Model for the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron.
ThomasL283
intrinsic magnetic moment. The dimensionless ratio between them is called the
gyromagnetic ratio.
It has been said that the electron seems to spin twice while the world spins
once. The vector particle model shows the electron has two current loops,
and provides a possible explanation of the gyromagnetic ratio, of two.
The vector electron structure was given to us automatically, by simply
combining the photon in all possible ways.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cfives.gif
The spinning structure, of the naturally formed vector electron, shows that
there are two current loops, the front and back cube faces.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/cubedimensions.gif
Note the positron has H vectors and the electron has E vectors in the rotating
faces. This (H, E) rotation suggests the source of the positive and negative
charge currents. Those unique electromagnetic structures, of the positron and
electron, are given to us automatically, by combining the photon in all
possible ways.
The two current loops apparently are the reason that the intrinsic spin is more
effective, than orbital spin, in creating a magnetic moment and explains the
gyromagnetic ratio of (2).
The maths for the effects of the ‘g' of (2) for the Bohr, and ‘gs' of
(2.00231930428773) for the anomalous magnetic moment, are shown in this link.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/VPPBohr.gif
Those who have a copy of my book, see page 30.
These naturally produced models continue to give answers that were not
consciously put into them. The mark of a good model.
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,
you know something about it." Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
larry shultis
"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020408131717...@mb-fn.aol.com...
Perhaps you mean not explicitly put into them? You have just used
the definitions
for alpha sub e, the Bohr magneton, and mu sub e, calculated the
numerical
values from the definitions and plugged them into the definition
for gs. Nothing
from the model went into the calculations, i.e., nothing about the
cube structure,
but a lot of implicitly used fundamental constants.
Larry
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/8/2002 10:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ub3lprl...@corp.supernews.com>
>
>"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> The electron's orbital magnetic moment is half as large as the
>electron's
>> intrinsic magnetic moment. The dimensionless ratio between them
>is called the
>> gyromagnetic ratio.
>>
>> It has been said that the electron seems to spin twice while the
>world spins
>> once. The vector particle model shows the electron has two
>current loops,
>> and provides a possible explanation of the gyromagnetic ratio,
>of two.
>>
>snip<
>>
>> The maths for the effects of the 'g' of (2) for the Bohr, and
>'gs' of
>> (2.00231930428773) for the anomalous magnetic moment, are shown
>in this link.
>>
>> http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/VPPBohr.gif
>>
>> Those who have a copy of my book, see page 30.
>>
>> These naturally produced models continue to give answers that
>were not
>> consciously put into them. The mark of a good model.
>
>Perhaps you mean not explicitly put into them?
No, some of the answers that were not
consciously put into them where:
The two current loops giving the gyromagnetic ratio of two.
Or the mechanism for spin from the vector directions in the front and back cube
faces.
Or the conjugate structures for the positron and electron.
Or the sqr 2 ratio between the spinning mass loop radius, and the charge
current loops radius.
Or the current loop circumferences that are the required sqr 2 times lambda for
that particlular particle.
Or the fact that the current time in the various sized loops is always (e) and
thus explaining why the light electron and more massive proton both have the
charge of (e) exactly.
Or suggesting the source for positive and negative charge currents as resulting
from H spin in the positron or E spin in the electron.
Or the automatically giving of structures for the neutrinos, and how nature
uses them in particle structures.
Or the fact that the nested cubes scale to the dimensionless mass of BOTH the
proton and neutron, using just the dimensionless fine structure constant.
Or that the binding energy is the result of a null kinetic energy release of
some of the potential electromagnetic field energy, that accompany each
nucleon.
So, you see what was meant, by the mark of a good model giving answers that
were not consciously put in to them.
All this resulted from simply combining the photon in all possible ways,
automatically giving particle structure.
The result is a geometry and structure details that work just as they should.
