Re: The clock malfunctioned.

On 26 juil, 17:15, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 24 juil, 23:31, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have a quite different explanation though.

I would like to hear it.

Actually, I have explained it quite a few times already
on this ng. Not very complicated in fact.

To really appreciate it though, you need to take
into account only the proven scatterable particles
making up protons and neutrons that make up
atomic nuclei.

Only two elementary particles (proven not to be
made up of other smaller particles) have been proven
out of any doubt by non-destructive scattering with
high energy electrons to exist within protons and
neutrons, and they are the up quark with charge
2/3 that of the electron (but positive instead of
negative) and the down quark with charge 1/3
that of the electron (this one is negative)

Well, I have a slight problem with "elementary" particles
only because there is no limit to division, but since
you did say "non destructive" scattering I will
accept we wish to look at such in this non destructive
level, and we can forget about "my problem".
:)
Now If I think mechanically you now have an object that
would be spinning the smaller object with a 2:1 ratio.
2/3 of charge in one gear and 1/3 in the other.
Hence the large object spins once and the small one
will spin twice
I think it all works out well mechanically also.
:)

This is not exactly how I see them interacting, but
yes, even as you describe the motion, this is close
enough for causality to be meningful.


A proton is made up of 2 up quarks and 1 down
quark moving at relativistic velocities, a motion
that determines the volume that the proton occupies
in space. ((+2/3) +(+2/3) +(-1/3) = 1 positive charge
equal to that of the electron.

A neutron is made up of 1 up quark and 2 down
quarks in an almost identical moving arrangement
(+2/3)+(-1/3)+(-1/3) = 0 charge.

You can verify this in the literature if you succeed
in finding sources not too burdened with the other
Copenhagen flavored non scatterable (that is, virtual)
quarks.

Yes, no problem with it at all.
:)



Now, these up and down quarks, being charged
just like the electron, are by definition individually
subject to universally understood electrostatic
inverse square of the distance relation with all
other charged particles.

If you clump together huge amounts of atoms,
like a planet, the earth for example, all of the
quarks in nuclei will be drawn more strongly
outwards (than than any nucleus isolated
far in space) in their captive motion while
still maintaining cohesion, by the crowds
of other charged particls (electrons, quarks
ups and downs of other close by nuclei)
which will cause the proton and neutron
volume to expand, the quarks velocity
to diminish and the resulting relativistic
mass of the nucleons diminish accordingly.

If you then take a small clump of matter,
an atomic clock for example, away from
the surface, all of the quarks in the nuclei
of this clump will be attracted outwards
less strongly by the matter of the earth
now further away and their nucleons volumes
will diminish, the quarks relativistic velocity
will increase and also their relativistic mass,
causing a tightening of the orbits of the electronic
escorts, which explains why cesium atoms
taken as a reference produce higher frequency
photons as they are taken away from the earth.

I also think this follows my "freedom of motion"
type thoughts.
:)

Exactly why I see no logical fault with your own
view.

All atoms have to behave this way. Any
element whatsoever could be used as a
reference to make atomic clocks.

Cesium was just the handiest at the time.

Yes,
I have no problems with your explanations
and I also think they agree with mine.
:)
I love things that "work" with actual causes.
Thanks for explaining such.

But now I am still stuck with "my problem"
that even quarks should be able to be broken
into smaller pieces.

All non desctructive scattering have shown that
they behave in all respect as point like particles,
just like electrons.

This is not the case with protons and neutrons,
this is why there was cause to explore further
in with high energy scattering with known
point-like behaving particles (electrons).

From all experiments, the stage next to
point like behaving particle is revertion to
fundamental energy that recombines in
all sorts of unstable particles that eventually
decay into one or other of the stable forms,
electron, positrons, protons, neutrons.

The evidence is pretty convincing that electrons
quarks up and down, known to behave as
point like particles are the last stage before
fundamental electromagnetic energy (photons).

But of course, that will not show us "how they work".
Just like smashing electrons still has not truly
shown us "how they work" either.

In my model, they have a very precise electromagnetic
dynamic structure, that clearly show how they work.

Not really possible to fully describe the model here,
but I can show you equations that describe the
various scatterable point like behaving particles
to a certain extent.

http://pages.videotron.com/ceber/equation.jpg

We have simply found pieces and have to
think about how they are placed together to
make the electron.

The model I developped clearly explains one
very mechanical way that this can happen. Too
complex to explain here.

Silly me will want to find out what makes up the
quarks also though so I will be stuck in my
never ending (infinite wheels within wheels)
world.

Maybe not forever. One day, this will all be
cleared up one way or another. As soon as
the Copenhagen irrational drift dies out, this
will happen. Or maybe the other way around,
but it will happen.

Korzybski wrote. "Progress can be slowed down,
but it cannot be stopped."

André Michaud
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... that of the electron ... quarks in an almost identical moving arrangement ... photons as they are taken away from the earth. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Weak Force Interactions
    ... The left electron and left neutrino are the ones ... a spectrum that includes these "particles". ... RED: Red quarks ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... that of the electron ... you did say "non destructive" scattering I will ... quarks in an almost identical moving arrangement ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Experimental Verification of Quarks
    ... >> proper that scattering reveals, then your view would fairly well match ... > actually my concept of basic micro particles (the known one ... > methaphorically a particle like an electron or even a quark ... This is absolutely true of nucleons. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Weak Force Interactions
    ... The left electron and left neutrino are the ones ... | a spectrum that includes these "particles". ... | RED: Red quarks ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast