see. Tom?

Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is nothing
it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out and
also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.

First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 5:52:27 AM7/20/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1121836878.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Hi Tom
> |
> | tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> | [...]
> |
> | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
> | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
> these.
> |
> | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
> | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
> | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
> | cracker. Is that right?
>
> This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
> stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
> easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to hold
> it together that I have been able to see. Tom?

Well Fred, I've done some calculations about
how neutrons behave in the center of a n-star
and find baryons can convert to leptons.
This is validated by gamma ray bursts.

IOW's Baryon's and Lepton's can introconvert
(possibly) in extreme circumstances.
Tom should specify that and why, how and when,
sheesh even I can do that.

> Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is nothing
> it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out and
> also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
> nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.

Yes, if the quark model is true.

> | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
> | > atomic and chemical energy,
> | [...]
> | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
> | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
> | > photon says so.
> | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
> |
> | Sounds Reasonable
>
> First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
> then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
> IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".

hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
Ken

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 11:29:26 AM7/20/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>>snip<
>> >As noted above it was to PROVE that the strong force was
>> >electromagnetic in origin, and that QVPP new magnetic moment for the
>> >proton was correct. IT WAS.
>>
>> You proved nothing, other than 2.224573*10^6 = 2.224573*10^6.
>>
>> >> That's nice. Show me a derivation of the deuteron's binding energy
>> >> without plugging it in at the start and I might be impressed.

>> >Mike, it is not my purpose to IMPRESS. Damn, QVPP is the correct model
>> >for the structures of energy and matter, and that is what should
>> >impress.

>OK, here are some results of QVPP deuteron binding energy equation.

>http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPdeuteronbind.jpg

> Note that Bpn1 is the deuteron using the quadratic derived values for
>proton magnetic moment Upmx of 1.79253796637 E-16 (A.m^2) and neutron
>1.34816770377 E-26 (A.m^2).

Stop. Hold it right there. I already said that those two numbers are
a sneaky way to bring the deuteron binding energy, which you introduce in
PNSTRONG.gif. You didn't read my reply and address this. Sometimes
I think all you is see my name and "x=x" in a reply to you and you go off
and rant without reading further. I did notice you snipped my long
explanation without comment.

Read my last post. Do the math in PNSTRONG.gif except use some other number
in place of the deuteron binding energy at the end of the arrow. Say the
binding energy of He-4 or that of U-238, or pi, it doesn't matter. Do the
math and come up with two different "Upm" and "Unm" values. Now enter
these values into QVPdeuteronbind.jpg and do the math. What do you get
for an answer? What does that tell you?

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 12:05:26 PM7/20/05

to

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi Tom
>
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> [...]
>
> > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
> > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of these.
>
> Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
> source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
> Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
> cracker. Is that right?
> [...]

Ken, The QVPP proton is very stable because there is a charge
conjugation created between nested neutrinos in it's structure. The
resulting electric potential energy between nested neutrinos adds about
5 percent to the proton mass and holds the proton stable against decay.

Fusion energy is the new binding energy created when nucleons rearrange
their null patterns, with each other. QVPP does show how these
processes occur. It's in the book.

> > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
> > atomic and chemical energy,
> [...]
> > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
> > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
> > photon says so.
> > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
>
> Sounds Reasonable
> Ken S. Tucker

THanks: Regards: Tom:

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 12:21:26 PM7/20/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1121836878.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Hi Tom
> |
> | tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> | [...]
> |
> | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos as
> | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
> these.
> |
> | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
> | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
> | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
> | cracker. Is that right?
>
> This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
> stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
> easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to hold
> it together that I have been able to see. Tom?

Yes, see page 27. Quote:

The electrostatic forces, between conjugating layers, effectively holds
the composite proton and anti-proton stable against decay. Un-
quote:

> Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is nothing
> it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out and
> also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
> nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.

Huh? I thought the QCD proton had both kinds (up, down) and they think
that the quark proton can decay into a quark neutron via the crackpot
W+.

It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
expelled from the pair).

> | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of both
> | > atomic and chemical energy,
> | [...]

Ken said;

> | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only the
> | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
> | > photon says so.
> | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
> |
> | Sounds Reasonable
>
> First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea",
> then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better. ;-)
> IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".

What I meant to say was;

The idea that the pion or W or Higgs can mediate forces is a false

idea. Only the
> | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless the
> | > photon says so.

Regards; Tom.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 12:48:37 PM7/20/05

to

It tells me Mike, that you still don't understand that the deuteron is
simply a proton bound to a neutron, and that using proton to neutron
binding energy is the only way one can derive the proton and neutron
magnetic moments, from the quadratic.

He-4 has two protons and two neutrons, and binding is not simply
proton to neutron, it is much more complicated than that. The bindings
are both pole to pole and dipole to dipole, and the binding energy is
saturated, that is each combination of nucleon structure "only feels"
the fields of adjacent nucleon(s).

Only since using the methods of QVPP has it been possible to calculate
the binding energy of He4 from first principles.

See page 61 of the book you refuse to buy.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 2:39:25 PM7/20/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>> >OK, here are some results of QVPP deuteron binding energy equation.
>>
>> >http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPdeuteronbind.jpg
>>
>> > Note that Bpn1 is the deuteron using the quadratic derived values for
>> >proton magnetic moment Upmx of 1.79253796637 E-16 (A.m^2) and neutron
>> >1.34816770377 E-26 (A.m^2).
>>
>> Stop. Hold it right there. I already said that those two numbers are
>> a sneaky way to bring the deuteron binding energy, which you introduce in
>> PNSTRONG.gif. You didn't read my reply and address this. Sometimes
>> I think all you is see my name and "x=x" in a reply to you and you go off
>> and rant without reading further. I did notice you snipped my long
>> explanation without comment.
>>
>> Read my last post. Do the math in PNSTRONG.gif except use some other number
>> in place of the deuteron binding energy at the end of the arrow. Say the
>> binding energy of He-4 or that of U-238, or pi, it doesn't matter. Do the
>> math and come up with two different "Upm" and "Unm" values. Now enter
>> these values into QVPdeuteronbind.jpg and do the math. What do you get
>> for an answer? What does that tell you?

>It tells me Mike, that you still don't understand that the deuteron is
>simply a proton bound to a neutron, and that using proton to neutron
>binding energy is the only way one can derive the proton and neutron
>magnetic moments, from the quadratic.

You *still* miss my point. This is not about the nature of the deuteron
bond, but the sleight of hand that you are doing by inputing the measured
binding energy into the equation, turning the crank and getting *that
exact same number back*. It's the equivalent of a bad magic act where the
magician puts a rabbit into a top hat in full view of the audience, waves a
magic wand, says "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra" and pulls a rabbit - the
very same rabbit - out of the hat, and expects the audience to be
impressed. C'mon, it's as plain as day where you put the rabbit into the
hat, nobody will think you are onto something when they see you pull that
same rabbit out of the algebraic hat.

Let's try this again. Do the exact same math again, but with somewhat
mismeasured values of the deuteron's binding energy into
QVPdeuteronbind.jpg. For example 2.20E6 eV or 2.0E6 eV or 2.345678 E6 eV.
Do all the math with each mismeasured value and see what you come up with.

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 4:16:50 PM7/20/05

to

I'm very curious if you find Baryon conservation
to be a "Law", for example we've done some
calculations indicating that under sufficent pressure
(center of a neutron star), baryons (like neutrons),
can decay ultimately to gamma rays. I was hoping
to hear your opinion about that based on QVPP.
Regards
Ken

PS
I'm looking foward to studying your book this fall
or winter when I can go "full time" as a student.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 20, 2005, 9:27:29 PM7/20/05

to

<tnlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121876486....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
| > news:1121836878.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > | Hi Tom
| > |
| > | tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
| > | [...]
| > |
| > | > The model for the photon can only create electrons and neutrinos
as
| > | > basic particles. All other particles HAVE to be composites of
| > these.
| > |
| > | Well, you might have the basis of a very powerful
| > | source of energy if you can convert Baryons to
| > | Leptons. It would make fusion look like a fire-
| > | cracker. Is that right?
| >
| > This is one of the BIG problems with Tom's proton model. It is not
| > stable against decay like the three quark proton model. It should
| > easily decay to all leptons and photons. Tom has no mechanism to
hold
| > it together that I have been able to see. Tom?
|
| Yes, see page 27. Quote:
|
| The electrostatic forces, between conjugating layers, effectively
holds
| the composite proton and anti-proton stable against decay. Un-
| quote:

Yeah, but we know that is only ~= 5% of the mass of the proton. I don't
think it is enough to hold your model of the proton against immediate
decay.

| > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
nothing
| > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out
and
| > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
| > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
|
| Huh? I thought the QCD proton had both kinds (up, down) and they
think
| that the quark proton can decay into a quark neutron via the crackpot
| W+.

Yes the proton is made up of up and down quarks. Even with that, there
is no scheme that I can think of that allows them to pair up as mesons
so that they could decay. A free proton can't decay. However a bound
proton can change to a neutron not "decay" to a neutron. Only a free
neutron can decay to a proton.

| It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
| neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
| can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
| expelled from the pair).

If you try to "gently" force two protons together, one will change
to a neutron because an up quark changes to a down quark in one of the
bound protons.

| > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of
both
| > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | [...]
|
| Ken said;
| > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only
the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
| > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > |
| > | Sounds Reasonable
| >
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| What I meant to say was;
|
| The idea that the pion or W or Higgs can mediate forces is a false
| idea. Only the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.

I don't see much difference between a photon, pion or W from our
viewpoint of a relativistic medium. The photon is long range and the
others aren't because they have mass. They all can be modeled as
composites of virtual fermion pairs.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 1:51:30 AM7/21/05

to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:dbm5ot$uv1$1...@pcls4.std.com...

Mike, I am not sure why you want to keep harping about this? That is
not how Tom derived the binding energy of deuteron. His derivation is
from setting electric and magnetic energies equal by finding a common
distance that they are equal at. In gaussian cgs (CGS) units,

BE = e^2/r for the electric energy

BE = 4*mu_p*mu_n/(c^2*r^3) for the magnetic energy

(I am not sure why there is a 4 factor as the magnetic constant for CGS
is 2/c^2. Tom, what's up with that?)

