Modeling the source of the electron's fundamental charge.
Tnlockyer
given to us blindly and automatically by simply combining the photon model is
all possible ways. See and print out the link:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cfives.gif
Then print out this link for the positron and electron and VPP model general
geometry.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubedimensions.gif
The electron and positron are spinning by virtue of the vector directiions in
their front and back cube faces. (The VPP model shows the source of particle
spin is physical, not simply declared as by theory.)
The Rm mass centroid is spinning at the velocity of light to preserve the
linear photon momentum, in the spin angular momentum of the electron, giving
the required spin of:
1/2hbar = (mass) x (c) x (Rm).
Where (mass) is the electron mass in kilograms, (c) is the velocity of light,
and Rm = (lambda/4pi) from the model.
This model shows that the current nodes at the cube corners are traveling at a
peak velocity of the sqr2 c, because the (Rc) radius arm is sqr 2 times the
mass radius arm (Rm).
Armed with this VPP geometry, one can show agreement with predicting the
fundamental charge. See and print out this link:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/VPPcharge.gif
Review these records at your leisure. The value of the fundamental charge is
verified by the VPP geometry as shown in the above (VPPcharge.gif) link.
Notice, from the geometry of the spinning cube of EM energy, that the current
corner nodes sweep around the circumference of the two current loops, for a
total length of the sqr 2 times the electron's Compton wavelength, EXACTLY as
required..
Thus the current time in the loops is s = (sqr 2 lambda) / (sqr 2 c)
or s = lambda/ c
for exactly the required:
s = 8.09329971536509E-21 seconds.
To set the metric, the current is then obtained from the Bohr magneton as
19.7963317554118 Ampere.
The time (s) = 8.09329971536509E-21 seconds in the loop yields the stored as
charge as the:
fundamental (e) =1.60217646161347E-19 (A s).
(CODATA (e) =1.602176462E-19 (A s) )
Finally, this means that the current time in the loops can only store the exact
fundamental charge, because the same current is rotating, not multiplying.
Those who have a copy of the book shown in the sig, see page 30. The charge (e)
is shown (by alternate methods) to be divided equally between the VPP model's
two current loops
The proof of a model is how well it predicts or supports the fundamental
physical constants.
These VPP physical models, for the subatomic particles, use every facet of the
geometry, to obtain all related constants, as proof of the geometric modeling
approach.
Regards: Tom:
Thomas Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Particles and Nuclear Models"
0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,
you know something about it. Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
larry shultis
"Tnlockyer" <tnlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020405134856...@mb-ft.aol.com...
Thomas, please do not write things like " s = 8.09E-21 s . That is not a
valid equation. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when
you cannot write a valid equation? I have addressed that problem in other
threads.
Larry
Jim Heckman
On 5-Apr-2002, tnlo...@aol.com (Tnlockyer) wrote:
> The electron and positron are spinning by virtue of the vector directiions
> in
> their front and back cube faces. (The VPP model shows the source of
> particle spin is physical, not simply declared as by theory.)
If by "physical" you mean that the source of electron spin is a
distribution of momentum density in position space, then the VPP
model is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. In QM, any such
orbital angular momentum must be an integer multiple of h-bar.
--
Jim Heckman
Fredi Fizzx
You have it backwards again. The constants support your model (which
is OK). Your model does not support the constants since you put them
in and then extract them out. If you agree that the Bohr Magneton is
equal to (e*h)/(4*pi*me) (which anyone knows it is), then anyone can
freely substitute (e*h)/(4*pi*me) for uB anytime uB is shown. Here it
is for you one more time. I will keep posting this until you get it.
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/vppprovesnada.pdf
FrediFizzx
larry shultis
were
> given to us blindly and automatically by simply combining the photon model
is
> all possible ways. See and print out the link:
Perhaps it is time to ask you what you meant in the introduction of your
book "Vector Particle Physics" (1992) by "Vector Particle Physics presents,
for
the first time, mathematically consistent models for the structures of
energy
and matter."
I can understand the modeling of the structure of matter since matter is
what
makes up objective reality. But how does one "model" energy? Energy is an
ability or a capacity to do work. It is an abstract conservation
relationship between
bodies and the internal constituents of a body. It is measured in terms of
mass
and motion, both of which are (just as are space and time) relative
relationships
between bodies or between the constituent particles making up the bodies.
