Fwd: Can someone else read a script into the 1500 slot schedule so that there isn't a "blank" space where I'm supposed to be?

[dean sinclair]

People, here is the e-mail that I sent to the Symposium director when he wrote, "Sorry to disappoint  after...." DS

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: dean sinclair <deanls...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Subject: Can someone else read a script into the 1500 slot schedule so that there isn't a "blank" space where I'm supposed to be?
To: noe...@mindspring.com


Dr. Amoroso,:   Assuming that the “Internal Problems" of which you speak are technical problems of scheduling and getting a Teleconferencing set up, . rather than some sort of Scientific Politics problem,  is it possible that some one could read the following into the record at the scheduled time?   This would not be considered an endorsement of the ideas but merely an endorsement of the principle  that ideas are more important than the speaker.

Cheers,  Dean Sinclair


This is the final script  that was intended to be used for  the  oral version of the paper that was scheduled for the 1500 slot on Wed. July 14, 2010,  by Dean L. Sinclair speaking from the Aberdeen American News in Aberdeen, South Dakota, US of A  to the Vigier Symposium in London.  Difficulties at the London end prevented  Dr. Sinclair from being able to present this material.  


It is my honor to present some information about a model called. the Oscillator Substance Model which may provide a framework for a comprehensive theory uniting the fields of physical science.

The basic tenet is, “ All existence si the result of sequential action-reaction-action interactions within a Substance/Substrate  of undefined extent and undefined basic composition. A Substance/Substrate which may be considered as if it be a liquid at the triple point, able to respond to slight pressure differences as any of the three basic phases of solid, liquid or gas.

The continuous, sequential equilibration within the substance results in constant motion such that the system is composed of/controlled by oscillators.

Some of the oscillators are vortexes having long term stability.  these vortexes, the electron and proton and their mirror units, the positron and anti-proton, interact to form what we know as matter.

This view produces valuable insights that often differ from the conventional viewpoint by  180 degrees.

Positive and negative charges are seen as the result of reverses rotation/inversion senses of vortex oscillators. As these vortex units have mass and radius limits--and, corresponding frequency limits, charges will vary from a maximum value to zero and back,  Charges are not fixed values, but have limits and an an average.

As the vortexes responsible for charges have determinable limits, their sizes and shapes can be estimated, The results of these determinations have interesting results for the theories of atomic structure.

As the equilibration process in a substance can be considered to result in constant pressure adjustment.  Pressure fits the criterion for a true force; therefore, the  various Forces of Nature can be seen to be a result  of interpretations  of pressure adjustments.

The “Missing Anti-matter”  Matter has a double explanation.  The separation--or inversion instant --of an oscillator, which we know as the “Big Bang”  resulted in the definition of two oscillator halves, having reversed rotation/inversion  orientations.  Smaller oscillators, within these halves will be influenced by the larger oscillator, the orientation of one half will tend to be stretched, the other compressed, so that one rotation/inversion will tend to be expressed differently than the other. In our Universe, it appears that the stretched form which appears most obviously is the electron. Its “almost identical’  mirror, the “positron,” appears to be somewhat suppressed.

If one half of a separable oscillator be considered “Matter,” and the other half be “Anti-matter,” then, as the electron is always considered matter, the positron is anti-matter.  The two units are logically halves of a separable oscillator, to which they rejoin in the “annihilation” process.

The electron and proton are halves of another separable oscillator, the neutron. The electron is still “Matter,”  hence the proton, as the other half of a separable oscillator, is ANTI-MATTER.!
Since the neutron is “neutral” it may be considered as either Matter or Anti-Matter and, like the B sub s   Meson, could probably be shown to invert between the two states.  

From the foregoing, we see that what we call “Matter,” combinations of electrons and protons, are actually combinations of the “Matter” electrons, and the “Anti-matter” protons.

Logically, there is, somewhere, an “anti-Verse” where the rotation inversion dominant expressions are the opposite of ours, but, also, we have no truly “Missing Anti-Matter,” we only have semantic confusion. The “neutron count” of an atom can be considered simply as the number of nucleons that , at any given instant, are in anti-electron, anti-proton states.

Considering  the electron and proton as vortex oscillators which can associate gives a clue as to why the Hadron Collider apparently breaks down soon after starting up. Vortex oscillators can not only associate with different vortexes, but also self-associate. Electron-electron association has been long known. However, no one seems to have realized the same to be true for protons. Additionally, conventional science gives no hint  of the possible existence in “vacuums” of pulsator-oscillators some of which may be separable into electrons and positrons  and deformable into neutrons.

Pushing a stream of  mutually repulsive “Charged Particles” through a void, is  very different from trying to control vortexes whch can self-associate through a possibly-reactive medium.

If the O/S --Oscillator/Substance--view be correct, the Hadron Collider, designed to be a sophisticated particle accelerator,  may well be acting for a short time as a rather primitive fusion reactor before feed-back causes a break down.

What the basics of this framework are have been stated, and a few implications covered. A few words about the start of the ideas leading to the O/S Model and the basic reason for its almost reversed view from the conventional may help.