Solving the electric BE for r and plugging into the magnetic BE obtains,

BE = e^3*c/(2*sqrt(mu_p*mu_n))

Now plugin the values for the mag moments obtained from the NIST site
and you get approx. 2.9 MeV. The wrong answer for deuteron. Now plugin
the values that Tom obtained from his proton and neutron models and you
get approx. 2.2 MeV. Closer to the right answer. The whole thing you
are harping about is merely a check that Tom did. The quadratic
solutions come close to the values of Tom's model values for some
reason. So what? The quadratic solutions are not the ones that he uses
for *his* deuteron binding energy prediction.

The question I have above is why is the H2 BE equal to either the
electric or magnetic energy. Shouldn't it be a sum of the electric and
magnetic energy?

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 3:08:54 AM7/21/05

to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message

news:1121853147.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yo Ken, I am not sure what "introconvert" means. ;-) It really wouldn't
be the baryons converting but the quarks making up them would convert to
leptons. In our scheme, a reconfiguration of space-time would be
necessary for the quark content of baryons to convert to leptons. I
suppose not impossible for space-time to be reconfigured with something
like a neutron star, black hole or reasonable facsimile.

| > Note: The mechanism for the three quark model is that there is
nothing
| > it can decay to since you would have to have an odd man (quark) out
and
| > also because it is the lowest energy state for a baryon. There is
| > nothing for the third quark to pair up with to decay, basically.
|
| Yes, if the quark model is true.

Unfortunately for Tom, there is a literal mountain of evidence in favor
of the quark model. But what Tom doesn't realize is that he probably
has quarks in his model also. I believe his electron-positron models
are just basic fermion models anywise. An electron is just a quark that

has lost its color charge.

| > | > There has to be a photon created. A photon is the source of

both
| > | > atomic and chemical energy,
| > | [...]
| > | > The idea that particles mediate forces is a false idea. Only
the
| > | > photon particle can mediate forces. Particles don't move unless
the
| > | > photon says so.
| > | > Regards, Tom; www.amazon.com 0963154664
| > |
| > | Sounds Reasonable
| >
| > First he says "the idea that particles mediate forces is a false
idea",
| > then says photons can. I think Tom needs to restate that better.
;-)
| > IMHO, only a medium can "mediate".
|
| hmmm...must think about that, sounds good!
| Ken

Yep. Space-time is just a very special medium. It *does* do the
mediating.

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 9:48:40 AM7/21/05

to

Fred I presume you are aware of the Pauli Exclusion
Principle. In theory, (perhaps conjecture), when
enough pressure is applied to a pair of neutrons,
such as in the center of a neutron star, the relative
relation will force their relative spins to reverse,
so that each is a relatively anti-neutron.
When an anti-neutron and a neutron combine they
do decay ultimately to gamma rays, the gamma
ray bursts is evidence of that.

Ok, still thinkin'
Ken S. Tucker

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 12:42:19 PM7/21/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3k8rsvF...@individual.net...

Never mind. The neutron mag moment is negative so the mag BE is
negative wrt to the electric energy and they just cancel each other out.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 1:13:28 PM7/21/05

to

>snip<

> Yeah, but we know that is only ~= 5% of the mass of the proton. I don't
> think it is enough to hold your model of the proton against immediate
> decay.

Fredi, it is an experimental fact that the only stable composite
particles in the universe are the proton and neutron ( the neutron is
only stable in certain stable nuclei, otherwise the neutron decays in
about 15 minutes, into an electron, proton and electron type neutrino).

QVPP builds both proton and neutron from electrons and or positron in
combination with the electron type neutrinos. (Just like experiment
suggests, in the neutron decay.)

See page 13, and note that the QVPP electron type neutrino causes
charge conjugation, when vectors are added to the electron or positron,
member by member, thus developing the electrostatic forces between
nested neutrinos.

Calculate the electrostatic force between those close spaced
conjugating layers. The force is enormous, making the proton very
stable against decay.

>snip>
Tom said;

> | It can't, we know experimentally that the proton only converts to a
> | neutron in certain unstable nuclei by electron capture. The electron
> | can come from the K shell or from pair production (when a positron is
> | expelled from the pair).

Fredi sez.

> Yes the proton is made up of up and down quarks. Even with that, there
> is no scheme that I can think of that allows them to pair up as mesons
> so that they could decay. A free proton can't decay. However a bound
> proton can change to a neutron not "decay" to a neutron. Only a free
> neutron can decay to a proton.

I agree with every thing you say, except that the proton is made up of
quarks. This presupposes that the QCD theory is correct.

Fredi, the quark model has died for lack of progress. Why do you
suppose that the string theory is being worked on as the next great
hope of particle physics?

> If you try to "gently" force two protons together, one will change
> to a neutron because an up quark changes to a down quark in one of the
> bound protons.

Huh? I am reasonably sure that the proton cannot change another
proton into a neutron. To change a proton into a neutron, the proton
has to capture an electron and (n-1H) energy to complete the neutron's
structure. Quark theory can't do that by any stretch of the
imagination.

>snip<

> I don't see much difference between a photon, pion or W from our
> viewpoint of a relativistic medium. The photon is long range and the
> others aren't because they have mass. They all can be modeled as
> composites of virtual fermion pairs.

The problem I see with particle physics is that theorists invent any
particle they want to and then endow it with the properties they
imagine it should have to do make their theory work. (Playing god?)

Note with QVPP the boundary condition on the types of basic particles
nature has, is automatically given to us by simply combining the photon
in ALL possible ways. One doesn't have to play god, just go with what
the QVPP photon automatically shows.

If SM theorists propose some new particle, or quark or massive boson,
or tau neutrino, etc, they must show how their proposed particles are
constructed, otherwise, in my view, they are writing checks that
nature can't cash.

QVPP is the only theory that automatically establishes it's own
boundary conditions, clearly limiting basic particles to just the
electron-positron pair , electron type neutrino and muon type neutrino
pair. As shown it the book, one can structure all other composite
particles, from those lepton's vector structures.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 1:27:02 PM7/21/05

to

You should get a copy of the book, the reason for getting the equation
shown in:

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif

Is fully developed. Here is a scan of page 47 again:

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif

Note eqautions (8.2) these develope eqution (8.3) so that the electric
and magnetic forces null at binding between proton and neutron.

> Let's try this again. Do the exact same math again, but with somewhat
> mismeasured values of the deuteron's binding energy into
> QVPdeuteronbind.jpg. For example 2.20E6 eV or 2.0E6 eV or 2.345678 E6 eV.
> Do all the math with each mismeasured value and see what you come up with.

I showed you similar results using the QVPP values in:

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPDEUTERONBIND.gif

Regards: Tom:

www.amazon.com 0963154664

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 1:41:32 PM7/21/05

to

tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
> > "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> > You *still* miss my point. This is not about the nature of the deuteron
> > bond, but the sleight of hand that you are doing by inputing the measured
> > binding energy into the equation, turning the crank and getting *that
> > exact same number back*. It's the equivalent of a bad magic act where the
> > magician puts a rabbit into a top hat in full view of the audience, waves a
> > magic wand, says "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra" and pulls a rabbit - the
> > very same rabbit - out of the hat, and expects the audience to be
> > impressed. C'mon, it's as plain as day where you put the rabbit into the
> > hat, nobody will think you are onto something when they see you pull that
> > same rabbit out of the algebraic hat.

> You should get a copy of the book, the reason for getting the equation
> shown in:

> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif

> Is fully developed. Here is a scan of page 47 again:

> http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif

> Note equations (8.2) these develope equation (8.3) so that the electric

> and magnetic forces null at binding between proton and neutron.
>
> > Let's try this again. Do the exact same math again, but with somewhat
> > mismeasured values of the deuteron's binding energy into
> > QVPdeuteronbind.jpg. For example 2.20E6 eV or 2.0E6 eV or 2.345678 E6 eV.
> > Do all the math with each mismeasured value and see what you come up with.
>
> I showed you similar results using the QVPP values in:

I had a typo in this link before, try this:

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPdeuteronbind.jpg

> Regards: Tom:
>
> www.amazon.com 0963154664

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 9:01:56 PM7/21/05

to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message

news:1121953720.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Well, I would like to see the math for that. Or a reference.

FrediFizzx

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 9:29:11 PM7/21/05

to

plugin -> plug in
it's -> its
it's -> its
it's -> its
it's -> its
it's -> ...

What about the new pentaquark?

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 21, 2005, 10:28:50 PM7/21/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1121953720.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> |
> | FrediFizzx wrote:
> | > "Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> | > news:1121853147.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[...]

Sure Fred, see this thread...

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
From: dynam...@vianet.on.ca (Ken S. Tucker)
Date: 10 Feb 2003 15:25:35 -0800
Local: Mon,Feb 10 2003 6:25 pm
Subject: Neutron star pressure.

Let me know if you have any problems finding it,
and then we can discuss it if you like.
Ken

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 12:26:34 AM7/22/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>> >It tells me Mike, that you still don't understand that the deuteron is
>> >simply a proton bound to a neutron, and that using proton to neutron
>> >binding energy is the only way one can derive the proton and neutron
>> >magnetic moments, from the quadratic.
>>
>> You *still* miss my point. This is not about the nature of the deuteron
>> bond, but the sleight of hand that you are doing by inputing the measured
>> binding energy into the equation, turning the crank and getting *that
>> exact same number back*. It's the equivalent of a bad magic act where the
>> magician puts a rabbit into a top hat in full view of the audience, waves a
>> magic wand, says "hocus pocus" and "abracadabra" and pulls a rabbit - the
>> very same rabbit - out of the hat, and expects the audience to be
>> impressed. C'mon, it's as plain as day where you put the rabbit into the
>> hat, nobody will think you are onto something when they see you pull that
>> same rabbit out of the algebraic hat.

>You should get a copy of the book, the reason for getting the equation
>shown in:

> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/PNSTRONG.gif

>Is fully developed. Here is a scan of page 47 again:

>http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/Page47.gif

>Note eqautions (8.2) these develope eqution (8.3) so that the electric
>and magnetic forces null at binding between proton and neutron.

