[Vern]

Here is a Wiki article about Ball Lightning. We don't know exactly what it is but we generally accept it as real these days.

Natural ball lightning appears infrequently and unpredictably, and is therefore rarely (if ever truly) photographed. However, several purported photos and videos exist. Perhaps the most famous story of ball lightning unfolded when 18th-century physicist Georg Wilhelm Richmann installed a lightning rod in his home and was struck in the head - and killed - by a "pale blue ball of fire."[3]

I suspect it is a swirl of ionized air molecules, but I don't know where its powering energy comes from. It would be a soliton of ionized air But there seems to be a lot of electric current traversing the soliton.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Vern.  Many thanks for that Ball lightning thing.  How interesting is that?  I'm signing off.  Whammed.  I'll post tomorow - depending on trading.  I need to get back on track with the model.  You'll have to be super tolerant because I think Jerrygg38's given up on me.

Take care, and thanks very much for all the help.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Vern.  Here's my ask.  Did you read Robert Murray's opening thread on gravity?  Am not sure because your first post objected to its length.  Well I, personally give him 10 out of 10 for that summation.  It was just SO lucid.  So.  I sort of understand Jerrygg38's dot wave theory.  It's got some amazing correspodences to actual measured phenomena - 'the final arbiter'.  And he justifies it mathematically - which is pretty jolly good.  More than I could ever do with mine.  The point being that I can definitely wrap the head around those concepts.

Well.  I want to understand your photon theory as well.  I get it that it resolves the 'missing' requirement in QM to resolve those yet unresolved gravitational issues.  Somehow photons themselves create gravitational fields.  You say this is classically accepted precisely because they have mass, and mass attracts mass.  I can't argue this. 

So back to my really big ask from you.  Could you PLEASE explain your photonic theory with concepts.  Take more space if need be.  It would probably be better to put it in your thread on photonic theory.  I want to understand it.  It's actually a HUGE favour - but you must remember that good physics is also clear physics.  Even Pauli - the arch critic of the concept - required clarity to the level of a high school student. 

Then - when I discuss my own model I will know the conceptual framework of your own and will be able to better qualify my references.  I'm struggling with some distinction that you've drawn in this.  I just can't find it.  And it's not from want of trying.

     

[Vern]

I read Robert Murray's concept closely until I realized it was another 'push gravity' concept. Then I just scanned through the rest for something different from the original. I do want to understand your notions about the universe and also to understand why it is that you suspect that the universe might be like that.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Vern.  I'm knee deep for the next hour.  I'll get back to you.

[jerrygg38]

I read Robert Merreys concept closely until I realized it was another 'push gravity' concept. Then I just scanned through the rest for something different from the original. I do want to understand your notions about the universe and also to understand why it is that you suspect that the universe might be like that.

  We cannot permit push gravity. I though your idea of finind the high intensity point to be a push as well. Last night I awoke at 3 AM. (I do most of my intense thinking when I am asleep) Evidently reading your illustrations must have clicked in my brain. I will post
"Gravitational Force Vector" Today.

[Vern]

We cannot permit push gravity.

The original had a lot of following; the maths were worked out in detail. But it never was plausible in my mind.

[jerrygg38]

We cannot permit push gravity.

The original had a lot of following; the maths were worked out in detail. But it never was plausible in my mind.

I just posted the Gravitational force vector. It meets your requirements for a photonic field. It meets mine in the conservation of spherical plus angular plus linear momentum.

[witsend (OP)]

OK Vern, I think you're letting me through the door first.  I'm going to try and give an overview - with the understanding that the symmetries are there.  As yet unexplained except in the field model. I believe I've got total justification.  But only with my patterns.  I need those patterns illustrated in fractals - because I also believe its the only way to conceptualise particles and atoms. So.  I'll sort of work backwards.

