[witsend (OP)]

Vern - can I define the 0.5 when I get to the reconciliation of the proton size/mass with the electron?  In other words can I go on with the desciption without this?  It's very back to front.  I needed to find the mass/velocity of the zipon and simply started at 0.5.  It fitted so I didn't need to go further.  But my proof is only the in that proton/electron mass/size number.

[Vern]

Is it .5 inches per year? is it .5 pounds per foot? that is what I meant.

[witsend (OP)]

OK - sorry.  I mean it's half the size of a photon.  So - no idea how to express it.  The photon has no mass.

[Vern]

We pretty well know that the proton is about 1836 times as massive as the electron. Photon size is related to the wave length which may be anything. How do you make a photon out of zipons?

[witsend (OP)]

I get there. I use it as proof of the composite nature of stable particles.  It's in the blog - but no-one seesms to understand it.  I'm hoping to make it clear.


EDIT But here's the thing?  It's only used as a size ratio.  Does that make it more understandable.

[Vern]

If we say the zipon is .5 the size of a photon, it does not convey much of an image. A photon can be any size, front to back.

[witsend (OP)]

Ok Vern.  I explain the frequency of the phootn - still reconciled to C but with an interaction with the field.  I'm not there yet.  My question is - are we on the same page - bar 0.5 for the zippon mass?  I don't think it's mass.  I think it's volume. But I'm hoping you or jerryGG38 - will be able to explain what I mean.

[Vern]

Ok Vern.  I explain the frequency of the phootn - still reconciled to C but with an interaction with the field.  I'm not there yet.  My question is - are we on the same page - bar 0.5 for the zippon mass?

I think I got lost in the zipon field. I'm still intertwined among the little magnets. [] I don't get a vision of electric and magnetic field interaction out of it.

[witsend (OP)]

Well - are we on the same page?  Do you get it that this is an actual particle and that they actually combine to form other particles?  Can I move on or is there ANYTHING that still needs to be explained.  Such fun.  [:X]

[Vern]

I understand what you're saying. We can move past this little bump. I get the feeling that the zipons may need to be flexable so that two of them might form a complete loop.

[witsend (OP)]

THEY DO.  spot on. But - as mentioned.  I plod.  Give me a while I'll try and express the composites.  Thanks Vern.  You've given my life a new lease.

[Vern]

I think if we can bend the zipons into little loops we can make a universe out of them. We can put two of them together front to back and see that we have all the trappings of a photon. Then we can bend these two into a loop and show that the bending causes an electric field on the outside of the bend. Then we have an electron.

Put four such loops together in a sandwich and we can make a neutron []


Edit: I removed the larger image.

[witsend (OP)]

No.  Our numbers are different.  Love the diagram.  How did you DO that?  I've just done it again.  I lost my post to read yours.  I'm making a habit of it.  I'll start again.

You're definitely showing off.  And yet again I've got to start over. 

EDIT  [] [] [!] [V] 

EDIT THE EDIT  [] [] [!] []

totally distracted.  You'll have to wait now.

[jerrygg38]

I think if we can bend the zipons into little loops we can make a universe out of them. We can put two of them together front to back and see that we have all the trappings of a photon. Then we can bend these two into a loop and show that the bending causes an electric field on the outside of the bend. Then we have an electron.

Put four such loops together in a sandwich and we can make a neutron []

Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.
   String theory has very tiny strings. The alternate possibility is that the strings are extremely long. Thus one solution is that the universe is comprized of very long strings.
  the intersection of the very long strings is a point which is the dot.
There is a plus dot and a minus dot as the strings live in two different universes. However at the point of intersection, they form a bipolar dot.
   It could also be argued that the strings are unchanged. The intersection of the dots jump from string to string as an object moves.
   The strings contract prior to big bang and expand toward infinty after big bang. Therefore the entire universe is made from large expanding and contracting strings.
  String theory is hard to buy because they have these tiny strings. How are they interconnected?
   You could argue that the long strings are the magnetic field and the inteaction between the strings are the electric field.

