[witsend (OP)]

The mass calculation DOES NOT COME OUT WRONG.  If you took the trouble to read the field model then I would not be answering these fatuous objections.

[lyner]

Those simple sums are the only ones you quote. Can you blame me for taking them as what you actually mean? Or is there some special arm waving factor that I failed to spot?

[witsend (OP)]

The truth, Sophiecentaur, is that you have not read the model.  And the sad part is that if you did read it you would not understand it.  It's not my fault that you don't understand it.  It happens to be a concept that cannot be expressed in mathematics.  Its proof requires mathematics.  Fortunately I do not have to do that because the experts have already done the math.  I cannot improve on it.  It's all there in KNOWN PHYSICS.  I contradict nothing.  I only add a concept to the mathematical abstraction that, in this case, preceded the concept.  And with that CONCEPT I can 'flesh out' certain properties that ENTIRELY conform to know particle physics. 

But my CONCEPT has the added advantage of explaining certain questions in KNOWN PHYSICS as well as being able to simplify the concept of CURRENT FLOW et al.  Please understand something.  If this is what you call ARM WAVING - then, with respect, you are the original ARM WAVER.  You argue without understanding whereof you argue.  To me that is the quintessential definition of an arm waver.

[lyner]

You are entitled to make up any 'concepts' you like. You can only call them Science if they coincide rigorously with reality. The only numerically testable example of your concept that you have given fails the test. If you cannot explain the inconsistency then the concept doesn't work. If you want recognition of an idea it has to work.

All the'greats', who invented the concepts that you treat so lightly, only got there by attention to detail and meticulous accuracy. The 'physics'  you are in love with is not the Physics with which Millican discovered the charge [edit- sorry pardon, not emr]  of the electron. It would not reveal anything new just because it can produce pleasing patterns. I

I would say that anyone who reckons they have sorted as many phenomena as your blog claims to have done has probably over stretched themselves.
[Edit - spelling- my ipod's fault]

[witsend (OP)]

You can only call them Science if they coincide rigorously with reality. Sophiecentaur

Therefore do I call my work science. 

[lyner]

You can call it what you like.
Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it?
Yet again, I point out a flaw- the numerical inconsistency and all you do is get upset. A 'proper' Scientist would go away and construct a 'proper' argument against my crit. Instead, you have just been hurling abuse about me. What does that solve? It certainly won't make your hypothesis any more acceptable.

[witsend (OP)]

Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it? Sophiecentaur

Who says my work has not been 'taken on board'?  Certainly not me.  There are some, admittedly few, who do approve my work.  That you don't -  is to argue in its favour rather than otherwise.

But I'll settle for a few at a time.  I think new ideas are like little sparks that slowly become flames.  Who cares where the spark started.  Just as long as there's enough wind to keep the spark alight.  The difficulty is protecting that spark from a deluge which comes in the form of inappropriate attack.

   

[lyner]

Are you surprised that you work hasn't been taken on board if you are so closed to criticism of it? Sophiecentaur

Who says my work has not been 'taken on board'?  Certainly not me.  There are some, admittedly few, who do approve my work. 

So has it been accepted for publication? Please tell me where.

Do you think, it could possibly not have been accepted because it doesn't have enough substance rather than because "they're" ganging up against you?
New ideas come and go. They are two a penny. It is only those which pass the acid test that get anywhere.
Talking of concepts; could you 'conceive' that your ideas are misguided? I have been only too happy to be proved wrong in the past. Technical conflict has always served to stimulate and educate me. The day I take offense when someone tells me I'm talking rubbish will be when they carry me out feet first. (Can't be too soon for you, no doubt!)

Even at this stage, you have still not justified or explained that (trivial? if so, then explain) numerical error.  Just why should I or anyone else should give it credence if you refuse a dialogue on a specific and well defined issue? If you don't want it to be an argument, then treat it as helpful clarification of something I couldn't understand. Don't just refer me to your blog, though. I should hope that you could contribute more than just what is printed there.

Wind and Sparks are nice metaphors but are only really justified when a successful Scientist is being assessed retrospectively.

[witsend (OP)]

Sophiecentaur, exactly which of us is being personal?  You know perfectly well that the magnetic field model has not been accepted for publication.  Nor has it been submitted for publication.  My hope, through these threads is precisely, one day, to find that person to help me develop the model for publication.  What I'm really hoping is that there's someone who can do fractal geometry as that would be the quickest and easiest reconciliation and best display the proposed composites.

I'm not sure if this is the 'hanging question' or the fact that my number correspondence to the known mass of a proton is out by 0.0081%.  That question is not easily resolved.  Pi - in general - applies to a circular measurement where there is a known diameter. I have a possible spherical shape in two dimensions.  I do not know the applicable qualification for that shape.  I have mentioned it at the end of the sum.