You get the nebulus concept as broken strings, unravelled from a primary field.  The field closes ranks and just 'continues as ever' because it can no longer interact with the truants in that nebulus flux field.  Just for symmetry - half the zipons from the string lose momentum and gain mass.  Another half lose mass and gain momentum.  Energy in both instances transferred from the latent energy in the string before it broke.  Those truants - that are visible - through a 'remarkable coincidence of good timing' (I've plagiarised the phrase from a joke I know) find their partner or their opposite - in the invisible truant on the other side, so to speak, of that field. They join up and - thereafter - they simply orbit each other.  But the orbit requires that the one moves towards our dimensions gaining mass - losing velocity - and vice versa.  Then they reverse and lose mass and gain velocity and vice versa.  But during that movement towards each other they meet at the same mass/velocity of the field.  The field has one charge.  The two truants have a combined two charge composite.  The field's 1 charge cancels the one charge in the photon.  Therefore 1 direction.  And the field then moves the composite away at 90 degrees.  The direction it moves the  photon (composite of 2 truants) is in a straight line through the into the radial arms of the field because that's the only point where it has a neutral charge. 

All this fits my patterns. 

The same with the electron but the electron has an extra composite.  Therefore 3 truants = 1 electron.  The difference is their composite charge.  There's the same big visible truant - then a second truant co-incident with the velocity and size of the field and a third truant is the anchoring truant that is too small and fast to be measured/seen in our dimensions.  Three charges to the composite electron, one to the field - and two cancel out leaving the electron moving in 2 directions.  This means - there's a continual interaction with the field and there's a second interaction away from the field.  The result is that the electron is caught in the same field as the zippons.  But they move in antiphase, at something under light speed.  Still matches the observed behavious of electrons. Except that if you COULD photograph the electron it will flicker out of view for a longer period of time than the photon.  Both the electron and photon will disappear at some moment from our own measurable dimensions when they interact with the field.

Then the real miracle.  Three electrons join and form a proton.  I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog.  Here the fusion of the electrons also 'dislodges' some of the zipons in the field (the background structure) which caught the electrons in the first instance.  They dislodge from the primary field and then form a closed system.  The process described in the blog.  BUT THIS IS THE POINT  At that point when the hydrogen atom is formed it is separated from the field and becomes a closed system.  The thing that now anchors it away from the primary field is a field of zipons.  When the electrons couple they also keep some of the zipons in the string that they were attached to.  These zipons now form the hydrogen atoms energy levels.  Just a whole lot of zipons.  I think their number also corresponds to 1836.  But I'm not sure.  What I am sure about is that I can get the mass size of that proton structure to exactly match the known size/mass at 1836.  The electron - expelled when the three electrons meet - is now caught in the orbit of those magnetic fields.

So this is the first time that the magnetic fields, actual zipons, form outside the primary field, in a structured, balanced system.  And they then form the energy leves of the hydrogen atom.  All this fits with my patterns.

I'll wait for questions.  I think that's enough to get on with.   

     

 

[Vern]

Then the real miracle.  Three electrons join and form a proton.  I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog.

How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.

I may be away a lot because this site goes down for me. I have only been able to connect a few times this AM.

[jerrygg38]

Then the real miracle.  Three electrons join and form a proton.  I'll get back to the 'fusion' process, but I can get it to work very PRECISELY in the field model - as described in the blog.

How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.

I may be away a lot because this site goes down for me. I have only been able to connect a few times this AM.

If you go back in time to just after the big bang, the mass of the proton was much higher and the mass of the electron was equal to the mass of the proton.

  If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.
  As time goes by the high energy protons radiates energy and the electron also radiates energy.
  Today you cannot do that. If you take a positron and an electron you will only get two high energy photons.

[witsend (OP)]

I'm also struggling, not with connectivity but with work.  I'm knee deep in trading.  I'll try and concentrate better later this pm.  In about 3 hours from now.  Sorry it's so intermittent.  But I have to keep the pot boilig.

[Vern]

If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.

If we keep the rules of nature that we have discovered, the extra energy must come from somewhere.

[Vern]

I'm also struggling, not with connectivity but with work.  I'm knee deep in trading.  I'll try and concentrate better later this pm.  In about 3 hours from now.  Sorry it's so intermittent.  But I have to keep the pot boilig.