This model started to develop quite innocently in the Spring of  2004 with the realization that basic ideas of Einstein’s Special Relativity fit into communication theory, where they would apply to any Perceptual Universe defined by a maximum, practical velocity of information transfer, whether that velocity be determined by Pony Express Riders or Electromagnetic Waves.

Since, in every case, practical maximum velocity of information transfer is going to be a bit less than the average speed of the packet carriers, the Speed of Light, is logically an average which acts as a practical maximum velocity of information transfer.

By the Summer of 2008, when the Oscillator/Substance Google Group was set up, follow-ups on the initial insight noted above, had led to the realization that there was a “T.O.E” available, as outlined at the start of this talk, which would have been seen a Century ago had the Mickelson-Morley Experiment which determined the Speed  of Light been reversed in interpretation from ruling out an “Aether,” to partially defining an Aether. If then, a few years later, Planck”s Constant had been considered a Constant of Angular Momentum and used to define characteristics , of that Aether, this model could have come into existence 100 years ago.

Equating Planck’s Constant,”h,” to its definition as an angular momentum  and evaluating the resulting equation at the Speed of Light, “c.” leads to the equation,  m x r = h/c  = r x m., This arises from the fact that one definition of angular momentum is  the resultant of a mass , m, rotating at a radius, “r,” from a point, with a tangential velocity, “v.;”  As Planck’s Constant applies at the Speed of Light, it makes sense to evaluate at the speed of light and to simply by dividing out that speed from the left side of the equation to form a ratio constant, “h/c.” The resulting  equation, m x r = h/c = r x m is an example of a common, very valuable relationship in physics, the law of levers, the balance law used in weighing, the law of conservation of momentum, the law of conservation of energy.  Here it can be used to determine the oscillator limits for a family of constant torque oscillators , defined by the set,{m x r = h/c = r x m } , with a torque of h/c and inversion  at the state where r = m = square root of h/c. In the cgs system, this value is about  4.7 x 10 ^-19  grams at 4.7x 10^-19 cm.

This implies a hidden half of any basic oscillator which is smaller than 4.7 x 10 i^-19 cm.
Coming to these two basic sets of data from the opposite view of the more standard theoretical approaches such as Space-Time, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory, this model  has a reversed orientation on maniy issues.  Very heretical, it asks for re-examination of the accepted percepts of modern physical theory.   

It may, however, turn out that this model will be complementary to much theory rather than contradictory. In its definition of Mass as a measure of the tension-pressure at a surface of the point-centered motions within that surface, a characteristic of entities that is measured by comparison, and  suggesting that the term, “Energy,” usually means a measurement of a package of motion  which includes a point and its associated motions along a line, a unit whose effects are usually observed as the results of collisions,  that is. “Kinetic Energy,” it appears that this model tends to focus on the “Mass” aspect ,  whereas most theoretical approaches focus on  “Energy” for the most part,  and considering “ Mass” as generally a constant value of some sort.

There is far  too much too much information developed from this model and clolsely associated ideas which  cling easily to it as a “Framework.” to even begin to cover in this short presentation.
I refer you to the web site of the group previously mentioned, Groups.Google.com/Oscillatorsubstance (written as one word) hyphen theory.   Where most of the extant material has been collected as “pages” which vary in size from a half-page to 23 pages and counting.


There, also, you can meet some interesting people including  the Canadian,  Al Zeeper, who has an analysis of of the various mathematical energy expressions.  There are the  two ladies of the group, “Nish Laverz,” a young writer from the North of England, and “Ka-Sala.” the most philosophical of the group, and Group Manager, who is from the South of Australia. There is.also, Robert Kardien Vanderhoek, “Hoek,”  who has another version of an Oscillator theory which he considers superior to the version presented here, it can be examined on the Internet as “Proton Cosmology. “

I hope that the rest of the crew do not take offence that they are not mentioned here. They, each and every one, are separate and interesting personalities. !

The site is open membership, anyone can join-- any of you who’d like to pat me on the back or kick some other part of my anatomy is welcome to do so there.  I hope to get some feedback, and “see” some of you there.

I’d be remiss, also, if I did not thank  Jean-Paul from the cmns, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Group, for the “heads up” about this Symposium which led to this paper.   The  cmns  group , of which I have the honor of being a member, is a widely diverse, international group of experimentalists, theoreticians  and others who are interested in the area which I personally think of as “sub-atomic chemistry.” I expect that, in the not too distant future, out of that group and its associates  will come some of the most valuable scientific information of our time.

Although, in a sense, I am a representative of the two groups mentioned above, I need to emphasize that the ideas and opinions expressed are my own and any errors and misinterpretations are strictly my own responsibility.

Thank you, Dr.Amoroso, for all your help and for inviting me to participate in this Symposium. I regret that I could not attend in person.  

Thanks, everyone for taking the time to stay with me in this brief examination of the Oscillator/Substance Model as a  possible Framework on which to Build  a Fundamental Theory.


”