[jerrygg38]

Maybe you should rename it to multibang or something. [] Hawking would probably not recognize it.

That sounds good. Many scientist do not recognize the possibility of higher intelligence in the universe. Religious people call it God. I believe in a spiritual driving creative force. Relating this spiritual driving force to religion is difficult. It is hard enough trying to understand the science of the universe. At least we have some measurement data to work with.
   I have to give up attempting to relate the religions of man to this spiritual driving force. The biggest problem is that the interactions with the driving force today is no different than thousands of years ago.
  We make holy the people of old. But their interactions then are the same as today. The only thing different is that we have become more educated.
  Yet in all honesty I cannot negate the entire light speed spectrum because it does explain a spiritual driving force which molds the life forces and in turn produces us. Who cares what Hawkings has to say on that matter!

[Vern]

I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements [] I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.

[jerrygg38]

I only mention Hawking because he has probably studied the big bang theory more than any other physicist. I see some signals from Hawking that he is distancing himself from Quantum Theory lately. He is predicting that the Higgs boson will not be found and suspects that it does not exist. I also suspect that it does not exist, but this probably won't prevent something being found and claimed to be the Higgs.

As far as spirits go; I like the kind that come in liquid measurements [] I suspect that there is no special attribute to humanity that enables it to any higher standing than a fruit fly. I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.

I have just been reading Quantum theory lately. I like some of the concepts. Between Bohr and Plank we have some good thoughts. The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.
  As far as the Higgs blosom, I agree that they are going the wrong way. The lowest quanta has to be the dot-wave or the minimun charge/mass in the universe. In order to get a magnetic and electric field you must subdivide the charge to almost nothing.

  It is interesting to me that my high energy dot-wave has the wavelength of the normal AM broadband radio. It is interesting that  the radio stations indicate a level of electromagnetic photonic radiation.
   Longer waves come from smaller quanta of dot-waves.

[Ethos]

I do puzzle over what is self awareness and wonder if it is possible that a machine might one day be endowed with it.

I remember reading a few years ago about one of America's premier computer scientists making the remark that a future self aware computer was a forgone conclusion. His next statement was revealing; "The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.

[Vern]

"The consequences of that probability scares me to death". Sorry, I don't remember his name.

Yeah; it scares me too. The mechanical dudes may decide that living things are polluting the universe.

[Vern]

The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.

The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.

[jerrygg38]

The Q/3 charges I like because it enables me to split the electron into 3 parts in the neutron. Therefore I am able to calculate the magnetic moment of the neutron easily.

The main reason I don't like the Q/3 concept is that there is no possible way to get that charge number out of a closed loop if you consider that the fine-structure constant is the ratio of the circumference to the charge. It must be in units of electron charge when seen at any distance away that is greater than the electron's radius.

Give this up and we lose the source of the nuclear forces.

Edit: For example, one closed loop gives you 1/3 charge; another gives you 2/3 charge. There is no way to do that and tie in the fine structure constant as the ratio of charge to bend radius. In fact, there is no way to tie in the fine structure constant at all.

And we also lose the concept of why it is that charge is quantized in units of electron charge.

My find structure constant tells me that the electron spins around the proton 137 times per cycle. At the same time it moves perpendicular as 274 half sine waves.
  Therefore

  Fine constant inverse = 137/Cosine(360/274) = 137.036

  As far as the nuclear force, we must return to Planks equations.
  The dot-waves oscillate from the plank radius to the proton radius. The oscillation is of the form of a logarithmic spiral. This becomes important at thePlank radius and not the proton radius.
  The dot-waves are tied together in this spiral. As we look at Planks equations we find that he sees charges of 11.706Q. I only see half that amount.
  In any event the proton's quarks (high energy quarks) all join together at the Plank radius. The forces are

  G M M/ Rplank^2 = M V^2 / R

  At the plank radius, the graviational force is huge. Thus the dot-waves or heavy quarks are held together by tremendous gravitational forces.

[jerrygg38]

PS to Vern:
  As far as the quantization of the charge into Q is concerned, Planks Equations have 11.706238Q. Just study his equations a little bit. They are on the Internet. There is nothing fancy about Q. I suspect that the charge of the electron and proton is on the average Q. However each electron and proton will have a distribution of charge around that value. Thus we only know that the average charge of an electron is Q.
  Quantum mechanics is in error when they specify that the charge Q is the lowest charge in the Universe. They do not subdivide the electron.
   However the charges within the photon must be very tiny amounts of Q.

[Vern]

I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.