FrediFizzx
<snip>|
| The maths for the effects of the ‘g' of (2) for the Bohr, and ‘gs' of
| (2.00231930428773) for the anomalous magnetic moment, are shown in this
link.
|
| http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/VPPBohr.gif
|
magneton from your model. All it takes is Compton wavelength and e inserted
(which you are doing) to derive the Bohr mag. All this other stuff you have
worked out with the geometry is fine and wonderful, but stop claiming you
are deriving something that you clearly are not. This greatly diminishes
any other ideas you have.
FrediFizzx
ThomasL283
>>Date: 4/8/2002 10:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <ub3lprl...@corp.supernews.com>
>>"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>>> The electron's orbital magnetic moment is half as large as the
>>electron's
>>> intrinsic magnetic moment. The dimensionless ratio between them
>>is called the
>>> gyromagnetic ratio.
>>>
>>> It has been said that the electron seems to spin twice while the
>>world spins
>>> once. The vector particle model shows the electron has two
>>current loops,
>>> and provides a possible explanation of the gyromagnetic ratio,
>>of two.
Larry, here is a better show of the theory.
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/emagcalc.gif
There is now a insert showing the model geometry along with the math that
obtains from the VPP geometry to calculate the Bohr, and to prove the VPP
approach.
Regards, Tom:
ThomasL283
>Date: 4/10/2002 10:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <QR_s8.3048$55.132...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
>
>"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
Fredi writes:
>There you go again. You *cannot* claim that you are deriving the Bohr
>magneton from your model. All it takes is Compton wavelength and e inserted
>(which you are doing) to derive the Bohr mag.
Yes, but why?
All the algebra does is give us a two dimensional view (and blind view) of what
nature is doing.
> All this other stuff you have
>worked out with the geometry is fine and wonderful, but stop claiming you
>are deriving something that you clearly
>are not. This greatly diminishes
>any other ideas you have.
>
Yes, it seems particle physics is the cult of the personality, but, one
shouldn't judge the VPP models against my abiltiy (or lack of ability) as an
expositor.
I am just a lowly engineer and the vernacular of physics is not my strong
suit.
Regards: Tom:
FrediFizzx
| >FrediFizzx" fredi...@hotmail.com
| >Date: 4/10/2002 10:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
| >Message-id: <QR_s8.3048$55.132...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
|
| >
| >"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
|
| Fredi writes:
| >There you go again. You *cannot* claim that you are deriving the Bohr
| >magneton from your model. All it takes is Compton wavelength and e
inserted
| >(which you are doing) to derive the Bohr mag.
|
| Yes, but why?
| All the algebra does is give us a two dimensional view (and blind view) of
what
| nature is doing.
Why is by definition. It is fine if you want to use your model geometry to
show what is going on with Compton wavelength, e, Bohr magneton, alpha, etc.
and how they are related by definition, but it is wrong to say that you are
deriving something from scratch when you are not. You models are based on
Compton wavelength and charge. That *automatically* relates them to the
Bohr magneton, Planck constant, fine structure constant, etc. because of how
these constants are defined. Use your models to show how they might be
related (which you do to some extent), instead of clouding your complete
picture with false claims. Forget the numerical values and use the
equations only. You keep throwing in numerical values and you are losing
track of what is really going on. You can see from the Mathcad PDF files
that I have posted, that it is possible to work with the equations only.
Overall, in your books anywise, you have told an incredible story and it is
fairly well linked together, but you have some basic mistakes you need to
correct. Now, I am not going to say whether or not your story has any basis
in actual reality (maybe some), but it does provoke some thought. So that
gives it some value in its own right. Just clean it up from some of the
suggestions given to you via this newsgroup, and it will be a better story
in the long run. Specifically, check for and take out any "proofs" and
derivations that can be reduced to x=x by using the equations and fix the
section where you used volts inplace of where you should have been using
energy units. Or change your mistaken proofs and derivations to *examples*
of how things might be related geometrically. Use the equations only and it
will be easy. You need to be very careful about making blatantly false
claims. This only turns people off and distracts from your main ideas. It
is OK to make assumptions and then expand upon the assumptions as long as
you state that they are based on assumptions.