Will you please address my comments about inputing the measured binding
energy only to extract it again, rather than repeating yourself in
different ways?

>> Let's try this again. Do the exact same math again, but with somewhat
>> mismeasured values of the deuteron's binding energy into
>> QVPdeuteronbind.jpg. For example 2.20E6 eV or 2.0E6 eV or 2.345678 E6 eV.
>> Do all the math with each mismeasured value and see what you come up with.

>I showed you similar results using the QVPP values in:

>http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/QVPDEUTERONBIND.gif

I see you didn't bother to do my little experiment.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 12:31:22 AM7/22/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:dbm5ot$uv1$1...@pcls4.std.com...
>|

>| You *still* miss my point. This is not about the nature of the
>deuteron
>| bond, but the sleight of hand that you are doing by inputing the
>measured
>| binding energy into the equation, turning the crank and getting *that
>| exact same number back*.

>Mike, I am not sure why you want to keep harping about this? That is
>not how Tom derived the binding energy of deuteron. His derivation is
>from setting electric and magnetic energies equal by finding a common
>distance that they are equal at. In gaussian cgs (CGS) units,

Shame, Freddi. You should be able to spot an x=x proof.

>Now plugin the values for the mag moments obtained from the NIST site
>and you get approx. 2.9 MeV. The wrong answer for deuteron. Now plugin
>the values that Tom obtained from his proton and neutron models and you
>get approx. 2.2 MeV. Closer to the right answer.

Well, duh! He derived those values from the deuteron's binding energy!

> The whole thing you
>are harping about is merely a check that Tom did.

It's not a check, that's where he got those so-called magnetic moments
from.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 12:56:36 AM7/22/05

to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:dbpsqq$l4r$2...@pcls4.std.com...

Sheesh, you are getting as stubborn as Tom. ;-) Is your email address
good? I will scan the parts of the book that are relevant so you can
see that it is not where he gets the mag moments from. It *was* merely
a goofy check that he did that he should have never done in your case.
He doesn't even use the exact values from the quadratic in his BE
calculations all the way up to Sulphur32. He uses the values obtained
from his models which are slightly different from the quadratic
solutions.

p6

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 8:45:59 AM7/22/05

to

For Lockyer haters such as Mike, there are of course
other ways to flatten his Vector Particle models.

Lockyer argued that as an EM wave has E and H
component or vector. If you can somehow cut the
wave and make two identical wave portion
lock. Then resonance can cause it to form into
cube (imagining an interlocking E, H vectors on
top of each other) creating a particle such as electron.
He reasoned this is why matter or nucleus are needed...
so that the wave or the energy can be reduced to the
exact required for electron-positron emission.

This is total conflict to that taught in particle physics.
Here the particles are precipitated out of quantum limbo
via kinetic energy of the colliding particles. Or flow/transfer
of momentum. This means the photons just supply the
energy and with the right momentum imparting setup.
The particles are created out of pure quantum twilight
zone.

Some people may find the particle physics version quite
bizarre so they have to explain things classically. This is
what cranks are mostly doing. Unlike pure physicists
whose mathemetical training can cushion the mind from
the impact of the bizarreness making them unconsciously
not be affected by them. The cranks don't have this
psychological aid that can prevent succumbing to
near insanity level in the weird world of QM and relativity
based physics. So what they do is reject the convensional
physics and offer classically based models.

Of course experimental data mostly proved them wrong.
In Lockyer case, he doesn't take the conservation of
momentum into account. Remember this is how the
neutrino particle is predicted.

To totally flatten Lockyer. Explain how his magnetic
moment calculations can produce values of the binding
energy near or very close to the accepted value. What
sort of coincidence can do that. Don't repeat the x=x
argument because as Fredi has shown, you (Mike) has not
completely seen the equations and calculations of Tom.
If you can't figure out the coincidences or patterns involved.
Then just debunk the em vector cutting and transformation
into cubes making particles, etc.

p6

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 12:37:06 PM7/22/05

to

"FrediFizzx" <fredi...@hotmail.com> writes:

>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

>news:dbpsqq$l4r$2...@pcls4.std.com...

>| It's not a check, that's where he got those so-called magnetic moments
>| from.

>Sheesh, you are getting as stubborn as Tom. ;-) Is your email address
>good? I will scan the parts of the book that are relevant so you can
>see that it is not where he gets the mag moments from. It *was* merely
>a goofy check that he did that he should have never done in your case.

OK, if he has some other derivation, I'll stop. You're right, Tom never
should have made that check, it only hurts his cause making me think it's
only an x=x proof.

Email address is valid once you remove the "spaamtrap". Make sure it's
OK with Tom to send any portion of his book that he hasn't posted, after
all he has the copyright, and I am not sure he wants me to have any of
his book unless I pay.... :-)

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 12:38:40 PM7/22/05

to

"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> writes:

>For Lockyer haters such as Mike,

I do not hate Tom.

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 1:01:10 PM7/22/05

to

"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122036359.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

|
| For Lockyer haters such as Mike, there are of course
| other ways to flatten his Vector Particle models.

I hardly think Mike "hates" Tom. They have been discussing this for
years now. ;-)

| Lockyer argued that as an EM wave has E and H
| component or vector. If you can somehow cut the
| wave and make two identical wave portion
| lock. Then resonance can cause it to form into
| cube (imagining an interlocking E, H vectors on
| top of each other) creating a particle such as electron.
| He reasoned this is why matter or nucleus are needed...
| so that the wave or the energy can be reduced to the
| exact required for electron-positron emission.

We already know that Tom is trying to make two photons into one. And
that his energy model is not correct the way he is trying to do it. Use
two photons and it can possibly work. End of story. We also already
know that what he thinks is a neutrino in his model can't be a neutrino.
End of story for that also.

This has been going on for years now. Do a googlegroup search and study
the messages. You need to study more and spew less, IMHO.

FrediFizzx

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 1:02:57 PM7/22/05

to

p6 wrote:
>snip<

> Of course experimental data mostly proved them wrong.
> In Lockyer case, he doesn't take the conservation of
> momentum into account. Remember this is how the
> neutrino particle is predicted.

Tom sez.
P6, I do believe in the neutrino!

In fact QVPP automatically gives the electron and muon type neutrino
structures. (See page 8 Figure 2.1)

One can tell which QVPP structures are the muon type by using them to
build the muon. (see page 37, Figure 6.2.)

And one can tell which QVPP structures are the electron type neutrino,
by constructing the proton and neutron with the known electron type
neutrino decay particles. (See page 29 Figure 5.3)

My quarrel is with the neutrino experiments being based on either
electron capture or B+ decays.

In working with nuclei binding energy it is shown that, when a proton
changes into a neutron, in certain unstable nuclei, the proton can
only change into a neutron by electron capture

and ABSORBING (n-1H) which is the neutrino structure of the neuron. No
neutrino is emitted, the neutrino energy (n-1H) is absorbed in the
daughter nucleous!

See example on page 15, and elswhere on neutrinos.

A review of the literature revealed that experimentors were measuring
the photon momentum, not the theoretical neutrino and were taking the
helicity from the idea that the spin should be opposite that of the
parent nucleous, based on momentum conservation.

Here is one famous experiment that claimed to measure the EC, B+
(non-existent) neutrino recoil momentum.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/recoil.gif

Notice the recoil uses the well known equation for the momentum of the
photon, and gets the recoil as 9.60955 eV.

This is the photon momentum, so does NOT prove the neutrino in this
reaction.

>snip<

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

p6

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 3:29:07 PM7/22/05

to

So this has been going on for years now... Gee. How come after
all these time, Mike didn't know Tom has the derivations
of the values from his model and not the x=x (plugging in
trick) proof Mike is accusing him of.

Well. To debunk a crank. Try to get his book. This can
prevent years of waste in false accusations. (this is for
Mike)

Now I just want explanations of what sort of coincidences
can give Tom values close to the accepted one in many of
his energy binding calculations.

When you say he wants to combine two photons into one. Are
you referring to his chopping up the photons concept to make
them lock into a cube to form particle.. or is it to make two
photons into one photon (without any conversion).

p6

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 3:58:31 PM7/22/05

to

"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1122060547.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

| Now I just want explanations of what sort of coincidences
| can give Tom values close to the accepted one in many of
| his energy binding calculations.

Study hard and maybe you can figure it out. I already have given a few
clues.

| When you say he wants to combine two photons into one. Are
| you referring to his chopping up the photons concept to make
| them lock into a cube to form particle.. or is it to make two
| photons into one photon (without any conversion).

<sigh> It takes two photons to produce an electron and positron from
the quantum "vacuum". I know you know about pair production already.
Tom is trying to have one photon produce the pair and to do that he is
giving his *single* photon to have properties like it is two photons.
Tom's model for energy is more like two photons. Another clue for you
here.

FrediFizzx

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 4:35:42 PM7/22/05

to

Hi

I have a question for you smart guy's concerning
pair production.

Suppose in CS K a

gammma => e+ e-

is produced, but in a K' CS moving relatively
rapidly that reaction appears as,

gamma' => p+ p-

where the difference is the mass of the particles.

>From the PoV of relativity, is there a diff between
the e+ e- output compared to the p+ p- output
relative to a moving FoR.

Suppose not, then a lepton is able to appear as
a baryon relatively, then the so-called law of
Baryon conservation is relative, ie, not a Law!

Here's the question...if a positron is moving at
a relative rate to have a mass equivalent to a
proton, is there a diff between a proton at rest
and a positron moving?

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

PS: Don't you just love homework???

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 4:53:41 PM7/22/05

to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message

news:1122064542.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It has to be gamma + gamma --> e+ + e-

No.

| >From the PoV of relativity, is there a diff between
| the e+ e- output compared to the p+ p- output
| relative to a moving FoR.
|
| Suppose not, then a lepton is able to appear as
| a baryon relatively, then the so-called law of
| Baryon conservation is relative, ie, not a Law!

A lepton cannot appear as a baryon to an observer moving rapidly wrt it.
However, what about the case involving quarks? Is an electron just a
quark that has lost its color charge?

| Here's the question...if a positron is moving at
| a relative rate to have a mass equivalent to a
| proton, is there a diff between a proton at rest
| and a positron moving?