That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.

[jerrygg38]

I like to consider the charge of an electron as originating at the electron's circumference. Then any smaller circumference must have a correspondingly greater charge amplitude at its surface. Take the circumference down until you get the value of the strong nuclear interaction, and you have the inner shells of the proton.
That is one of the ways to get to the shell sizes. Another way is the square of the shells.

 Ok.Then you use the inverse square law to calculate the force between shells. Right? I will have to study your work.

  My bipolar dot-waves could be turned into spherical planes. Thus an alternative to my oscillating dot-waves from the Plank radius to the Proton radius would be planes of dot-waves each oscillating from a particular radius to a differential radius.

  In effect an alternative to my theory in which all the dot-waves mix at the plank radius is your theory of shells.  I will have to study that because my bipolar dot-waves can make shells. The plus and minus are still in different universes but they can form shells. Alternatively in accordance with my net charge due to negative dot-waves, we can place pure negative shells in between bipolar shells.

  Therefore your structure which I now understand what you mean is applicable to my dot-wave theory. If it is a good possibility, then if I send any work out, I will have to add your name as the author of this shell theory. Are you the originator alone?

[Vern]

I have not seen Dr. Robert Hofstadter's shell concept, but I have read that he developed a shell construct for atomic nuclei at Stanford sometime around the 60's. However, his Nobel prize was not for that but for his findings that nuclear structure seemed to consist of three or four distinct entities.

You need not add my name to your speculation; we all borrow ideas from elsewhere.

[jerrygg38]

I have not seen Professor Robert Hofstadter's shell concept, but I have read that he developed a shell construct for atomic nuclei at Stanford sometime around the 60's. However, his Nobel prize was not for that but for his findings that nuclear structure seemed to consist of three or four distinct entities.

Tnaks for that info. My proton consists of three high energy quarks and my neutron consists of my proton plus one split electron. In my solution, the three quarks all form a common radius for the proton. The electrons form a shell at a further radius. The hydrogen atom merely has an orbiting electron similar to the Earth around the sun. However it is streched out like the rings of saturn.

You need not add my name to your speculation; we all borrow ideas from elsewhere.

[Vern]

I have not seen Professor Robert Hofstadter's shell concept, but I have read that he developed a shell construct for atomic nuclei at Stanford sometime around the 60's. However, his Nobel prize was not for that but for his findings that nuclear structure seemed to consist of three or four distinct entities.


You need not add my name to your speculation; we all borrow ideas from elsewhere.

Tnaks for that info. My proton consists of three high energy quarks and my neutron consists of my proton plus one split electron. In my solution, the three quarks all form a common radius for the proton. The electrons form a shell at a further radius. The hydrogen atom merely has an orbiting electron similar to the Earth around the sun. However it is streched out like the rings of saturn.

I fixed your quote; it is difficult to avoid putting the new message inside the quotes. []
The construct you describe would probably fit the hadron spectra that Hofstadter recorded. He was able to calculate some min and max sizes for spheres that would produce the spectral results. I was happy when I found that the inner shells of my scheme fit. The outer shells were missed, but this could be caused by the low density.

[jerrygg38]

I fixed your quote; it is difficult to avoid putting the new message inside the quotes. []
The construct you describe would probably fit the hadron spectra that Hofstadter recorded. He was able to calculate some min and max sizes for spheres that would produce the spectral results. I was happy when I found that the inner shells of my scheme fit. The outer shells were missed, but this could be caused by the low density.

 Are you referring to the outer shells of the Proton. I have not studied this in detail yet. I do not believe that protons will have far out shells. Protons love neutrons because it is the neutron that has the outer shell and can surround the proton. If protons had outer shells then we could get stable atoms with 2 protons, 3 protons, 4 protons, etc. The neutron would not be necessary.

Thanks for fixing it. Often I think I am outside the quote but really inside it. I will try to be more careful.

 I looked up the Professor on the Internet and got your blog on the shells.

[Vern]

Hofstadter's shells will google straight to my Hofstadter's Shells Revisited. You can get to the Wiki on Dr. Robert Hofstadter by using the name.

[jerrygg38]

Hofstadter's shells will google straight to my Hofstadter's Shells Revisited. You can get to the Wiki on Dr. Robert Hofstadter by using the name.

How about you starting a discussion thread on your Shells. We have gone off topic on this thread.

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

After posting stuff to these pages for ages and getting no replies I find that it has been hijacked by an off topic and somewhat inaccurate load of banter.

To pick up on one important point from the discussion above.  There is talk of the universe appearing "out of a black hole"  that is most definitely NOT what I am talking about.  A black hole is like the tardis it can be infinitely large in the inside without ever anything coming out of it other than the standard hawking radiation.

The reason for this is that both space and time are subjective and depend on the inertial frame of the particles. If these are all circulating reasonably coherently in tiny orbits right at the heart of a black hole to the particles circulating in these orbits the inside of the small black hole could look like a large universe with a long life.

This is similar to the string theorists talking about hidden dimensions with closed loops.  When part of a universe collapses into a black hole for any reason it effectively turns "inside out" and the collapse of the large dimensions forces the imaginary small dimensions to expand (again another feature of string theory) the rotational energy creates a whole new load of matter and antimatter which then decays to leave  a residue of matter in a new universe.

The wonderful thing about all this is that it is truly fractal and scale invariant and could be nested ad infinitum.  I really would like to discuss this seriously with some experts in gravitational physics and string theory.

[Farsight]

SoulSearcher, I'm John Duffield. I've read the thread. Yes, I think it's important to take a step back and try to think things through logically, but I'm afraid to say I think you've missed something important here, and have been led up a blind alley by this unsupported and unscientific idea of evolutionary cosmology. To understand why I say this you need to understand what's called the Weinberg field interpretation of a black hole as opposed to the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler geometrical interpretation. Most people think this is "how it is" rather than just an interpretation. You can find mention of it in Kevin Brown's article on the formation and growth of black holes at: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm. He doesn't share my view, because my view rules this out:

"..then it seems natural to extrapolate the clock's existence right past our future infinity and into another region of spacetime".

It isn't natural at all, it's foolish. The reason behind this is an understanding of time as a cumulative measure of local motion. A clock clocks up motion, not time. We can't see time, when we look out to the universe what we see is space and motion through it. When we see things moving at a slower local rate, we say it's down to time dilation, but this is overlooking the empirical evidence of what we actually observe. Einstein's original General Relativity gave equations of motion, not "curved spacetime". The latter was popularized by Robert H Dicke in the sixties, and is an effect not a cause. A photon travels a curvilinear path because of a gradient in the local space, not because of some action-at-distance, and not because spacetime is curved.

Now think of gravitational time dilation. This goes infinite at a black hole event horizon. That means that from where I'm standing here on earth or anywhere else, the speed of light at the event horizon is zero. The locally measured speed of light is of course using the same old 299,792,458 m/s, but imagine you're hale and hearty at the event horizon using a clock to measure the local speed of light. From where I'm standing, that clock is stopped, and it is stopped forever. You're using a stopped clock, your proper time is an illusion, and the Misner/Thorne/Wheeler interpretation is a non-real solution. There are no events, particles can't move, and no observations can be made. You can't actually measure the speed of light, and you can't actually measure any distance, because if you started to make a measurement, it would take an infinite time to do so. Hence whilst the black hole can be likened to the Tardis, it's actually the opposite. From the outside it has some measurable spatial extent. From the inside it has NO measurable extent. Check out the gravastar concept at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar. It's a frozen star, but actually it's even more of a hole than the traditional black hole. Infalling objects can't get past the event horizon so the black hole becomes a hole in spacetime. It takes an infinite coordinate time to measure anything, and the bottom line is this: nothing happens. Hence there is no possibility of any kind of evolutionary cosmology taking place.

Hi Vern. How are you keeping?

[Soul Surfer (OP)]

Farsight   You are wrong.  You are attributing the properties of a hypothetical singularity to the event horizon of a black hole.  Gravitational time dilation does NOT go infinite at the event horizon the equations clearly show it.   

If you approached the event horizon of a quiescent (no large quantities of in falling matter) billion solar mass black hole (the sort in the middle of large elliptical galaxies) in a spaceship you could cross the event horizon without noticing much other than the distortion of the image that the bending of the light between outside and inside of the hole would produce.  The gravitational gradients would be completely unnoticeable.  even the static gravitational field would not be very great,  a good deal less than a typical white dwarf star and not all that much greater than the sun. 

Look up  http://xaonon.dyndns.org/hawking/  to find the properties of large black holes together with the relevant equations.

A lot of your other postings on this website give incorrect information and very naive and incorrect interpretation of diagrams.  I am not prepared to spend the time and effort arguing with you as you are clearly obsessed with your own ideas but I am considering reporting you to the administrators as a potential scientific troll.

[Nizzle]

Nizzle takes a coke and some popcorn and sits down for this one []