Photons
are massless particles of matter not energy. When one says that energy is
transferred
from one place to another, one is saying that the relative motions and
quantity
of the matter in one place has changed in some particular way while the
relative
motions and quantity of the matter in the other place has changed in a way
such that the total relative motions and quantity of matter are conserved.
By
quantity, I mean the number of whatever might be the most elementary of
particles
of matter that make up all other bodies of matter. Whether that quantity has
measurable mass depends upon the how a particular body relates to other
bodies.
Larry
[snip]
Fredi Fizzx
Yes, that is really sloppy and bugs me also. You should write your
electron's time as t sub e or something like that.
FrediFizzx
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/5/2002 9:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <uat37o3...@news.supernews.com>
Jim, the model does not describe orbital, but intrinsic electron spin. See the
new thread on the gyromagnetic ratio.
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Partcles and Nuclear Models"
0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/6/2002 1:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <fe51764e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
>tnlo...@aol.com (Tnlockyer) wrote in message
>snip<>> The proof of a model is how well it predicts or supports the
fundamental
>> physical constants.
>You have it backwards again. The constants support your model (which
>is OK). Your model does not support the constants since you put them
>in and then extract them out.
>snip<
Nope, the current loops show the charge is the current-time stored in them.
Large loops calculate as small currents (A) and large storage times (s).
Small loops calculate as large currents (A) and short storage times (s).
Result of the VPP geometry is that the product of current and storage time is
ALWAYS exactly the fundamental charge (e).
See the electron and proton core particle results on the same page.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/setchargespin.gif
This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
charge.
Trouble is neither you nor anyone else seem to understand WHAT charge is.
It is not simply a matter of x=x in these VPP models.
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/6/2002 11:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <uauej1p...@corp.supernews.com>
>"Tnlockyer" <tnlo...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> The vector particle physics models (VPP) for the positron and electron
>were
>> given to us blindly and automatically by simply combining the photon model
>is
>> all possible ways. See and print out the link:
>Perhaps it is time to ask you what you meant in the introduction of your
>book "Vector Particle Physics" (1992) by "Vector Particle Physics presents,
>for
>the first time, mathematically consistent models for the structures of
>energy
>and matter."
The model calculates the mass of the proton and neutron, for the very first
time EVER. That should earn the right to say the model is mathematically
consistent.
The complain of QCD and QED is that they are not mathematically consistent, and
Feynman said so in so many words in his book. "QED The Strange Story of Light
and Matter"
>I can understand the modeling of the structure of matter since matter is
>what
>makes up objective reality. But how does one "model" energy?
The photon IS kinetic energy. Here is how energy was modeled,
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/travphoton.gif
And the photon math is:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/ephoton.gif
That photon model straight lines the energy over all time and transports the
energy, apparently without loss. (Infinite Q or "quality factor" otherwise the
red shift would be due to tired light).
This photon (energy) model led to the structures of particles, and their
interaction in atomic nuclei.
>Energy is an
>ability or a capacity to do work.
Yes, the model shows that energy (photon) develops an urgent motion, due to the
joining of two conjugate electrical resonances, from the (zero energy) E, H
to H, E and their recycles, as the photon translates.
>Photons
>are massless particles of matter not energy.
Larry, in my view, photons are the carriers of electromagnetic energy, and
so are composed of that same electromagnetic energy.
Regards: Tom:
Tom Lockyer (75 and retired) See "Vector Partcles and Nuclear Models"
0963154680 at http://www.amazon.com
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers,
FrediFizzx
news:20020408135030...@mb-fn.aol.com...
| > fredi...@hotmail.com (Fredi Fizzx)
| >Date: 4/6/2002 1:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
| >Message-id: <fe51764e.02040...@posting.google.com>
|
| >
| >tnlo...@aol.com (Tnlockyer) wrote in message
|
| >snip<>> The proof of a model is how well it predicts or supports the
| fundamental
| >> physical constants.
|
| >You have it backwards again. The constants support your model (which
| >is OK). Your model does not support the constants since you put them
| >in and then extract them out.
| >snip<
|
| Nope, the current loops show the charge is the current-time stored in
them.
|
| Large loops calculate as small currents (A) and large storage times (s).
|
| Small loops calculate as large currents (A) and short storage times (s).
|
| Result of the VPP geometry is that the product of current and storage time
is
| ALWAYS exactly the fundamental charge (e).