Yes.

FrediFizzx

Ken S. Tucker

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 5:04:28 PM7/22/05

to

Now we're getting somewhere.

Aside from mass that can be relativistically varied,
what sets a proton aprat from a positron?
Ken

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 5:46:02 PM7/22/05

to

"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message

news:1122066268....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

A proton definitely has an internal structure due to "partons" AKA
quarks for modern day theory. A positron has no internal structure that
we have been able to detect yet. IMHO, they both have "external"
structure due to quantum "vacuum" effects. No matter how fast a
positron is going wrt a detector, there is still no internal structure.

FrediFizzx

p6

unread,

Jul 22, 2005, 7:08:17 PM7/22/05

to

Gee. you mean in the following he meant "fireball" as one
photon as a result of the matter changing the photons into one??
(is this what you mean Mr. Lockyer?? or do you mean "fireball"
as aggregations of photons.. because the former idea is
ridiculous. Einstein can hit you for it as you try to undo
the classical quantum theory:) )

Lockyer wrote:

"Particle are photo produced in pairs, from electromagnetic
energy (photons). For example, the creation of the electron
positron pair is the product of photon energy, in the presence
of matter. The matter serves to turn the photons back into a
fireball and to reduce the energy to the exact energy required
for electron-positron creation."

"In Figure 1.1 three
electron-positron pairs were created by 330MeV energy (x-ray)
photons in the presence of a lead (matter) target. The target
lead plate serves to Compton scatter the x-ray photons, reducing
fireball energy to the required (1.0121998 Mev) electron pair
energy to form each of the pairs. An external magnetic field
serves to separate and measure the pair characteristics. It
can be shown that the pairs form, at their exact and
exclusive energy, on account of the balance between non
linear electric and magnetic forces, each that vary at
different rates"

My other problem with Tom process of pair production is he didn't
take into account momentum conservation law.. or did he..
I only have one of his books. You have 3. Maybe you know
more about this enigmatic dude called Lockyer.

p6

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 23, 2005, 1:26:36 PM7/23/05

to

Nope, more than one photon is envisioned as linking with the vectors
of other photon's vectors into the fireball.

The reason for the vector structure of the photon shown on page 4, is
to explain the paradox of the E and H apparently being in phase in the
traveling wave. For those who do not have the book here is the photon
vector model:

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/PHOTONmodel.gif

The E and H of the traveling wave are supposed to be mutually
dependent and inseparable. To be mutually dependent and inseparable, E
and H must be related by their time rate of change in a sine-cosine
symbiosis. The E and H paradoxically show us a sine-sine
relationship in the traveling wave.

The ONLY possible explanation is given by the use of two conjugate
resonances, in the photon's frame of reference, as shown. This permits
the lateral E and H to simultaneously be in phase, and at the same
time allow the normal sine-cosine in each E to axial H and H to axial E
resonance.

AFAIK, this use of the relativistic frame of reference to show that the
traveling wave is a distortion of the photon structure is original to
QVPP.

I have perfect faith in this model because it leads coherently to all
known particles and their subsequent combinations into nuclei. No
existing theory has taken ANYONE that far.

> Lockyer wrote:
>
> "Particle are photo produced in pairs, from electromagnetic
> energy (photons). For example, the creation of the electron
> positron pair is the product of photon energy, in the presence
> of matter. The matter serves to turn the photons back into a
> fireball and to reduce the energy to the exact energy required
> for electron-positron creation."
>
> "In Figure 1.1 three
> electron-positron pairs were created by 330MeV energy (x-ray)
> photons in the presence of a lead (matter) target. The target
> lead plate serves to Compton scatter the x-ray photons, reducing
> fireball energy to the required (1.0121998 Mev) electron pair
> energy to form each of the pairs. An external magnetic field
> serves to separate and measure the pair characteristics. It
> can be shown that the pairs form, at their exact and
> exclusive energy, on account of the balance between non
> linear electric and magnetic forces, each that vary at
> different rates"

> My other problem with Tom process of pair production is he didn't
> take into account momentum conservation law.. or did he..

Yes, QVPP does, see page three. It is shown that the momentum of the
photon is conserved into the particle spin angular momentum.

> I only have one of his books. You have 3. Maybe you know
> more about this enigmatic dude called Lockyer.

Yes, p6, Fredi goes way back to the first book published in 1992. And
much to his credit, he has been willing to seriously consider the VPP
approach. But, I fear he puts too much faith in the standard model,
and tries to relate QVPP to the teachings of SM.

In my view, the QVPP will completely replace the Standard Model.

The SM has spend a lot of time trying to make some sense out of
natures mistakes.

To try to make sense out of transient particles (nature's mistakes)
the SM has invented a dream world using a plethora of unprecedented
particles and forces in a vain effort to make the postulated dream
world function. Result has been a complete failure.

The existing mountain of experimental data, unfortunately, has used
the mistaken ideas of the SM to cook the data. I showed you one
example for the neutrino.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/recoil.gif

The Rodeback and Allen experiment use of 37AR decay was not giving the
neutrino

(EC and B+ decays don't issue neutrinos as has been proved in binding
energy calculations, see page 14, and pages 128, 129, 130)

so their explanation was moot. One does not even have to argue, the
experiment was doomed from the start.

I find that scenario is repeated over and over in the SM, because they
do not have the correct models to determine experimental outcomes..
They can get away with it because everyone thinks the SM teachings are
all correct, but, in truth, only some of them are correct.

Partons and quarks have gone nowhere in the last 40 years, so, its time
to put out the fire and call in the hounds. QVPP teachings have made
the hunt obsolete.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

p6

unread,

Jul 23, 2005, 6:04:49 PM7/23/05

to

Try to focus on making it compatible with conservation laws. For
example. When the photons are more energetic, the electron-positron
produced up would travel farther. If other paired particles such
as proton-antiproton are made, the extra momentum would be
converted to other pair production products or singular like
nutrinos, photons, etc. There is no breakdown of conservation law
in all particle accelerator experiments and observations. Explain
this in details.

Well. The Standard Model is created by the world's most brilliant
scientists. Come on, they can't just be wrong.

I want to figure out what sort of coincidences can make you
create those values that matched closely the accepted one.
Note *closely* means it is not exact. So how can you model
be right if it is not exact matched.. unless you claim the
standard model values are the ones that are off a bit?

Before I can figure out your full work. I'd have to master
mathematics first. I admit I don't understand half of the
maths in your book. After becoming mathmaster. Then I can be
qualified to debunk your model (early next year). Meantime,
let this task be handled by expert debunkers (if it boils
down to this). It's unlikely that the worlds'physics framework
is just wrong when the most brilliant scientists are all into
it. It is more of being incomplete than wrong.

p6

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 23, 2005, 8:31:00 PM7/23/05

to

p6 wrote:
> nutrinos, photons, etc. There is no breakdown of conservation law

neutrinos

> in all particle accelerator experiments and observations. Explain
> this in details.

Indeed, there is. Get yourself a free particle review book from the
PDG and browse it for several momentum-energy anomalies. If you want a
shortcut, you can read my gleanings from my treatise (search: lysdexia
treatise).

-Aut

p6

unread,

Jul 23, 2005, 9:37:33 PM7/23/05

to

Can't find them at yahoo or goggle. What's a PDG? Anyway.
Can you pls. summarize the momentum-energy anomalies in
particle experiments so it is easier for the experts Moroney
and Bjoern to point out and educate you on why it is not :)

p6

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 24, 2005, 12:05:31 AM7/24/05

to

"p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1122169053....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Particle Data Group
http://pdg.lbl.gov/

Most of it is all online. Read all the articles in this section,

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/contents_sports.html

You probably won't fully understand them, but read them anywise.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 24, 2005, 2:16:00 PM7/24/05

to

.p6 Said;

> Try to focus on making it compatible with conservation laws. For
> example. When the photons are more energetic, the electron-positron
> produced up would travel farther. If other paired particles such
> as proton-antiproton are made, the extra momentum would be
> converted to other pair production products or singular like
> nutrinos, photons, etc. There is no breakdown of conservation law
> in all particle accelerator experiments and observations. Explain
> this in details.

P6, You must realize that accelerator jockeys must decide their
results from 10 meters away., in their detectors, that only see
ordinary particles, electrons muons etc.

Gone are the days when they used cloud chambers, and you saw
everything. Today they use computers to recreate the reaction at the
center of the beam. These computer programs are set up using theory,
and extrapolating back to the source. So, when trying to detect a new
particle, they decide (based on their theory)

> Well. The Standard Model is created by the world's most brilliant
> scientists.

You bet, one of my son's has a BS degree in physics from Stanford.

It takes a first rate mind just to get a seat in those classes. There
were only 28 physics majors at Stanford the year he got his degree.
(one of his classmates was Sally Ride, our first lady astronaut, three
were Rhodes scholars)

>Come on, they can't just be wrong.

Being smart, and infallible are two different things. My son thought
it strange that he was the only one in lab that knew how to operate an
oscilloscope!

> I want to figure out what sort of coincidences can make you
> create those values that matched closely the accepted one.
> Note *closely* means it is not exact. So how can you model
> be right if it is not exact matched.. unless you claim the
> standard model values are the ones that are off a bit?

. p6, the binding energy data does vary widely,

I used the data collected by A.H. WApstra and G. Audi, Nuc. Phys. A595
Vol. 4 (1995) p409-480, like most everyone else does.

> Before I can figure out your full work. I'd have to master
> mathematics first. I admit I don't understand half of the
> maths in your book. After becoming mathmaster. Then I can be
> qualified to debunk your model (early next year). Meantime,
> let this task be handled by expert debunkers (if it boils
> down to this). It's unlikely that the worlds'physics framework
> is just wrong when the most brilliant scientists are all into
> it. It is more of being incomplete than wrong.

.p6, the shame of physics has been the massive subsidies thrown at
them with little or no over sight. That has driven particle physics
more that getting results.

OTOH I am using my own money. I am at the twilight of my life, so I
don't seek fame and fortune.

The scandals of Enron, World Com, Oil for food dollars, pork barrel
politics etc. show one cannot trust ANYONE when large amounts of
money, power and prestige are involved.