And I would suggest that you should tone down your rhetoric against QED, QM,
and QCD. See if anything from those ideas can help support your ideas. You
might be surprised that there are some things in common. For example,
quarks came out of the idea of "partons". You have partons also. Your
partons would behave oddly also if your proton was hit by a high energy
probe. Have you though much about that? I liked it in your first book
where you showed the alternating nested "cubes" of positive and negative
charge. Hit that with a high energy probe and you are going to end up with
a certain percentage momentum with positive charge and a certain percentage
momentum with negative charge. Sound familiar? Well, maybe I don't know
exactly what I am talking about but maybe it is some food for thought also.
Try to see if anything from your models can predict what they are seeing in
HEP experiments. What exactly would happen if your partons were "struck" by
a high energy probe and knocked out and loose from each other?
FrediFizzx
ThomasL283
Wrote in:
Message-id: <3cb534d2$0$30679$8252...@news.compuserve.de>
"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020410143522...@mb-mu.aol.com...
>| >FrediFizzx" fredi...@hotmail.com
>| >Date: 4/10/2002 10:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>| >Message-id: <QR_s8.3048$55.132...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
|
>| >
>| >"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
|
>| Fredi writes:
>| >There you go again. You *cannot* claim that you are deriving the Bohr
>| >magneton from your model. All it takes is Compton wavelength and e
inserted
>| >(which you are doing) to derive the Bohr mag.
|
>| Yes, but why?
>| All the algebra does is give us a two dimensional view (and blind view) of
what
>| nature is doing.
>Why is by definition. It is fine if you want to use your model geometry to
>show what is going on with Compton wavelength, e, Bohr magneton, alpha, etc.
>and how they are related by definition, but it is wrong to say that you are
>deriving something from scratch when you are not. You models are based on
>Compton wavelength and charge. That *automatically* relates them to the
>Bohr magneton, Planck constant, fine structure constant, etc. because of how
>these constants are defined.
Fredi, the word defined is a little strong, I think related is more apt. When
I was Supervisor of Engineering Standards, circa 1977, the VPP model had
started to give me results. I corresponded with the National Bureau of
Standards, Dr. Barry Taylor, to show that the model seemed to be giving,
independently of direct experiments, the values for both the proton and neutron
mass ratios. In 1980, a paper, on the subject was submitted, for
presentation at the NBS 1981 conference. The paper was not accepted, but Dr.
Taylor did invite me to attend, which I did.
In 1977, using the 1973 adjustment of the constants the VPP model gets; Mp/me
= 1836.14769 and Mn/me = 1838.685121.
Now, it is realized that using only the 1998 fine structure constant, directly,
VPP gets, 1836.146768 and 1838.68439 as you saw:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/proneumass.gif
Remember, just the year before my proposed paper, the (1979) Nobel was awarded
for the "electroweak theory", so no one was receptive to a model that disproved
the quark.
What was particularly insulting to me was the paper on quarks that WAS
accepted.
That paper, by S. J. Brodsky, was pure BS with equations showing lots of
tildes ~.
Brodsky wisely would not take questions from the floor (claiming there was not
time).
At the break the rest room was crowded, and I broke the silence with
"The theoretical physicist need the quark, ----I'm not so sure nature does."
(If you know Brodsky, ask him if he remembers.)
Note, it is 21 years later, and the quark electroweak model has not been
proved. (Even as we speak, they are spending billions to try to detect the
Higgs needed to protect the "electroweak theory" from falsification). Those
are the brutal facts.
>Use your models to show how they might be
>related (which you do to some extent), instead of clouding your complete
>picture with false claims. Forget the numerical values and use the
>equations only. You keep throwing in numerical values and you are losing
>track of what is really going on. You can see from the Mathcad PDF files
>that I have posted, that it is possible to work with the equations only.