Your geometry *is based* on the fundamental constants. So what? They
should always get exactly the fundamental charge e because that is what you
started with. e in, e out. As I have plainly shown in
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/vppprovesnada.pdf
Start with e=e and derive your e=A*s. Just start at the end and go towards
where I started. You end up with your geometry in the middle. That exactly
proves that you are starting with e=e and don't even see it.
| See the electron and proton core particle results on the same page.
|
| http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/setchargespin.gif
|
| This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
| charge.
| Trouble is neither you nor anyone else seem to understand WHAT charge is.
|
| It is not simply a matter of x=x in these VPP models.
Thomas, does the Bohr magneton equal (e*h)/(4*pi*me)? A yes or no answer is
all that is required. Does the Compton wavelength equal h/(me*c)? A yes or
no answer is all that is required. If you answer yes, then it is very plain
to see that your calculations reduce to x=x and prove nothing. If you
answer no, then you don't know what you are talking about. Why is it that
any high school algebra student could see exactly what you are doing and you
can't see it? You are *not* proving anything when you start with something
that has e and spin in them and then extract them out later. All you are
doing is spamming this newsgroup with statements that are not true and you
have absolutely no credibility when you do that. It is fine that you have a
new way of looking at something (your geometry) in the middle of this. But
making false statements that it proves something that it doesn't is really
really bad. If you really can't see it, then I will try to make it more
clear.
FrediFizzx
Gordon D. Pusch
that his `theory' is an entirely circular exercise in proving x = x.
KILLfile him and let him spew to vacuum --- life will be ever so much
more pleasant for you if you don't waste your time and bandwidth on him...
-- Gordon D. Pusch
perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'
FrediFizzx
news:3cb26157$0$30654$8252...@news.compuserve.de...
Here, I have done it for you. If you don't understand this then there is no
hope for you and your ideas.
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/studycarefully.pdf
Thomas, do you see that I derived your equation by simply multiplying one
side of e=e by 1/1 and making proper substitutions. Pretty tricky, huh?
Well, guess what? That is exactly what you are doing (whist hiding it) and
why you have no credibility as long as you keep doing this.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
news:giadsd4...@pusch.xnet.com...
Well, I gave it one more shot and my best to get thru to him. But I have to
admit that going thru all this has given me a better understanding of how
things really are. Problem is there is one more thing that is bugging me
about his ideas and it keeps getting pushed to the side because he
constantly argues about meaningless things rather than discussing what he
should be talking about. I think I did get him turned around on the
electron volt thing. So I thought I would give it a shot on this.
FrediFizzx
Michael Moroney
>>You have it backwards again. The constants support your model (which
>>is OK). Your model does not support the constants since you put them
>>in and then extract them out.
>>snip<
>Nope, the current loops show the charge is the current-time stored in them.
>Large loops calculate as small currents (A) and large storage times (s).
>Small loops calculate as large currents (A) and short storage times (s).
>Result of the VPP geometry is that the product of current and storage time is
>ALWAYS exactly the fundamental charge (e).
So you show that e has dimensionality of A s. Big deal, hardly proves
the VPP crapola.
>This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
>charge.
Disproof by counterexamples: The neutron, and the neutrinos.
>It is not simply a matter of x=x in these VPP models.
FrediFizzx did some excellent work in showing that your work is all x=x
proofs. See http://www.flashrock.com/upload/vppprovesnada.pdf and
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/studycarefully.pdf .
Look, Thomas. Nobody is ever going to pay attention to any ideas you have
if you keep churning out x=x "proofs" and present them as "evidence". You
should sit down and whittle down all your equations and eliminate the x=x
"proofs". Maybe your book will be reduced to one page, but maybe, just
maybe, that one page might have a gem. Or maybe not.
-Mike
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
:>This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
:>charge.
:
: Disproof by counterexamples: The neutron, and the neutrinos.
: Look, Thomas. Nobody is ever going to pay attention to any ideas you have
: if you keep churning out x=x "proofs" and present them as "evidence".