All of my physics arguments are the result of the things that QVPP
geometry tells me are correct.
Physicists, OTOH have to invent every theory they have. Physics should
have used particle electromagnetic structures to deduce theory, like
the successful QVPP does.

The advantage of QVPP is that it has the correct geometry to relate all
of the related fundamental physical constants in their proper ratios.

This allow one to deduce new particle fundamental physical constants,
such as the fine structure constant times the flux quantum. (it's in
the book page153)

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/QVPDERIVCONS.gif

Proof is in the geometry and then getting the magnetic moment for the
particles. Magnetic moments values are not general constants , but are
specific only to each particle type. Here is the electron's magnetic
moment, from the new QVPP flux quantum.

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/fluxtomagmoment.jpg

.p6, everyone tries to debunk QVPP, but you can't argue with success.

Why don't you see if you can debunk the failed SM?

Should be easy, the SM has failed to do anything relating to what
should have been the goal of particle physics, extending to the
structures of ordinary matter.

(All that PDG data is mostly on transient particles, and their
interpretation based on the imaginary quarks.)

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

p6

unread,

Jul 25, 2005, 4:16:01 PM7/25/05

to

Standard Model is so successful. What do you mean it has failed to
do anything to what should have been the goal of particle physics.
What is the goal of particle physics?? The quantum is an unclassical
realm of HUP, ghostly states, probability rule, etc. I think you
are trying to force everything to be classical and explanable
by nuts and bolts, or vectors and light... when what physics may
be studying are just projections from more deeper causal mechanisms.

In particle experiments. It doesn't always have to do with quarks.
They can produce proton-antiproton pair, etc. Also note that when
they probe protons via scattering, they can see 3 decaying "stuff".
What is your version of that 3 pieces seen in the scattering??

p6

FrediFizzx

unread,

Jul 25, 2005, 5:22:59 PM7/25/05

to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message

news:dbr7bi$i1h$1...@pcls4.std.com...

Sorry Mike, I got sidetracked by some heavy-duty new physics. I will
get this to you soon.

FrediFizzx

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2005, 2:24:42 PM7/26/05

to

p6 wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> > p6 wrote:
> > > tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > p6 wrote:
> > > > > FrediFizzx wrote:
> > > > > > "p6" <atom...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1122060547.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]

> > .p6, the shame of physics has been the massive subsidies thrown at

p6, The avowed goal of particle physics is to understand the "building
blocks" of matter.

>The quantum is an unclassical
> realm of HUP, ghostly states, probability rule, etc. I think you
> are trying to force everything to be classical and explanable
> by nuts and bolts, or vectors and light... when what physics may
> be studying are just projections from more deeper causal mechanisms.

No, The qauntum forms an intregal part of the VPP theory.

By making the vector lengths equal to wave lengths (lambda= h/mc)
automatically puts the structures into the "quantum world".

As a result, in the upside down quantum world structures, classical
algebra gets all of the particles characteristics, of mass, charge,
spin and magnetic moment.

Probabilities require a sample size of at least 5 identicle particles,
so probabilities have no place in theory dealing with individual
particles..

> In particle experiments. It doesn't always have to do with quarks.
> They can produce proton-antiproton pair, etc. Also note that when
> they probe protons via scattering, they can see 3 decaying "stuff".
> What is your version of that 3 pieces seen in the scattering??

THey see something hard in the proton and neutron. They don't see
three thingies in the SAME proton and neutron.

QVPP tells me that the proton and neutron each have a core particle,
and this allows calculating the binding energiies of nuclei, as
demonstrated in the book.

All of the work on the SM can be summarized by "so what?"
Unfortunately, there is NO so what, the SM dead ends. Nothing
worthwile has ahappened in the last 30 years, witness the 2004 Nobel.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 27, 2005, 3:10:28 AM7/27/05

to

identical

p6

unread,

Jul 27, 2005, 9:12:26 AM7/27/05

to

But they are said to detect 3 lumps. Page 40 of Griffith's
"Introduction to Elementary Particles" stated:

"Even if all quarks are stuck inside hadrons, this does not
mean they are inaccessible to experimental study. One can
probe the inside of a proton in much the same way as Rutherford
probed the inside of the atom - by firing something into it.
Such experiments were carried out in the late sixties using
high-energy electrons at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(SLAC). They were repeated in the early seventies using neutrino
beams at CERN, and later stil using protons. The results of
these so called "deep scattering" experiments were strikingly
reminiscent of Rutherford's (Fig. 1.12): Most of the incident
particles pass right through, whereas a small number bounce
back sharply. This means the charge of the proton is concentrated
in small lumps, just as Rutherford's results indicated that
the positive charge in an atom is concentrated at the nucleus.
However, in the case of proton the evidence suggests three lumps,
instead of one."

Hope someone with updated data can confirm if there is indeed 3
lumps inside the proton.

In your model Lockyer, how many subparticles exactly are inside
your proton?

I really need to know if quarks are real and they exist or
whether there are other ways to bind the nuclues without any
strong force but modified magnetic field, etc.. I hope the latter
exist because it would give things more degree of freedom. But
we have to look at experimental data which is the most accurate.

Your model breaks the law of quantum physics as its core. QM
says that particle pair are produced given more than enough
energy and momentum via probability laws. But you imply
otherwise and announce that the photons in your model can form
the particle themselves. QM survives almost all test.. so it
is likely your model may not have basis in reality. Defend it.

p6

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 28, 2005, 5:24:09 AM7/28/05

to

FrediFizzx wrote:
> Particle Data Group
> http://pdg.lbl.gov/
>
> Most of it is all online. Read all the articles in this section,
>
> http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/contents_sports.html
>
> You probably won't fully understand them, but read them anywise.

LOL! He won't get very far with so many PDFs, which was why I
suggested the book. There's also no explicit category pertaining to
the entries I note, which don't have to do with CPT.

-Aut

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 28, 2005, 1:59:00 PM7/28/05

to

p6 wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
>snip<

p6 said;

> > > In particle experiments. It doesn't always have to do with quarks.
> > > They can produce proton-antiproton pair, etc. Also note that when
> > > they probe protons via scattering, they can see 3 decaying "stuff".
> > > What is your version of that 3 pieces seen in the scattering??

Tom said;
> > They see something hard in the proton and neutron. They don't see

> > three thingies in the SAME proton and neutron.

p6 said;

> But they are said to detect 3 lumps. Page 40 of Griffith's
> "Introduction to Elementary Particles" stated:
>
> "Even if all quarks are stuck inside hadrons, this does not
> mean they are inaccessible to experimental study. One can
> probe the inside of a proton in much the same way as Rutherford
> probed the inside of the atom - by firing something into it.
> Such experiments were carried out in the late sixties using
> high-energy electrons at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
> (SLAC). They were repeated in the early seventies using neutrino
> beams at CERN, and later stil using protons. The results of
> these so called "deep scattering" experiments were strikingly
> reminiscent of Rutherford's (Fig. 1.12): Most of the incident
> particles pass right through, whereas a small number bounce
> back sharply. This means the charge of the proton is concentrated
> in small lumps, just as Rutherford's results indicated that
> the positive charge in an atom is concentrated at the nucleus.
> However, in the case of proton the evidence suggests three lumps,
> instead of one."

p6, As I pointed out, there is NO WAY anyone can show those lumps are
from the SAME proton.

Suggests three lumps? More like wishful thinking, p6.

> Hope someone with updated data can confirm if there is indeed 3
> lumps inside the proton.

NO way. The proton is too small and remote from the experiment to
specify that the SAME proton is involved in the scattering. Anyway the
false quark theory sez quarks in the proton are asymptotically free.

> In your model Lockyer, how many subparticles exactly are inside
> your proton?

P6, the QVPP proton scales from the positron, the anti-proton scales
from the electron. The inner scaled structures, for the proton, ends
in a small core particle that has the effective charge and spin angular
momentum of the proton. (QVPP proof is in the subsequent nuclei
binding energy calculations)

QVPP shows that the only basic particles nature can possibly have, are
just the electron, positron, electron type neutrino pair and muon type
neutrino pair.

This limited number of basic particles are proved by connecting the
photon in all possible ways.

Thus, the postulated tau neutrino does NOT exist , and all other
"particles' are composites of just the electrons and neutrinos.

Now if anyone thinks differently, they must be able to show me the
electromagnetic structures of the particles they propose. They will
fail.

QVPP gives the electromagnetic structures for all known composite
particles, as composed of their decay electrons, neutrinos and perhaps
the stable proton, the only experimentally known final decay particles.

So, QVPP agrees with experiment.

The phony quark model CANNOT justify the final decay electrons and
neutrinos.

It is amusing to see the childish attempts to diagram electrons,
neutrinos and protons away by simply declaring they result from the
decay, using quarks as (unnecessary) intermediates.

> I really need to know if quarks are real and they exist or
> whether there are other ways to bind the nuclues without any
> strong force but modified magnetic field, etc.. I hope the latter
> exist because it would give things more degree of freedom. But
> we have to look at experimental data which is the most accurate.

.p6 unfortunately, quarks remain a gleam in the theorists eye.

It's like trying to guess what thingies might be behind the curtains
in a magic act,
the theorists have been trying to do that to no avail for 40 years.

> Your model breaks the law of quantum physics as its core. QM
> says that particle pair are produced given more than enough
> energy and momentum via probability laws.

QVPP breaks no "laws".

P6, "laws" do not really justifying anything, but merely are
statemenst like A + B always equals C.

QVPP has been able to show the nature of A and B and C so that one can
clearly see why A + B = C.

>But you imply
> otherwise and announce that the photons in your model can form
> the particle themselves.

QVPP DOES imply that particle pairs form,
just like everyone understands happens, when energy exceeds the
threshold required.

Difference is QVPP shows the particle formation details, using the
structure for energy (the photon) QM does not.

>QM survives almost all test.. so it
> is likely your model may not have basis in reality. Defend it.

What ever gave you that idea that QVPP does NOT work., p6? QVPP does
not violate any "law".