Fredi: the original question, raised by Vergon, was why does the electron and
proton have exactly the same charge.
I showed that the reason was the electron has a VPP volume of 9.0452224E-38
meters cubed, and the proton's charge core has a VPP volume of 2.7035344414E-48
meters cubed.
So what?
Consequently, the power density of the VPP electron is 3.9602909 E30 Watts per
meter squared, and the proton VPP core has a power density of 4.26949866 E44
watts per meter squared.
So what?
The VPP electron, consequently, has an electric field strength of 3.86259192
E16 Volts per meter, and the VPP proton core has an electric field of
4.01054805 E23 Volts per meter.
So what?
The VPP electron then has a charge density of 3.420011433 E5 Coulombs per meter
squared, and the VPP proton core then has a charge density of 3.551014574 E12
Coulombs per meter squared.
So what?
Well the VPP electron has a current loop area of 4.684710836 E-25 meters
squared, and the VPP proton core has a current loop area of 4.4118836566 E-32
meters squared.
So what?
Well, you multiply the VPP electron's charge density by the VPP electron's
current loop areas, and lo and behold, you get 1.60217646 E-19 Coulombs, for
the electron model, fundamental charge.
And, you multiply the VPP proton core's charge density by the VPP proton core's
current loop areas, and lo and behold, you get 1.60217646 E-19 Coulombs, for
the proton model, fundamental charge.
See:
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/modelcharge.gif
http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/protoncharge.gif
The point I am trying to make is: simply using the equations, as you show in
your dimensional analysis, does not prove that BOTH electron and proton
have a fundamental charge, as was Vergon's originating question.
The only way to relate to the electron and to the proton fundamental charge is
to introduce their numerical dimensions. And then you will just end up
verifying the VPP geometry values.
>Overall, in your books anywise, you have told an incredible story and it is
>fairly well linked together, but you have some basic mistakes you need to
>correct. Now, I am not going to say whether or not your story has any basis
>in actual reality (maybe some), but it does provoke some thought. So that
>gives it some value in its own right.
Thanks, very brave of you. I think others would agree with you if they got a
copy of the last book.
But, as you have seen, in these news groups, first they tar you with "crackpot"
and then that gives them licence to not consider any thing you say seriously.
And when you start to make sense, they do not dare give credit, else they loose
face with the other wiffen poofs, who would rather serenade THEIR Louie, while
life and breath they have.
>Just clean it up from some of the
>suggestions given to you via this newsgroup, and it will be a better story
>in the long run. Specifically, check for and take out any "proofs" and
>derivations that can be reduced to x=x by using the equations and fix the
>section where you used volts in place of where you should have been using
>energy units.
Good advise. But, please note, it is not convenient to use electron volts, in
developing the equations for the binding energy. Rather than dividing energy
by the normal fundamental charge, I would have to put a dimension less charge
in my variables list.
The physics is not violated by using a normal (e) and one gets the correct
numerical values, as you noted.
I recommend that physics adopt "equivalent volts". So one would say " million
equivalent volts, for MeV for example" giving the clear understanding that the
Joule energy relates exclusively to conversion by multiplying with the
fundamental charge (Coulombs)
>Or change your mistaken proofs and derivations to *examples*
>of how things might be related geometrically. Use the equations only and it
>will be easy. You need to be very careful about making blatantly false
>claims. This only turns people off and distracts from your main ideas. It
>is OK to make assumptions and then expand upon the assumptions as long as
>you state that they are based on assumptions.
Blatantly false claims are a little strong.
You basic unit equations, alone, cannot derive the volume or the current
loops, as related to any geometry except that of VPP.
The VPP models, as was shown above, differentiate between different sized
particles, to return the fundamental physical constants.