What I do propose is the constant interaction between all three truants (as I define them) both along their radial axes and and between the three gluons - laterally.  This means that there is no actual REST MASS (edit: to establish that )ratio because it changes from moment to moment.  But the correspondence is approximate and that, I think, is proof that the concept may be right albeit that the numbers may need to be marginally adjusted to allow for those shapes.

But the actual apparent particulate nature of the proton is proposed as a sphere - not because of its composite state - but because the entire particle is held in a field of zipons that form its energy levels.  The actual increase in the (edit: apparent) volume of the proton may be as a result of this.

     

 

[witsend (OP)]

Let's not get personal, shall we? It's not the best way to get on with people - or to impress the crowd and win their sympathy. Sophiecentaur from the 'nutrino thread'.
My object has never been to impress the crowd or to win their sympathy.  I do not underestimate people's intelligence.  They are well able to make up their own minds.

Do you think, it could possibly not have been accepted because it doesn't have enough substance rather than because "they're" ganging up against you?
This comment is is meaningless. The experiment HAS been accepted, by EXPERTS.  My model has never been evaluated by experts.  And I have never thought anyone was 'ganging up' against me.  How absurd.

New ideas come and go. They are two a penny. It is only those which pass the acid test that get anywhere.
My magnetic field model has been in the public domain for a couple of months now.  Let's see if it stands the test of time.

Talking of concepts; could you 'conceive' that your ideas are misguided?
They've been put out there to find this out.  Saying that I'm arm waving or that I'm misguided does not constitute an argument.  Give me an argument and I could be persuaded.  Thus far I've only heard some irrelevant criticisms about me and my general lack of qualification.  And some nit picking on the mass/size ratio of the electron to the proton.  Argue my concepts - then I can believe that your opinion might matter.

[lyner]

A bit of smoke and mirrors here, concerning pi and about a three dimensional figure in two dimensions.
Also concerning the mass idea. If the electron behaves like a Newtonian object under many documented situations - at speeds of a few mm/s then we can't really say it doesn't have mass. You may choose to invent a totally brand new 'concept' of what you mean by mass but you then need to supply a totally new framework for everything else and formally define all of your variables.
It is, of course, interesting to speculate what you would do about all the other 'concepts' which you bandy about so liberally but which were developed by a lot of very clever people who spend their lives "nitpicking" in order to produce the evidence and models on which you so readily base your supposedly fresh ideas. As you cannot trust nitpicking, I suggest you start from scratch.
You might acknowledge that, without the nitpicking of a few astronomers a few centuries ago, we'd still be working with Earth at the centre of the Universe.

(I think that was as apersonal as I could make it)

[witsend (OP)]

Thank you Sophiecentaur.  That was decidedly fair comment.  I must now try and find an answer that'll hopefully keep your interest in the model.

[witsend (OP)]

A bit of smoke and mirrors here, concerning pi and about a three dimensional figure in two dimensions.
I actually first wrote that pi determined the volume of sphere.  Fortunately a kind friend alerted me to my mistake. But you're right.  I cannot describe a 2 dimensional sphere let alone measure it.  I just know that it's 2 dimensional because it doesn't occupy any space for any extended period of time.  What I mean is that in terms of my model it is only ever manifest for one third of every phase cycle.  So to compensate for this I took off 1 dimension.  If you need me to clarify this I will do so gladly.
   
Also concerning the mass idea. If the electron behaves like a Newtonian object under many documented situations - at speeds of a few mm/s then we can't really say it doesn't have mass.
Not sure what you mean.  I thought the electron definitely has mass but that the 1836 determines the size ratio between it and the proton. Again, in terms of the model I definitely have a particle and not a wave regardless of the electron's velocity in the atom.   

You may choose to invent a totally brand new 'concept' of what you mean by mass but you then need to supply a totally new framework for everything else and formally define all of your variables.
No need to change known terms.  But personally, I object to the concept of an electron, or for that matter a proton, being given a weight mass.  This is only because it's weight mass would only be applicable in a gravitational field, and change the level or amount of gravity you'd also have to adjust that mass.  So its weight mass is only applicable on earth.  Not a constant?

It is, of course, interesting to speculate what you would do about all the other 'concepts' which you bandy about so liberally but which were developed by a lot of very clever people who spend their lives "nitpicking" in order to produce the evidence and models on which you so readily base your supposedly fresh ideas.
I think I may defend the fact that the ideas are 'fresh'.  They certainly have not been plagiarised.

As you cannot trust nitpicking, I suggest you start from scratch.
Every confidence in nitpickers. 

And, in conclusion, I have no quarrel with conventional physics except that I fondly believe that an understanding of it need not be restricted to abstract mathematical formulae.

How am I doing Sophiecentaur?  You will note that in the spirit of a true scientist I am not taking offense at any dismissive comments such as 'bandy about liberally' and 'smoke and mirrors' and that I am trying to explain my terms.  If you need any more clarification I'll gladly oblige. In fact there is nothing I'd like to do more than convince you that I am not an arm waver.

[lyner]

I should imagine you would want to clarify the bit about the dimensions. What's it supposed to mean?

Do you not know of Newtons laws and the equivalence of acceleration and gravity? How do you imagine the electron 'moving about in' the atom with a "velocity"?

What is "weight mass" please? It is a term with which I (and, I suspect, any Physicist reading this) am not familiar. Whoever suggested that this has anything  to do with what happens on Earth, in particular? This is an example of what I refer to with the expression "bandying words around"- they actually have no meaning in this or any other context when used together in that way.

"Smoke and mirrors" is a very apt way to describe the dimensions sentence. As for "Pi" being involved, I cannot see that the "size" of any of the particles involved is particularly of interest to anyone. Once in a bound state, Heisenberg really forbids the knowledge of position or size to any great accuracy because the energy is so well defined.

It all boils down to the fact that you have to choose between nitpicking and armwaving. Pick a few nits out you your model and you may not need to wave your arms or get so cross when the inadequacies are pointed out.

It amazes me that you still do not (/do not choose) to  see the relevance of my Hydrogen line question. By refusing to discuss it you are publicly demonstrating that you don't understand what it's about. If it's a theory of everything - seeming to cover all the posh Science names you can lay your hands on in less than a paragraph each in your blog, then it should be able to handle a simple thing like an alternative to the solution to the Schroedinger wave equation.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are going to be strict with your use of terms and justify each step in detail (not just referring to your wave theory blog which is far too abbreviated to mean anything to anyone) OR you just have to treat your ideas as an informal bit of chat.




[edit - punctuation]

[witsend (OP)]

I never realised that an arm waver is someone who gets angry - quickly?  I assumed it applied to someone whose words had no substance and therefore the arms were waved to give those empty expressions some emphasis and meaning.  In any event.  If it means the former - then I may very well be guilty as charged.  If the latter then I certainly am not. 

Edit - SophieC - I never saw your reply last night.  I wish I had as I would have answered you.  I'll try and do so during the day - otherwise I'll post tonight. 

[witsend (OP)]

What is "weight mass" please? It is a term with which I (and, I suspect, any Physicist reading this) am not familiar. Whoever suggested that this has anything  to do with what happens on Earth, in particular? This is an example of what I refer to with the expression "bandying words around"- they actually have no meaning in this or any other context when used together in that way. Sophiecentaur

Wiki gives the mass of an electron as 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg.  Please advise me.  I assume that kg represents kilograms?  In which case this is the actual weight of an electron.  So, my question is this.  What is the weight of an electron on Mars? Jupiter? the sun? and so on? I know that 1 kg of butter on earth will not weigh 1kg on the moon.  So, how can the weight mass of an electron have any real relevance other than here, on earth.  That's what I mean by it not having a weight mass - or it may have - but it's not a constant - in the way that the speed of light is a constant.

Please advise me.  Is this a relevant observation - or have I missed something?

Edit I grant you that an electron in a rest state has a half spin, that it belongs to the fermion family and is a lepton.  I agree with all other descriptions of the electron.  I just cannot understand it's mass - if this, as it seems, relates to a measure of its weight.

I actually tried to answer your other questions - but can't.  Or I can, but I first need to understand this one.  Please oblige SophieC.  I'm sincerely unable to understand weight mass - if that is what it means.

[lyner]

If I were you, I would make sure that I knew what mass is and what weight is and also the units used for each.

I do not see myself as your personal Science Coach so you may have to make a bit of an effort to learn some basics  before it is worth persueing the advanced stuff with which you seem to think you are familiar.

[witsend (OP)]

That's a cop out Sophiecentaur.  Just give me a clue.  What does kg stand for if not weight?

[lyner]

If you don't know I can assure you that anyone on this forum (or any academic) who you want to convince will be even less likely to take you seriously. I give you the usual answer which is given on TNS to students who want their homework done for them. "Find Out for Yourself"

[witsend (OP)]

I've spent the last 2 hours trying to find the answer to this question.  The only thing I've found is that the constant used by particle physicists is the electron volt eV, used to represent its mass.  So energy is expressed in various forms of this basic unit.  It's mass, therefore is not seen in terms of its weight at all.  The mass-energy equivalence is always expressed in its voltage potential which, presumably is constant.

But my point holds.  Why reference the weight of the these particles when it is clearly of no intrinsic value to a description of a particle outside our Earth's magnetic fields?