QVPP clearly shows that nature can form just three pair of basic
particles. (Every other particle is shown as a composite of those
basic leptons),

QVPP shows the electron type neutrino is it's one anti-particle
(Majorana type ) under space rotations, making for a total of five
different basic particle structures, in the three pair. See page 8.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cfives.gif

> > QVPP tells me that the proton and neutron each have a core particle,

> > and this allows calculating the binding energies of nuclei, as
> > demonstrated in the book.

> > All of the work on the SM can be summarized by "so what?"
> > Unfortunately, there is NO so what, the SM dead ends. Nothing

> > worthwhile has happened in the last 30 years, witness the 2004 Nobel.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 29, 2005, 7:56:04 AM7/29/05

to

Tom, stop misspelling its. So what's wrong with quarks. You didn't
answer my pentaquark question.

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 29, 2005, 9:18:21 AM7/29/05

to

Do you think that Tom has to answer it??

don't you think that the true believers of quark inventors
has to answer it first??!!

now you want my prediction??---
it there will be found an Octaquark - they will explain it as well
very soon !! (:-)
that is the power of crooks they can explain anything!!

ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 29, 2005, 11:46:56 AM7/29/05

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Tom, stop misspelling its. So what's wrong with quarks. You didn't
> answer my pentaquark question.

Yes, I do make typing errors. One of my favorites is to revese
letters, like "statemenst" for "statements". I don't seem able to
think what I want to write, and not make some typing errors. Then, to
compound the problem, my bifocals and 10 point type don't mix.

As for quarks, if you don't know what's wrong with quarks, you are part
of the problem, not the solution.

Quarks DON'T give particles mass, charge, spin angular momentum, nor
magnetic moment. FATAL FLAWS!
That's what is wrong with the QUARK model, it does not work!!!

OTOH, QVPP not only gives those characteristics, but shows the
mechanism that produces spin in particles that creates mass, charge,
spin angular momentum and magnetic moment.

Payoff, QVPP shows that the strong force is electromagnetic and that
one can calculate the binding energies between the nucleons in nuclei,
for the first time in 100 years.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 29, 2005, 11:23:49 PM7/29/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>p6 said;
>> But they are said to detect 3 lumps. Page 40 of Griffith's
>> "Introduction to Elementary Particles" stated:

<snip>

>p6, As I pointed out, there is NO WAY anyone can show those lumps are
>from the SAME proton.

And there is NO WAY anyone can show those alpha particles scattered off
the SAME gold atom in Rutherford's famous experiment. So let's throw
that out as well.

>> Your model breaks the law of quantum physics as its core. QM
>> says that particle pair are produced given more than enough
>> energy and momentum via probability laws.

>QVPP breaks no "laws".

What about your "neutrinoless" B+ decay? How many laws of physics does
that violate? Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum,
lepton number, have I forgotten any?

Let's not forget the negative charge in your neutron that switches off
or whatever at a distance but works close up.

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 30, 2005, 4:45:21 AM7/30/05

to

tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> Yes, I do make typing errors. One of my favorites is to revese
> letters, like "statemenst" for "statements". I don't seem able to
> think what I want to write, and not make some typing errors. Then, to
> compound the problem, my bifocals and 10 point type don't mix.

Your rampant misspelling of its as it's is not a typing error.

> As for quarks, if you don't know what's wrong with quarks, you are part
> of the problem, not the solution.

Distinguish active and passive.

> Quarks DON'T give particles mass, charge, spin angular momentum, nor
> magnetic moment. FATAL FLAWS!
> That's what is wrong with the QUARK model, it does not work!!!

How don't they? Look at ++ or -- particles. You might want a free PDG
Review of Particle Physics book.

> OTOH, QVPP not only gives those characteristics, but shows the
> mechanism that produces spin in particles that creates mass, charge,
> spin angular momentum and magnetic moment.

"mechanism that produces spin"? What was there before spin?

> Payoff, QVPP shows that the strong force is electromagnetic and that
> one can calculate the binding energies between the nucleons in nuclei,
> for the first time in 100 years.

I don't recall you replying to someone blasting your claim to absurdity
of a force increasing in strength with distance, giving the examples of
elastic, inverse, and torsional materials (bands, pumps, and springs).

It's easy to model objects that are sitting still. Are you
accommodating nucleonic excitations in your calculations?

-Aut

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 30, 2005, 1:00:20 PM7/30/05

to

Michael Moroney wrote:
> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >p6 said;
> >> But they are said to detect 3 lumps. Page 40 of Griffith's
> >> "Introduction to Elementary Particles" stated:
> <snip>
>
> >p6, As I pointed out, there is NO WAY anyone can show those lumps are
> >from the SAME proton.

> And there is NO WAY anyone can show those alpha particles scattered off
> the SAME gold atom in Rutherford's famous experiment. So let's throw
> that out as well.

Mike, you just don't get it! Rutherford was not trying to show three
lumpy thingies in the proton. Geez!

> >> Your model breaks the law of quantum physics as its core. QM
> >> says that particle pair are produced given more than enough
> >> energy and momentum via probability laws.

> >QVPP breaks no "laws".

> What about your "neutrinoless" B+ decay? How many laws of physics does
> that violate? Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum,
> lepton number, have I forgotten any?

Mike, the B+ (positron) of the decay is from the pair production of the
electron-positron pair, in certain unstable nuclei, when sufficient
energy for pair production is available.

Read any text, (B+) and electron capture (EC) are competing processes.
In fact certain nuclei show branching ratios, for the process.

In (B+) the electron of the pair is captured by a nuclear proton
changing it into a nuclear neutron, and a shell electron, along with
the positron (B+) is emitted in the process, to get a neutral atom.
No laws are violated!

I thought we settled that long ago with the kinematics equations
showing that (n-1H) neutrino (and its neutron binding energy) HAD TO
BE ALSO CAPTURED to make a NORMAL neutron construction out of the
proton.

So, no neutrino is emitted despite popular belief to the contrary.
Here is the math again, this time read it and weep.

http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/Betadecay.gif

See that (N-H1) is negative when the neutrino is emitted, (Cu64 to
Zn64) and (N-H1) is positive (ABSORBED) in (Cu64 to Ni64) decays.

> Lets not forget the negative charge in your neutron that switches off

> or whatever at a distance but works close up.

Exactly, the neutron's negative magnetic moment shows there MUST be an
internal negative charge current, even though the neutron shows a zero
external charge. The neutron's structure must be shielding the charge
at the neutron surface.

But, binding energy calculations show neutron negative charge is
activated when nucleons merge.

Proof? QVPP binding energy calculations obtain agree with the
experimentally measured binding energy, on the basis that the
neutron's negative core is activated.

Using these QVPP methods, one can actually calculate binding energy
from first principles, for the first time in the last 71 years, since
the deuteron's binding energy was determined by Chadwick and
Goldhalber (1934)

You never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments against the
successful QVPP electromagnetic structures.

Most of the SM postulates you think are correct, are specious, get over
it.

Tom;

www.amazon,com 0963154664

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 30, 2005, 1:32:24 PM7/30/05

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:

>snip<

> > Quarks DON'T give particles mass, charge, spin angular momentum, nor
> > magnetic moment. FATAL FLAWS!
> > That's what is wrong with the QUARK model, it does not work!!!

> How don't they? Look at ++ or -- particles. You might want a free PDG
> Review of Particle Physics book.

Simply declaring bogus quark charges of +- 2/3e and +- 1/3e is NOT
proof of particle charge. Those PDG (total) particle charges are
measured values.

> > OTOH, QVPP not only gives those characteristics, but shows the
> > mechanism that produces spin in particles that creates mass, charge,
> > spin angular momentum and magnetic moment.

> "mechanism that produces spin"? What was there before spin?

Particles don't spin simply by declaring they do. Spin has been
experimentally measured, but the actual mechanism for spin has never
been shown before the QVPP structures were known.

It turns out that spin is due to the conservation of the photon(s)
momentum going over into the spin angular momentum of the particles.
See pages 3 and 8 of QVPP.

> > Payoff, QVPP shows that the strong force is electromagnetic and that
> > one can calculate the binding energies between the nucleons in nuclei,
> > for the first time in 100 years.

> I don't recall you replying to someone blasting your claim to absurdity
> of a force increasing in strength with distance, giving the examples of
> elastic, inverse, and torsional materials (bands, pumps, and springs).

No, that was MY blasting of the crackpot idea of asymptotically free
quarks using a postulated (unprecedented) strong force that gets weaker
at short distances.

> It's easy to model objects that are sitting still. Are you
> accommodating nucleonic excitations in your calculations?

QVPP shows that nucleons are bound together in organized groups, in
their ground state.

Under excitation, I would imagine nucleons just oscillating in place
by their mutual bindings, never tried to do any calculations.

Regards: Tom;

www/amazon.com 0963154664

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jul 30, 2005, 11:59:41 PM7/30/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>> >p6 said;
>> >> But they are said to detect 3 lumps. Page 40 of Griffith's
>> >> "Introduction to Elementary Particles" stated:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >p6, As I pointed out, there is NO WAY anyone can show those lumps are
>> >from the SAME proton.

>> And there is NO WAY anyone can show those alpha particles scattered off
>> the SAME gold atom in Rutherford's famous experiment. So let's throw
>> that out as well.

>Mike, you just don't get it! Rutherford was not trying to show three
>lumpy thingies in the proton. Geez!

It is you who doesn't get it. How can anyone conclude that an atom has
a small dense core from that experiment if you cannot show you are
scattering all those alpha particles off a single gold atom?

Another way for you to look at it is how could he tell the gold foil
(the foil itself, not a single atom) is composed of a whole bunch of small
dense objects in mostly empty space? Same way with protons and its
components.

>> >> Your model breaks the law of quantum physics as its core. QM
>> >> says that particle pair are produced given more than enough
>> >> energy and momentum via probability laws.

>> >QVPP breaks no "laws".

>> What about your "neutrinoless" B+ decay? How many laws of physics does
>> that violate? Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum,
>> lepton number, have I forgotten any?

>Mike, the B+ (positron) of the decay is from the pair production of the

>No laws are violated!

You didn't even discuss any of those physics law violations! Not one!