>And I would suggest that you should tone down your rhetoric against QED, QM,
>and QCD. See if anything from those ideas can help support your ideas. You
>might be surprised that there are some things in common. For example,
>quarks came out of the idea of "partons". You have partons also. Your
>partons would behave oddly also if your proton was hit by a high energy
>probe. Have you though much about that?
Yes, when the model seemed to start giving answers not put into it, the quark
model was the model du jour. I realized that VPP acceptance would be
automatic, if one could relate VPP to the quark. I tried to relate the 30 some
odd quarks to the faces of the three pair of VPP cubes. Finally, I gave up and
realized the quark was an unnecessary complication.
But, it was also a case of too little and too late. This physics business was
out of my field, so the VPP model was shown, at various times, to Drell,
Richter, and Perl at Stanford, in the late 1970's, in the hopes experts would
make something out of it. I remember I was in Drell's office and was trying to
tell him about the VPP neutrino models. Above on his bookshelf were several
years of the physical review letters. He pulled one down and was showing me
the Fermi Lab neutrino experiment claims, to seemed to discount the model.
As you know, I use the neutrino to build good models for the proton and
neutron. The neutron model additionally gives the beta decay proton,
electron and neutrino, directly from the scaling rules. He was more inclined
to believe the unshielded cloud chamber, sitting in the middle of a field, was
detecting neutrinos after traveling through a mile of dirt berm.
I gave up on the establishment, and played around with the VPP models just for
my own fun. I retired and then after I got a quad bypass in 1991, I wrote the
first book, (you and Larry have a copy). I formed my own publishing company,
registered the business name, then got a series of ISBN numbers from Bowker,
and note that the books are registered with the library of congress catalog
card number, and have been copyrighted. Note the cover has a ISBN and cost bar
code, for book store use. I have published three books under TNL Press. Two
of my own and one for a friend who was dying of cancer. The book is a
collection of his research works from NASA.
>I liked it in your first book
>where you showed the alternating nested "cubes" of positive and negative
>charge. Hit that with a high energy probe and you are going to end up with
>a certain percentage momentum with positive charge and a certain percentage
momentum with negative charge. Sound familiar?
Fredi: I gave a references (page 42) to elastic scattering experiments at
Stanford by Hofstader that verifies the size of the proton models charged core.
And there where some recent experiments by Krisch et.al, with polarized
proton-proton scattering that shows a core that has most of the spin and
charge. (The proton-proton scattering experiments were supposed to falsify the
quark model, but it was hushed up). And as you noted, the model seems to give
the correct undamped magnetic moments as verified by the deuteron binding
reduced by the quadratic.
Do you realize, if VPP had been able to relate that work to the quark, the VPP
model would have been a candidate, for the Nobel, because of unifying the
strong and electron magnetic forces?
FrediFizzx
"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020414183105...@mb-fb.aol.com...
Well, according to NIST, Compton wavelength, fine structure constant and the
Bohr magneton are defined using combinations of Planck constant, mass of
the electron, speed of light c, permittivity of space and charge e. Why are
you changing the subject? We are talking about your model geometry and not
specifically about ratio of the masses of the proton and neutron. It is
very simple. Stop claiming that you are deriving charge and/or Bohr
magneton when you clearly are *not*. That is probably why your paper was
rejected. Now, if you want to use your geometry to show why and how they
are related, I have no objection to that.
<snip anecdotal story>
| Note, it is 21 years later, and the quark electroweak model has not been
| proved. (Even as we speak, they are spending billions to try to detect
the
| Higgs needed to protect the "electroweak theory" from falsification).
Those
| are the brutal facts.
The brutal fact is that they probably will discover the Higgs in the next
few years. Cern may have already come close.
| >Use your models to show how they might be
| >related (which you do to some extent), instead of clouding your complete
| >picture with false claims. Forget the numerical values and use the
| >equations only. You keep throwing in numerical values and you are losing
| >track of what is really going on. You can see from the Mathcad PDF files
| >that I have posted, that it is possible to work with the equations only.
|
| Fredi: the original question, raised by Vergon, was why does the electron
and
| proton have exactly the same charge.