Disproof by counterexample: how much time you spent explaining to him the
difference between a volt and an electron volt.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
larry shultis
As you indicate below, your statement that "The photon IS kinetic
energy"
is not consistent with your understanding of energy. See below.
>
> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/travphoton.gif
>
> And the photon math is:
>
> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/ephoton.gif
>
> That photon model straight lines the energy over all time and
transports the
> energy, apparently without loss. (Infinite Q or "quality factor"
otherwise the
> red shift would be due to tired light).
>
> This photon (energy) model led to the structures of particles,
and their
> interaction in atomic nuclei.
>
> >Energy is an
> >ability or a capacity to do work.
>
> Yes, the model shows that energy (photon) develops an urgent
motion, due to the
> joining of two conjugate electrical resonances, from the (zero
energy) E, H
> to H, E and their recycles, as the photon translates.
You say "Yes" but at the same time reify "ability or a capacity to
do work"
into a photon. The photon has the "capacity" to do work but is NOT
itself a
"capacity"-- which is and abstract measurement of some body of
matter relative to
other bodies of matter.
The abstract nature of energy can be expressed as Keith R. Symon
did in his
book "Mechanics": "We might, for example, define energy as that
quantity
which is constant because the laws of physics are always the same
(if indeed
they are!).
Larry
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/9/2002 12:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>
>thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) writes:
>
>>Nope, the current loops show the charge is the current-time stored in them.
>
>>Large loops calculate as small currents (A) and large storage times (s).
>
>>Small loops calculate as large currents (A) and short storage times (s).
>>Result of the VPP geometry is that the product of current and storage time
>is
>>ALWAYS exactly the fundamental charge (e).
>
>So you show that e has dimensionality of A s. Big deal, hardly proves
>the VPP crapola.
God, you all still ignore the role of VPP model geometry.
Perhaps this will help to see my point.
I have included an insert, along with the math to show the geometry of the
spinning cube model does indeed calculate the Bohr.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/emagcalc.gif
Notice, with the VPP model GEOMETRY, that one can obtain the Bohr by just the
electron's Compton wavelegth, fundamental charge and velocity of light.
>>This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
>>charge.
>Disproof by counterexamples: The neutron, and the neutrinos.
>
Nope, the neutron proves to have a charged core, in atomic nuclei. That fact
proves the strong force is electromagnetic in origin.
Remember VPP gets the binding energy of the deuteron, tritium, etc, and PROVES
the neutron core is charged.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/tritium.gif
And, You forget that the model automatically gives a structure to the
neutrinos and shows how their vectors combine in composite particles. Look at
the neutrino models, and see that they are born non spinning.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cfives.gif
The neutrino only spins in concert with the electron or positron, creating
charge and mass in composite particles. This maintains the spin statistics.
You also forgot that their are no neutrinos emitted from EC or B+ decays so the
experiments used to infer neutrino spin from photon emission are faulty.
You also forgot that the model gives the mass of the proton and neutron, and
shows the electron and neutrino decay products of the neutron DIRECTLY, using
the rules of the model.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/proneumass.gif
>FrediFizzx did some excellent work in showing that your work is all x=x
>proofs. See http://www.flashrock.com/upload/vppprovesnada.pdf and
>http://www.flashrock.com/upload/studycarefully.pdf .
Sure, that is just good dimensional anlaysis. Tell Fredi to look at Chapter 11
in my first book. "Vector Particle Physics" and the compter program code in
Appendix B.
I showed three ways to calculate the fine structure constant using dimensional
analysis.
(1) from the permeabiltiy of the vacuum
(2) by the permeabitity of the vacuum and
(3) using an engineering equation for the magnetic field in Tesla.
In this later case, I used the vector electron's two current loops, and treated
the electron as a two turn electromagnetic coil.
T = (Uo NA)/ m
You already saw the fine structure constant obtained from the Bohr;
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/magfinecons.gif
The fact that Fredi got dimensional analysis to show basic units cancel out,
does nothing to refute the GEOMETRY of the VPP electron.
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/10/2002 8:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>
>"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> The photon IS kinetic energy. Here is how energy was modeled,
>
>As you indicate below, your statement that "The photon IS kinetic
>energy"
>is not consistent with your understanding of energy. See below.