  In addition you could say that the strings themselves move at 2C. However why not 4C or 1024C? Perhaps infinity C.If they are moving in a closed loop it doesn't really matter how fast they are moving as long as they are moving faster than C. The interactions between the strings is at light speed C however.
  Winsend, Some of your ideas seem pretty good. What they do is give Vern and me other ideas to add to our own theories.

[witsend (OP)]

jerryGG38 - glad to contribute.  And glad you're with us again.  I needed someone to introduce a modicum of seriousness to my proposal.  I think Vern is in danger of becoming way too frivolous which is hardly appropriate to a science forum.  Am in two minds as to whether he should be reported to BenV who would then have to penalise him.  Somehow? 

In any event, any attempt at descibing those interactions have flown with the giggles.  I'm going to take my long suffering dog for a long walk and then tackle this again.

[Vern]

I think Vern is in danger of becoming way too frivolous which is hardly appropriate to a science forum.

Maybe so; I'll try to do better []

[Vern]

Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.

It was just an attempt to fit the notion into the real world.

[jerrygg38]

Glad to see you can turn some of Witsend's ideas into your concepts. I like that she has some very long strings. The wavelength of my longest dot-wave is 2 pi times the radius of the universe.

It was just an attempt to fit the notion into the real world.

 I do not know why she is getting upset with you. You have been attempting to understand what she is saying. I cannot follow all the words. My brain just scans her stuff and looks for points that make sense to me. Her long strings is a definite possibility.
  The alternative is that the dots in constant motion interact with other dots to produce a wavelength of 2 pi times the radius of the universe. In this case no strings are necessary. The interaction could be at very high light speeds.

[witsend (OP)]

OK - so to recap.  I've proposed this background - described as the 'fabric behind the tapesty'.  Just added that because I think it's a neat analogy.  It is out of reach of our manifest dimensions.  Can't see us and doesn't interact with us.

BUT the truants are still only magnets and do what all magnets do.  They need to find something that they can attach to because they are looking to find a rest state.  In effect they're out of the field but they still need to find an orderly structure.  The nebulus flux - not orderly at all.  So they do it in small steps.

Some of these truants find nothing.  They decay back into the primary field as nuances or virtual particles.  Some manifest truants could try and attach to other slow manifest truants - but I could'nt hold this one as it lacked symmetry.  Eventually both would decay. But I found symmetry in the smaller faster truant - not manifest.  That's the first stable particle.  The photon.  Through some miracle it finds a partner with a precise velocity and mass to compensate for its own lack of velocity and mass.  They're both at either side of the primary field.  They move together - matching like to unlike.  But in that movement the Smaller faster truant becomes bigger and slower.  And the slower bigger truant becomes smaller and faster.  SO.  At some stage both will reach a co-incident mass/velocity of the zipons in the field. That background structure is always there.  But it can only interact with particles of like mass and velocity.  That boundary constraint.  And when they get there - then their combined charge conflicts with the primary field's charge or justification.

It inevitably repels.  I have to explain this.  At the point where the truants are the same size as the zipons, then at that point the two truants, (the photon) present two charges.  The field only, in effect has one charge - or justification.  A forward march.  One truant's combined charge will be attractive.  The other truant's combined charge would be repellent.  So.  The sum is to expell both truants.  And the question is in what direction?  Well the combined truants to one photon is neutral.  The only neutral path in that field is along its radial arms.  That would also be the only straight path through the curved field.  The result being that the photon would radiate outwards from a point (EDIT) in a straight line.  Which it does.

Is any of this clear?

[witsend (OP)]

JerryGG38 - am not at all upset.  Greatly amused.  I was teasing.  I know Vern was also laughing.

EDIT - the point being that I kept starting posts and kept interrupting them to read Vern's message - and then lost my post.  And it wasn't as if Vern had anything to say.  He was showing off.  Very distracting.