Vergon had nothing to do with this thread. You started this one on your own
about the gyromagnetic ratio.
<snip already disproven stuff>
| >Just clean it up from some of the
| >suggestions given to you via this newsgroup, and it will be a better
story
| >in the long run. Specifically, check for and take out any "proofs" and
| >derivations that can be reduced to x=x by using the equations and fix the
| >section where you used volts in place of where you should have been using
| >energy units.
|
| Good advise. But, please note, it is not convenient to use electron
volts, in
| developing the equations for the binding energy. Rather than dividing
energy
| by the normal fundamental charge, I would have to put a dimension less
charge
| in my variables list.
Volts are not energy. They never will be. Ever! Period! If it is not
convenient for you to use eV then use joule for energy. I have already
shown you how easy it is to use eV however, so you are just being purposely
obstinate and are a troll.
| The physics is not violated by using a normal (e) and one gets the
correct
| numerical values, as you noted.
The physics is totally violated when you state energy and show volt units.
| I recommend that physics adopt "equivalent volts". So one would say "
million
| equivalent volts, for MeV for example" giving the clear understanding that
the
| Joule energy relates exclusively to conversion by multiplying with the
| fundamental charge (Coulombs)
This will never happen because you are the only one that has no concept of
1,000 meters in a kilometer.
| >Or change your mistaken proofs and derivations to *examples*
| >of how things might be related geometrically. Use the equations only and
it
| >will be easy. You need to be very careful about making blatantly false
| >claims. This only turns people off and distracts from your main ideas.
It
| >is OK to make assumptions and then expand upon the assumptions as long as
| >you state that they are based on assumptions.
|
| Blatantly false claims are a little strong.
| Your basic unit equations, alone, cannot derive the volume or the current
| loops, as related to any geometry except that of VPP.
| The VPP models, as was shown above, differentiate between different sized
| particles, to return the fundamental physical constants.
I have, infact, shown that I can derive your *VPP* geometry simply from the
equations. That is true. The following link is just one example. *All* of
your VPP geometry is derivable from the known equations. There is
absolutely *no* part of your geometry that is not derivable from the *known*
equations. See the difference? Your geometry is derived from the known
equations. Of couse your VPP geometry will return any of them since it is
derived from them. What does this mean? This means that you *cannot* state
that you are deriving any of them. It is fine if you want to use the
constants to show certain things in your model. And I think that it is just
dandy. However, claiming that you can derive spin, charge, and the Bohr
magneton is *blatantly* false when I can show that *all* of your geometry is
in fact derived from them and already contains them. There is no chicken or
the eqg scenario happening here! I am thinking that that is what you must
think it is. But it is not.
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/studycarefully.pdf
| >And I would suggest that you should tone down your rhetoric against QED,
QM,
| >and QCD. See if anything from those ideas can help support your ideas.
You
| >might be surprised that there are some things in common. For example,
| >quarks came out of the idea of "partons". You have partons also. Your
| >partons would behave oddly also if your proton was hit by a high energy
| >probe. Have you though much about that?
|
| Yes, when the model seemed to start giving answers not put into it, the
quark
| model was the model du jour. I realized that VPP acceptance would be
| automatic, if one could relate VPP to the quark. I tried to relate the 30
some
| odd quarks to the faces of the three pair of VPP cubes. Finally, I gave
up and
| realized the quark was an unnecessary complication.