>
>> And the photon math is:
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/ephoton.gif
>>
>> That photon model straight lines the energy over all time and
>transports the
>> energy, apparently without loss.
>> >Energy is an
>> >ability or a capacity to do work.
>>
>> Yes, the model shows that energy (photon) develops an urgent
>motion, due to the
>> joining of two conjugate electrical resonances, from the (zero
>energy) E, H
>> to H, E and their recycles, as the
>photon translates.
>
>You say "Yes" but at the same time reify "ability or a capacity to
>do work"
>into a photon. The photon has the "capacity" to do work but is NOT
>itself a
>"capacity"-- which is and abstract measurement of some body of
>matter relative to
>other bodies of matter.
Larry, I tried to reify energy in my first book which you have. See Chapter 5.
In my view, kinetic energy is manifested in motion.
The photon (that is kinetic energy) does indeed move. But to do work, the
energy must have the ability to impart motion to matter.
I theorized that a portion of the photon's energy resonantly slooshed back and
forth in matter, sets the matter in motion. See Figure 5 "Dirac's motion theory
vector model"
>The abstract nature of energy can be expressed as Keith R. Symon
>did in his
>book "Mechanics": "We might, for example, define energy as that
>quantity
>which is constant because the laws of physics are always the same
Yes, the energy can never be at rest. Even when energy is stored it has to be
by resonant standing waves.
Michael Moroney
>>So you show that e has dimensionality of A s. Big deal, hardly proves
>>the VPP crapola.
>God, you all still ignore the role of VPP model geometry.
Nope, it just cancels out (x=x proofs) and is thus irrelevant.
>Perhaps this will help to see my point.
>I have included an insert, along with the math to show the geometry of the
>spinning cube model does indeed calculate the Bohr.
Oh now you are getting silly. First we have fractional charges (correct
me if I am wrong, but I think that is a complaint you had against the
quark theory). Second, you have those fractional charges exceeding the
speed of light?!?! Also, you appeared to have pulled out this "edge
velocity" (sqrt(2)*c) out of your, err, hat. And third, your Bohr
"derivation" is just a roundabout way of coming up with the definition of
the Bohr, and thus is (yet another!) x=x "proof".
Also, how do you rationalize that the measured size of an electron is less
than 1E-18 m, possibly zero, much smaller than your silly cubes.
>Notice, with the VPP model GEOMETRY, that one can obtain the Bohr by just the
>electron's Compton wavelegth, fundamental charge and velocity of light.
Which are just the constants in the definition of the Bohr, jumbled up.
X=x proof.
> >>This model proves that all (1/2hbar) spinning particles have exactly (e)
>>>charge.
>>Disproof by counterexamples: The neutron, and the neutrinos.
>>
>Nope, the neutron proves to have a charged core, in atomic nuclei. That fact
The neutron is a neutral particle. You said that all 1/2 hbar spinning
particles have exactly e charge. The neutron is a 1/2 hbar spinning particle.
Thus disproof by counterexample.
>Remember VPP gets the binding energy of the deuteron, tritium, etc, and PROVES
>the neutron core is charged.
I already showed the deuteron "proof" is just an "x=x" proof.
>And, You forget
>You also forgot that
>You also forgot that
I "forgot" nothing. I've ignored defective proofs, and "x=x" proofs, and
proofs that violate known laws of physics (at least without a pretty damn
good explanation!) You've just added two more law violations without
explanation or comment (exceeding c, and now a zero spin neutrino violates
conservation of angular momentum in B- decay)
>You also forgot that their are no neutrinos emitted from EC or B+ decays so the
>experiments used to infer neutrino spin from photon emission are faulty.
Back to the violations of momentum, angular momentum and energy, as well
as CPT violations (EC should look like B- decay "in reverse" with
particle/antiparticle substitution where appropiate)
Again, you need to come up with some pretty convincing evidence that all
these violations of the laws of physics as we know them that you predict
take place.
>>FrediFizzx did some excellent work in showing that your work is all x=x
>>proofs. See http://www.flashrock.com/upload/vppprovesnada.pdf and
>>http://www.flashrock.com/upload/studycarefully.pdf .
>Sure, that is just good dimensional anlaysis. Tell Fredi to look at Chapter 11
>in my first book. "Vector Particle Physics" and the compter program code in
>Appendix B.
You missed his whole point, it's trivially easy to generate your "x=x"
proofs, and "introduce" new variables that cancel (such as lambda/lambda)
He even left you a free clue (which you missed) in the name of the second
file.
> I showed three ways to calculate the fine structure constant using dimensional
>analysis.
Yes, three fine examples of "x=x" proofs.
>The fact that Fredi got dimensional analysis to show basic units cancel out,
>does nothing to refute the GEOMETRY of the VPP electron.
All the supposed "geometry" cancels out! That was his whole point.
-Mike
Jim Heckman
On 8-Apr-2002, thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote:
> >"Jim Heckman" wnzrfe...@lnubb.pbz
> >Date: 4/5/2002 9:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <uat37o3...@news.supernews.com>
>
> >On 5-Apr-2002, tnlo...@aol.com (Tnlockyer) wrote:
> >
> >> The electron and positron are spinning by virtue of the vector
> >> directiions in
> >> their front and back cube faces. (The VPP model shows the source of
> >> particle spin is physical, not simply declared as by theory.)
>
> >If by "physical" you mean that the source of electron spin is a
> >distribution of momentum density in position space, then the VPP
> >model is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. In QM, any such
> >orbital angular momentum must be an integer multiple of h-bar.
>
> Jim, the model does not describe orbital, but intrinsic electron spin.
Intrinsic electron spin is experimentally observed to be 1/2 h-bar. It
cannot arise from any configuration of electro-magnetic energy,
which is composed of spin-1 photons.
> See the new thread on the gyromagnetic ratio.
--
Jim Heckman
Jim Heckman
On 10-Apr-2002, thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote:
> Nope, the neutron proves to have a charged core, in atomic nuclei. That
> fact proves the strong force is electromagnetic in origin.
The neutron proves to have a massive core, in atomic nuclei. That
fact proves the strong force is gravitational in origin.
--
Jim Heckman
larry shultis
You are almost there, i.e., you say "kinetic energy is manifested
in motion"
which means kinetic energy is a particular measurement of matter
in motion
with respect to other matter, and is not the photon itself. If the
photon is
kinetic energy, what is kinetic energy of, say, a body moving
within a
gravitational field where the motion is not related to photons?
> energy must have the ability to impart motion to matter.
> I theorized that a portion of the photon's energy resonantly
slooshed back and
> forth in matter, sets the matter in motion. See Figure 5
"Dirac's motion theory
> vector model"
>
> >The abstract nature of energy can be expressed as Keith R.
Symon
> >did in his
> >book "Mechanics": "We might, for example, define energy as
that
> >quantity
> >which is constant because the laws of physics are always the
same
>
> Yes, the energy can never be at rest. Even when energy is
stored it has to be
> by resonant standing waves.
Do you just say "yes" for the fun of it and then write whatever
was
going though your stream of consciousness as you read something?
What does your comment have to do with what you answered yes to?
Larry
Jacques Distler
<gold...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the energy can never be at rest. Even when energy is
>stored it has to be
>> by resonant standing waves.
>
>Do you just say "yes" for the fun of it and then write whatever
>was
>going though your stream of consciousness as you read something?
>What does your comment have to do with what you answered yes to?
>Larry
Don't get Thomas started again on the conservation of energy in
electromagnetism.
Note his use of the phrase "has to be [stored] by resonant standing
waves" -- the same misapprehension that he is still unable to shed
despite all of our efforts to explain the conservation of energy to
him.
Alas, for someone incapable of even simple dimensional analysis,
understanding the conservation of energy in E&M is vastly too difficult
a task.
JD
--
PGP public key: http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/distler.asc
Michael Moroney
>In article <GuBFF7...@world.std.com>, Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>: Disproof by counterexamples: The neutron, and the neutrinos.
>: Look, Thomas. Nobody is ever going to pay attention to any ideas you have
>: if you keep churning out x=x "proofs" and present them as "evidence".
>Disproof by counterexample: how much time you spent explaining to him the
>difference between a volt and an electron volt.
You got me here, I guess. But for some reason, I like trying to "correct"
crackpots, even if it is a hopeless task.
-Mike