>I thought we settled that long ago with the kinematics equations
>showing that (n-1H) neutrino (and its neutron binding energy) HAD TO
>BE ALSO CAPTURED to make a NORMAL neutron construction out of the
>proton.

In your dreams. I explained to you 100 times that this so-called n-1H
energy is your misunderstanding of how binding energy is defined. Do you
listen to me? Noooo....

> So, no neutrino is emitted despite popular belief to the contrary.
>Here is the math again, this time read it and weep.

Again, how many laws of physics does this violate? I count five, anyone
see more?

>> Lets not forget the negative charge in your neutron that switches off
>> or whatever at a distance but works close up.

>Exactly,

Sheesh! You complain about quarks having fractional charges and yet you
come up with this bizarre sometimes-shortrange electric force and don't
even consider any of the electromagnetic laws this violates?!?!?

>You never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments against the
>successful QVPP electromagnetic structures.

And you never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments that
QVPP is successful despite holes you can sail a battleship through, and
claims the standard model is a failure, despite all its predictions.

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 12:22:50 AM7/31/05

to

Moroney

send him a copy of my book ........(:-)
never mind the missing parts that Feurbacher didn't sent to you ....
but omit or erase his idiotic remarks on it ..

Y.Porat
---------------------------------------

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 3:44:00 AM7/31/05

to

didn't send

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 3:45:04 AM7/31/05

to

tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> Simply declaring bogus quark charges of +- 2/3e and +- 1/3e is NOT
> proof of particle charge. Those PDG (total) particle charges are
> measured values.

Here's news for you: The heavier a particle, the smaller it is, /not/
bigger. So the quark generations with greater charges are correlated
with greater mass-energies. The doubly-charged baruons, and all of
those unstable, heavy particle debris, are /smaller/ and tighter than
stable particles proving nucleon compositeness when struck. All of
those hadrons fit the predictions of quark mixing like the elements fit
Mendeleev's periodic table.

> Particles don't spin simply by declaring they do. Spin has been
> experimentally measured, but the actual mechanism for spin has never
> been shown before the QVPP structures were known.
>
> It turns out that spin is due to the conservation of the photon(s)
> momentum going over into the spin angular momentum of the particles.
> See pages 3 and 8 of QVPP.

That's a rule, not a mechanism. I asked what was before spin, and this
included for fotons.

> No, that was MY blasting of the crackpot idea of asymptotically free
> quarks using a postulated (unprecedented) strong force that gets weaker
> at short distances.

Your blasting was blasted. That's how mesons behave. Take it or hide
your head in the ground, like those neutrino detectors.

> QVPP shows that nucleons are bound together in organized groups, in
> their ground state.
>
> Under excitation, I would imagine nucleons just oscillating in place
> by their mutual bindings, never tried to do any calculations.

You should...

-Aut

Y.Porat

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 5:10:57 AM7/31/05

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> > Simply declaring bogus quark charges of +- 2/3e and +- 1/3e is NOT
> > proof of particle charge. Those PDG (total) particle charges are
> > measured values.
>
> Here's news for you: The heavier a particle, the smaller it is, /not/
> bigger. So the quark generations with greater charges are correlated
> with greater mass-energies. The doubly-charged baruons, and all of
> those unstable, heavy particle debris, are /smaller/ and tighter than
> stable particles proving nucleon compositeness when struck. All of
> those hadrons fit the predictions of quark mixing like the elements fit
> Mendeleev's periodic table.

----------
and here is some news for you Auty:

the mass of all 3 quarks is only less than 10 percent of the nucleid
mass

relativistic mass of Gluons is one of the nastiest(and/or stupid) lie
of that theory!!

the big wonder is how people who consider *themselved*
to be 'top intelligent' buy that nasty lie

there migh tbe 3 subcomponents of the nucleid
it fits nicely my findings as well
but there is a rest of 90 percent of the nucleid
that is still unknown
and that fact SHOULD BE KNOWN TO ANYONE

ie to fuck of once and for all
the smugg pose and lie as if 'anything is under control'.
it is very far from being under control or even not a humble
crippled theory.

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------
>

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 12:37:16 PM7/31/05

to

Michael Moroney wrote:
> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:
>
> >Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> "tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>snip<

> >> >QVPP breaks no "laws".
>
> >> What about your "neutrinoless" B+ decay? How many laws of physics does
> >> that violate? Conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum,
> >> lepton number, have I forgotten any?
>
> >Mike, the B+ (positron) of the decay is from the pair production of the
> <snip needless repetition of incorrect B+ decay theory>

> >I thought we settled that long ago with the kinematics equations

> >showing that (n-1H) neutrino (and its neutron binding energy) HAD TO
> >BE ALSO CAPTURED to make a NORMAL neutron construction out of the
> >proton.

> In your dreams. I explained to you 100 times that this so-called n-1H
> energy is your misunderstanding of how binding energy is defined. Do you
> listen to me? Noooo....

Liar, you and Bjoern did not even know what n-1H was until I showed you
guys this:

http://members.aol.com/thomasl283/n-1H.gif

Those hand written notes are mine when doing research on the QVPP book.

> > So, no neutrino is emitted despite popular belief to the contrary.
> >Here is the math again, this time read it and weep.

Here it is again as you had deleted it;

http://www.members.aol.com/tnlockyer/Betadecay.gif

> Again, how many laws of physics does this violate? I count five, anyone
> see more?

Since you deleted the http I just reinstated above on Beta decay, your
statement obviously is just trying to belittle. You, like Bjoern, are
good at making blanket statements with no backup proof.

> >> Lets not forget the negative charge in your neutron that switches off
> >> or whatever at a distance but works close up.
>
> >Exactly,

> Sheesh! You complain about quarks having fractional charges and yet you
> come up with this bizarre sometimes-shortrange electric force and don't
> even consider any of the electromagnetic laws this violates?!?!?

You never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments against the
successful QVPP electromagnetic structures.

> And you never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments that
> QVPP is successful despite holes you can sail a battleship through, and
> claims the standard model is a failure, despite all its predictions.

Name just one numerical prediction of the standard quark model relating
to ordinary fundamental physical constants of matter (such as mass,
charge, magnetic moment, spin angular momentum).

Can't? Did not think so.

PS.
In the EETimes, issue 1381 (july 25, 2005) Scott Adams (Dilbet cartoon
artist) Discussed with a reporter his certificate in hypnotism. Quote:

.... One of the things I learned from studing hypnotism (In 1981, at
the Clement School of Hypnosis in San Francisco).... Is you can
encourage people to bond to an idea by letting them supply the
specifics themselves.
It didn't teach me to go around putting people in a trance. But you do
learn about human beings. If you believe that people are rational
beings, you are going to go through life frustrated and confused. They
are not. Hypnotists learn this. Unquote:

So, there is no way I can make QVPP a win-win situation with you. Bye.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Jul 31, 2005, 1:53:11 PM7/31/05

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> > Simply declaring bogus quark charges of +- 2/3e and +- 1/3e is NOT
> > proof of particle charge. Those PDG (total) particle charges are
> > measured values.
>
> Here's news for you: The heavier a particle, the smaller it is, /not/
> bigger.

Not news, Autymn, that (lambda = h/mc) is the basis for QVPP. See:
www.amazon.com 0963154664 and look inside the book and read the BACK
COVER.

> So the quark generations with greater charges are correlated
> with greater mass-energies. The doubly-charged baruons, and all of
> those unstable, heavy particle debris, are /smaller/ and tighter than
> stable particles proving nucleon compositeness when struck. All of
> those hadrons fit the predictions of quark mixing like the elements fit
> Mendeleev's periodic table.

Auytmn: Predictions? More like, lets see if I take three up quarks at
+2/3e that will give me a charge of +2 for the Decuplet Delta ++.

Those data are based on empirical measurements that have NOTHING to do
with the quark, the quark was an afterthought.

Besides, the +2/3e was (willy nilly) assigned to the quarks, not
derived from their structures. That is NOT SCIENCE, it is cheating
pure and simple.

> > Particles don't spin simply by declaring they do. Spin has been
> > experimentally measured, but the actual mechanism for spin has never
> > been shown before the QVPP structures were known.

> > It turns out that spin is due to the conservation of the photon(s)
> > momentum going over into the spin angular momentum of the particles.
> > See pages 3 and 8 of QVPP.

> That's a rule, not a mechanism. I asked what was before spin, and this
> included for fotons.

Nope, the QVPP structures for the electron and positron show that the
momentum adds in the back and front faces of those leptons, causing
spin and conserving the linear momentum of the photon(s) that created
the pair.

> > No, that was MY blasting of the crackpot idea of asymptotically free

> > at short distances.

> Your blasting was blasted. That's how mesons behave

Autymn, the asymptotic freedom theory applies to the phony quark
theory to supposed bind between the quarks.

But the so-called quark binding energy is not a mass defect, (Like
normal binding energy is known to be) in fact phony binding energy is
used to ADD mass, as needed, to the mesons to conveniently get the
empirical mass for the meson.

And theoretical quark mass alone is not adhered to when trying to put
mesons together with quark content. Example: the K+ has a mass of
0.494 GeV and is supposedly made up of two (u,s) quarks, and the eta
meson has a mass energy of 0.958 GeV and be supposedly made up of six
(uu/dd/ss)quarks, even though the mass is only twice that of the K+.

They simply assign the supposed quark binding as any needed to get the
known measured mass for the meson.

No science, no predictions, just making the damn quark model fit as
best they can.

> > QVPP shows that nucleons are bound together in organized groups, in
> > their ground state.

> > Under excitation, I would imagine nucleons just oscillating in place
> > by their mutual bindings, never tried to do any calculations.

> You should...

It would be an exercise for those who deal with those matters.

Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Aug 1, 2005, 11:25:12 AM8/1/05

to

tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> Not news, Autymn, that (lambda = h/mc) is the basis for QVPP. See:
> www.amazon.com 0963154664 and look inside the book and read the BACK
> COVER.

Yes, news, you like David Thomson cannot tell the difference between
the wavelength of a particle and its size and width. That equation has
nothing to do with it. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then
science can't help you and you can't help science.

