0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jerrygg38 I sincerely wish I could understand this. Is this an extract from a book? Is there any way this could be explained in simple terms? Can those equations be expressed in words? I've asked this of contributors before, but I suspect it just tends to antagonise. Not intended. Sincerely anxious to extend the understanding.
jerrygg38 - many thanks indeed for answering this. I am entirely obsessed in trying to understand these particles. Especially the proton. I have absolutely no formal education in science. At school we were given the choice between arts and science - and I plumbed for arts, except that I also had to do botany and zoology - which I loved. I deeply regret that choice as, at the moment my entire obsession is physics. Nor do I have any tertiary education. So to answer your question, I do not understand those symbols, except, obviously, for M and C. That's my point. You guys seem to have this really articulate language which is perfectly represented in symbol. I do use a kind of symbol. I call it patterns, just so that I can get to symmetries. It's relatively incisive as it seems to come up with the same insights as conventional physics. But I have no knowledge of mathematics - at all. I had a shrewd idea that you'd be patient. Indeed I'd love to understand your model of the proton. My own take is that it's a fusion of three electrons. I sort of get to a reconciliation between the mass/size of the proton by using this. I also need 3 quarks, but I also have a whole lot of energy levels that comes with that 'fusion'?But I'd sooner understand your model better and if you could choose a register with the assumption that I know nothing, there's an outside chance that I'll understand it. I think I could also understand it if you simply gave me the meaning of the symbols. You know. Like M = Mass or h = Plank's constant? (I had to edit this as I originally wrote P. That's proof of my ignorance) That sort of thing.Yet again. Many, many thanks.
Remember that some of Jerrygg38's ideas are "speculative" to say the least. For example he seems to be the only one to believe in "Dot waves"
Jerrygg38. I'm intrigued with the name you chose. Do you know that it has 7 syllables - by far the longest of any I've seen on this forum. But it has a certain alliterative appeal. What does the 38 symbolise. Is it dimensions? Jerry is what people call me most of the time. GG is the initials of my name (Gerald Grushow) and 38 is the year I was born. 1938. I self published Doppler Space Time and several other books. Never made any money on it. Unfortunately soon after finishing the books the theory changed again. I will have to look upI cannot tell you how touched I was at your account of your work. I'm beginning to understand why it's called 'naked sientists'. And I must tell you that I entirely applaud the efforts you go through coupled with your own critical assessments. You describe it as exciting. I think it's remarkably brave. My first question is regarding weight. How can this be a constant? Any property of weight is surely only relevant within a gravitational field. Spin and charge would then be the only property relevant to describe stable particles? I'd be interested in your answer. I think this probably conflicts with classical science.