Good luck in your trading!

[jerrygg38]

If you take 2 positrons and one electron and crush them together, you can get a super high energy proton. The electric force between the electron and the positron produces the bipolar energy levels.

If we keep the rules of nature that we have discovered, the extra energy must come from somewhere.

Yes the crushing of space-time. Thus at the big bang, all the energy of the universe was concentrated. After the big bang much of it radiated into space. Some of it became protons and electrons. In general I believe that at the beginning the electron had the same mass as the proton. (I just added them for Witsend because it is a possibility but not very probable.)
  The electrons got the outside and most of the electron energy radiated away over the years. Thus long ago the original hydrogen atom had a much more massive electron.

[witsend (OP)]

Jerrygg38 - I saw something you'd written on a dream?  Where is it?  I've been through the whole thread and nothing?  Did I see it in another thread.  If so, please tell me where?

Vern.  I'm back.  Bourses closed so I can take my mind of things.  It was an OK day.  Thanks for the good wishes.  But I'm a 'bottom feeder'.  Don't take much risk.  Just plod, plod like my physics.

I'm going to check your questions and answer.  Where would we be without you?   [:X]

[Vern]

Yes the crushing of space-time. Thus at the big bang, all the energy of the universe was concentrated. After the big bang much of it radiated into space. Some of it became protons and electrons. In general I believe that at the beginning the electron had the same mass as the proton. (I just added them for Witsend because it is a possibility but not very probable.)

Is there a reason for the electron to be so massive in the beginning? That seems to make things more complicated. I like better to make things more simple.

[witsend (OP)]

How do you get from the .51099905 MeV each for the mass of the electrons to the 938.27231 MeV mass of the proton? These values are pretty well checked out in the physics community.Vern

I've got a full description in the magnetic field model.  I couldn't find any stable composites between 4-8 inclusive.  In conjunction with the field they'd simply subdivide back into 1 - 2 or three or some combination thereof.  But 9 stuck - and only as 3 electrons.  Then I had to work out how they'd combine and could only find anything plausible at the point where the truant moved in antiphase to the field.  That was also the point that bound the truant to the field. The constitution of their separate masses was easy.  The difficult part was accounting for energy levels.  Eventually I got it as the charge of the proton attracting the truants from both sides of the divide in that nebulus flux.  The idea is that the number that attach to the closed system of the proton exactly matches the charge of the proton.  That way, I've got zipons supporting the gluon, pion and quark (or anchor as I define it) and exactly the same amount of zipons circling the structure as energy levels.

The atomic model is based on this concept.  From the flux field the only atoms that can be manufactured - is the hydrogen atom or maybe deuterium and tritium.  They come with their respective 'quantities' of the zippons from the field.  In the process of accretion - yet more truants are extracted, also in this sublime ratio - but nothing to do with the energy levels.  They present an opposite charge to the energy levels in the atom.  They then bind the atoms into their accreted form - slowly developing the whole of that star.  After this 'genesis' the more complex atoms are manufactured.  Not sure how.  But their protons, electrons, neutrons - are all the result of fusion from these zipons in the energy levels.  These fields that make the energy level of the atoms.  This results in more complex atoms.  The non linear development of more complex atoms in the periodic table proposed as being the result of the three basic 'start' types of hydrogen. 


I'm reasonably certain that this is as clear as mud.  What I'm trying to suggest is that the zipons in the energy levels of atoms recombine to form the particles of more complex atoms.  And the non linear relationship of the periodic table is actually explained in the fact that all atoms first progress from these 3 hydrogen type atoms.

[Vern]

I can visualize the concept, but I don't understand why the zipon combination is better than Quantum Electrodynamics or Quantum Field Theory. I notice that you retain the idea of quarks, pions, and gluons.

Those are parts of Quantum Theory, but you don't retain any of the dynamics of Quantum Theory.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Vern. If you're still with me there's still hope.  I'll write the next part and you'll see the point.