> Auytmn: Predictions? More like, lets see if I take three up quarks at
> +2/3e that will give me a charge of +2 for the Decuplet Delta ++.
>
> Those data are based on empirical measurements that have NOTHING to do
> with the quark, the quark was an afterthought.
>
> Besides, the +2/3e was (willy nilly) assigned to the quarks, not
> derived from their structures. That is NOT SCIENCE, it is cheating
> pure and simple.

Where's your evidence for all of this? Those charges were found by
scattering. I'll even lead you to an article about the proton assuming
three different shapes by how its quarks are whirling, if you can't
find it yourself.

> Nope, the QVPP structures for the electron and positron show that the
> momentum adds in the back and front faces of those leptons, causing
> spin and conserving the linear momentum of the photon(s) that created
> the pair.

and the foton's spin?

> But the so-called quark binding energy is not a mass defect, (Like
> normal binding energy is known to be) in fact phony binding energy is
> used to ADD mass, as needed, to the mesons to conveniently get the
> empirical mass for the meson.

You only say this because the lone quarks aren't measured like the
nucleons. But what's wrong with adding mass? They get the potential
by scattering, and don't find your magnetic inverse law.

> And theoretical quark mass alone is not adhered to when trying to put
> mesons together with quark content. Example: the K+ has a mass of
> 0.494 GeV and is supposedly made up of two (u,s) quarks, and the eta
> meson has a mass energy of 0.958 GeV and be supposedly made up of six
> (uu/dd/ss)quarks, even though the mass is only twice that of the K+.
>
> They simply assign the supposed quark binding as any needed to get the
> known measured mass for the meson.
>
> No science, no predictions, just making the damn quark model fit as
> best they can.

I see no problem with that for mesons. You could even set up weird
energy differences with electric dipoles by how the fields add and
subtract. Do you even make predictions for mesons and other "nature's
mistakes"? If quarks were so shoddy I'd expect the theorists to have
destroyed themselves by now.

-Aut

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 1, 2005, 6:55:24 PM8/1/05

to

"tnlo...@aol.com" <tnlo...@aol.com> writes:

>> >I thought we settled that long ago with the kinematics equations
>> >showing that (n-1H) neutrino (and its neutron binding energy) HAD TO
>> >BE ALSO CAPTURED to make a NORMAL neutron construction out of the
>> >proton.

>> In your dreams. I explained to you 100 times that this so-called n-1H
>> energy is your misunderstanding of how binding energy is defined. Do you
>> listen to me? Noooo....

>Liar, you and Bjoern did not even know what n-1H was until I showed you
>guys this:

OK, lets make it 101 times.

There is no "n-1H" for us to know about, really. What you call "n-1H"
is an artifact of how binding energy is measured. Binding energy of a
nucleon is the energy required to break it up into its components. But
because every two nuclei have different components (except isomers),
you cannot compare binding energy directly. For a beta decaying parent/
daugher pair, they are almost the same but one will have a neutron in
its components where the other has an electron and proton. Except for
that difference they are the same.

Consider tritium and He3. Break up tritium into its components and you
get a proton, an electron and two neutrons. Imagine putting these on the
left side of a tiny balance scale. Break up He3 and you get two protons,
two electrons and a neutron. Put these on the right side of the scale.
Which way does the scale tip and why? It'll tip to the left because
everything balances except for a neutron on the left where there is a
proton and electron on the right. The neutron is more massive than a
proton-electron pair. Apparently you were directly comparing binding
energies and decay energies of beta decayers, found you were always off
by 0.782 MeV because you didn't compensate for the components' mass
difference, and because you didn't understand what was going on, you
thought you were on to something. Sadly, you aren't.

>> Again, how many laws of physics does this violate? I count five, anyone
>> see more?

>Since you deleted the http I just reinstated above on Beta decay, your
>statement obviously is just trying to belittle. You, like Bjoern, are
>good at making blanket statements with no backup proof.

So you refuse to discuss all the violations of the laws of physics,
preferring to whine instead?

>> >> Lets not forget the negative charge in your neutron that switches off
>> >> or whatever at a distance but works close up.
>>
>> >Exactly,

>> Sheesh! You complain about quarks having fractional charges and yet you
>> come up with this bizarre sometimes-shortrange electric force and don't
>> even consider any of the electromagnetic laws this violates?!?!?

>You never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments against the
>successful QVPP electromagnetic structures.

No discussion about all the laws of physics this seems to violate?

>> And you never cease to amaze me with your stubborn arguments that
>> QVPP is successful despite holes you can sail a battleship through, and
>> claims the standard model is a failure, despite all its predictions.

>Name just one numerical prediction of the standard quark model relating
>to ordinary fundamental physical constants of matter (such as mass,
>charge, magnetic moment, spin angular momentum).

>Can't? Did not think so.

If you bother to check it out, the quark model correctly predicts charge
magnetic moments and angular momentum as combinations of those of the
quarks, and did you see the recent article about successful mass
predictions using the SM? And we both know that QVPP is a total failure
at predicting any of these. (and before you say anything, null "x=x"
proofs are not successes)

>PS.
>In the EETimes, issue 1381 (july 25, 2005) Scott Adams (Dilbet cartoon
>artist) Discussed with a reporter his certificate in hypnotism. Quote:

What the heck does Scott Adams and hypnotism have to do with any of this?

>So, there is no way I can make QVPP a win-win situation with you. Bye.

I will continue to point out to others why QVPP is a failure whether you
answer me or not.

Y.Porat

unread,

Aug 2, 2005, 1:38:24 AM8/2/05

to

Tom is right about his claim that the Quark theory is a big pompous
'balloon'

the claim that 90 percent of it is mass is Gluon's--

*is an insult to the human intelligence! and intellectual integrity!!*

instead of saying
we know only( at the most the most)
only 10 percent of the nucleids entity.

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------

Y.Porat

unread,

Aug 2, 2005, 1:45:29 AM8/2/05

to

Thanks Auty
you seem to be an English teacher
or may be even Shakespeare??
anyway
i advise Moroney to send him a copy
of the copy he has got.
maybe it will put him in his right proportions.

yet may be that in some aspects
and some limited areas Tom went further
than me ??
you never can tell......
and he is right IMHO about most of his criticism about the existing
situation.
that is much pompous and self chest drumming than it really worth. !!
---------

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------.

tnlo...@aol.com

unread,

Aug 2, 2005, 4:01:20 PM8/2/05

to

Autymn D. C. wrote:
> tnlo...@aol.com wrote:
> > Not news, Autymn, that (lambda = h/mc) is the basis for QVPP. See:
> > www.amazon.com 0963154664 and look inside the book and read the BACK
> > COVER.

> Yes, news, you like David Thomson cannot tell the difference between
> the wavelength of a particle and its size and width. That equation has
> nothing to do with it. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then
> science can't help you and you can't help science.

Huh? How do you tell particle size and width, if not by its
wavelength? Can you get particle mass from your dimensions?

Did not thing so.

One can get particle mass, knowing the wavelength. i.e. (Mass = h /
Lambda c)

> > Auytmn: Predictions? More like, lets see if I take three up quarks at
> > +2/3e that will give me a charge of +2 for the Decuplet Delta ++.
> >
> > Those data are based on empirical measurements that have NOTHING to do
> > with the quark, the quark was an afterthought.
> >
> > Besides, the +2/3e was (willy nilly) assigned to the quarks, not
> > derived from their structures. That is NOT SCIENCE, it is cheating
> > pure and simple.

> Where's your evidence for all of this? Those charges were found by
> scattering. I'll even lead you to an article about the proton assuming
> three different shapes by how its quarks are whirling, if you can't
> find it yourself.

Autymn, If that were their published results, then they got away with
those ridiculous conclusions because everyone (such as yourself) want
so fervently to believe in a proton quark content.

> > Nope, the QVPP structures for the electron and positron show that the
> > momentum adds in the back and front faces of those leptons, causing
> > spin and conserving the linear momentum of the photon(s) that created
> > the pair.

> and the foton's spin?

The photon does not spin. If you think otherwise please explain
elliptical polarization and circular polarization spins.

Only two photons, displaced by phase, can explain polarization spins.

> > But the so-called quark binding energy is not a mass defect, (Like
> > normal binding energy is known to be) in fact phony binding energy is
> > used to ADD mass, as needed, to the mesons to conveniently get the
> > empirical mass for the meson.

> You only say this because the lone quarks aren't measured like the
> nucleons. But what's wrong with adding mass? They get the potential
> by scattering, and don't find your magnetic inverse law.

The QVPP shows the strong force is electromagnetic and that the strong
force binding energy is caused by a photon energy giving the nuclei a
missing mass defect, just as is known experimentally.

Electric potential energy can hold particles together, and cause mass
energy to be added.

In fact QVPP shows that about 5 percent of the protons mass is due to
the electrical potential energy between nested conjugating proton and
neutron structures.

But theoretical gluons don't create electric potential energy.
Electrical potential energy requires opposing charges. Gluons have no
electrical charge, so cannot add mass.

> > And theoretical quark mass alone is not adhered to when trying to put
> > mesons together with quark content. Example: the K+ has a mass of
> > 0.494 GeV and is supposedly made up of two (u,s) quarks, and the eta
> > meson has a mass energy of 0.958 GeV and be supposedly made up of six
> > (uu/dd/ss)quarks, even though the mass is only twice that of the K+.
> >
> > They simply assign the supposed quark binding as any needed to get the
> > known measured mass for the meson.
> >
> > No science, no predictions, just making the damn quark model fit as
> > best they can.

> I see no problem with that for mesons. You could even set up weird
> energy differences with electric dipoles by how the fields add and
> subtract. Do you even make predictions for mesons and other "nature's
> mistakes"?

Yes, those who have the QVPP book, see Chapter 6.

>If quarks were so shoddy I'd expect the theorists to have
> destroyed themselves by now.

No, their fellows keep nominating each other for the Nobel, so they
keep trying to make the theory work.

As a result, the SM quark theory is thoroughly bastardized and is so
complicated, it is safe to say, no one fully understands it.

The quark model is dead in trespasses and sin.

Regards: Tom;

www.amazon.com 0963154664

Autymn D. C.

unread,

Aug 2, 2005, 11:56:03 PM8/2/05

to

he has gotten
than I