How could that be? Your proton model is more complicated than the quark
model is as yours has 18 partons! You only have to deal with two quarks for
the proton and neutron. Up and down. Your approach was obviously wrong. I
suggest that you maybe gave up too easily. Or.... your model is wrong and
it can't be done. Which is most likely the case if you can't figure out the
relationship. There are a lot of things that are the same thing being
described in different ways.
| >I liked it in your first book
| >where you showed the alternating nested "cubes" of positive and negative
| >charge. Hit that with a high energy probe and you are going to end up
with
| >a certain percentage momentum with positive charge and a certain
percentage
| momentum with negative charge. Sound familiar?
|
| Fredi: I gave a references (page 42) to elastic scattering experiments at
| Stanford by Hofstader that verifies the size of the proton models charged
core.
| And there where some recent experiments by Krisch et.al, with polarized
| proton-proton scattering that shows a core that has most of the spin and
| charge. (The proton-proton scattering experiments were supposed to falsify
the
| quark model, but it was hushed up). And as you noted, the model seems to
give
| the correct undamped magnetic moments as verified by the deuteron binding
| reduced by the quadratic.
I just gave you a possible clue on how to relate your model and you are
missing it.
| Do you realize, if VPP had been able to relate that work to the quark, the
VPP
| model would have been a candidate, for the Nobel, because of unifying
the
| strong and electron magnetic forces?
Well, I think you had better get back to work if you really believe that.
If you can't predict what HEP experiments are seeing then your model is
"DOA". And don't give me that crap about falsification. There are jillions
of web pages on this subject already all out in plain view. In fact, HEP is
what started the whole web idea. Do your work and don't be a cop out and
blame something else. If you spent as much time on your work as you do
arguing about crap like eV, you just might make a break-through. Doubtful
though when you are using volts for energy.
FrediFizzx
FrediFizzx
| >>"larry shultis" gold...@charter.net
| >>Date: 4/8/2002 10:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
| >>Message-id: <ub3lprl...@corp.supernews.com>
|
| >>"ThomasL283" <thoma...@aol.com> wrote in message
| >
|
|
| http://members.aol.com/tnlockyer/emagcalc.gif
|
| There is now a insert showing the model geometry along with the math that
| obtains from the VPP geometry to calculate the Bohr, and to prove the VPP
| approach.
Wrong. The dude has it backwards one more time. The following link shows
that, in fact, the model geometry can be derived from Bohr equal to Bohr. I
can derive all of your geometry from Bohr equals Bohr and proper
substitutions. All you have shown/proven is that your geometry is supported
by the constants and their relationships. Not the other way around. They
came first. They have priority. No chicken. No egg.
http://www.flashrock.com/upload/bohring.pdf (pardon the pun)
What the heck are you smokin', man? Must be good stuff.
FrediFizzx
brian a m stuckless
= 2 + (a / pi) = 2*(ae + 1)
= 2*Ue / Ub = 2*mn / mp
= 2*mx / u = 2*Nu*mn / (a + 1)
= 2*10^4*Qx*mx / me = 2*Nu*mx
= 2*(a + 2)*mx / H_2 = 2*mx / (H_1 - me)
= 2*mx / (H_2 - mp) = 2*mx / (mp - a*u)
= 2*(a + 1)*mx / mp
= 2*(''e'')^60*mx*(earth mass) / Na*me*(solar mass)
= 2.002321328
--where Avagadro's number Na and the Stefan-Boltzman
radiation constant Qx are both dimensionless numbers.
```brian < bast...@avalon.nf.ca > apr 20, 2002
p.s.
a. {GUESS}{iSS} predicts the mass mx
= mn*u / mp = Ue*u / Ub = ge*u / 2 = (ae + 1)*u
= 1.661698607 x 10^-27 kg.
b. Google group search: < http://groups.google.com >
< Heisenberg's UNNECESSARY PRiNCiPLE (the HUP) >
< electron magnetic moment FORMER 'anomaly' >
< {GUESS} integrated Standard System{iSS} >
< Avagadro's Law > < creation Vs vacuum >
< the looming neutrino-miner strike! >
< the fundamental CONSTANT set >
^^^^try sort by relevance
^^^inreply to..
thoma...@aol.com (ThomasL283) wrote in message news:<20020408131717...@mb-fn.aol.com>...
^^^^end of post.