Re: The clock malfunctioned.

srp2inc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 juil, 21:31, "Spaceman" <space...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
srp2...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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).

I just don't wish to limit "size" with "fundamental" energy alone
simply because that was done with molecules, then it was
done with electons/protons etc. etc.
I prefer to leave such "open" since the only limit
so far has been technology only for seeing the "smaller" stuff.
:)

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

I notice you have "accepted" a massless photon
with the (h) in DeBroglies photon equation.

Hmm. This is sort of an assumption on your part.

If you examine the other half of the equation, you
will see that a fluctuating magnetic field is present
which is made up of half the energy of the de Broglie
photon. This is the electromagnetic mass of the
photon being kept in motion by the other half (the
one with the (h).

I do see where you are getting such thoughts,
but I would find such motion without loss of energy
a problem.
The (h) seems to be creating energy it can not
maintain for such trips a photon can actually take.
(billions of miles etc..)
I would still prefer to think the energy needed
to keep the motion comes from a medium instead
of from the "photon" itself.
The medium of that "really small" stuff could also
speed up the motion easily once it passed
through a gravitational field, or other
medium, that slowed the motion.


Photons definitely can have no rest mass, but
they also definitely have a magnetic mass.

I can think of the photon as massless and also having
magnetic mass but I would come up with the medium
being the physical mass that maintain the magnetic mass
motion.
I am thinking it moves just like a water wave moves.
The mass is not truly in motion itself, but the energy
is transfered via mass pressure waves only in the photons
case the mass is made of much smaller mass that simply
can not be detected with todays technology as a physical
mass (yet).



To understand the concept of magnetic mass,
I refer you to this paper of mine that was published
last year and that explains this concept based
on a highly advanced development made by
Paul Marmet.

file:///C:/Homepage/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf

I checked the right link you posted, to replace the above.
http://pages.globetrotter.net/srp/discrete_electromagnetic_fields.pdf


As I see it,
I still see (h) being used instead (in place) of a physical mass.
I am sorry I can not bring myself to just allow h to be non massive
even though it is used "as a mass in motion" such as when used in
E=hf
I know (h) was created to allow a zero rest mass and a frequency
to create energy.
Yet if (h) was a true 0 mass, the E would always be 0 no matter
the frequency measured and in fact no frequency would be
possible without a mass creating such "motion" in my
type of thoughts on the subject.


I could not do such, simply because I am
the old fashion guy that thinks mass is always
the "culprit" for energy (mass in motion)
I do understand that it simplifies it all a ton,
but I also do not think that photons can travel
without a medium in a vacuum so I actually would
prefer to still look for that "crazy small" mass that
allows waves to travel in vacuum and also would
be the reason that photons can "speed up again"
after leaving a medium such as an atomosphere
and yet after it leaves the atomosphere it again
gets "pushed" or "geared" back to the known
speed of light in that "vacuum".

If you are interested enough to really dig into the
paper I refer you to until you understand all implications,
you may see how it is possible for photons
to move on their own (self propel) without the
need for any medium of any sort. This is due to
the fact that these particles generate local electric
and magnetic fields that guide them in straight line
if no outside force interferes. The velocity is
produced by the kinetic half of their energy

I see what you are saying but I can not find
the ability to "store" enoguh energy to travel billions
of miles on this kinetic energy and then
also be able to "speed" back up after some of this
energy would be lost when traveling through a
slower "speed" medium such as an atmosphere.
A "medium" containing the energy to do such would
not have any problem with speeding back up
after any slowing occured from such medium changes.



I think photons are the energy of the mass in motion,
just as the water is the "energy transference medium"
of a water wave and it keeps the speed up itself.
even though the water really does not move the distance
at all.
I do admit though all of that page (math and all) looks
wonderful.
I am glad some people here actually think besides just
follow the lemmings of Einstein.
:)

It seems that I never followed anyone actually. I always
cared only for stuff that could be physically verified.

That is what physics is truly about.
I commend you for such actual correct use of science.
:)



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."

True,
I think as soon as people test for a "physical" cause
instead of testing for "abstract mathematical causes only"
such as relativity produces for the clocks such as I have
explained and you and such as you have explained
to me... then...
Science will again shift into drive again.

BTW: I think "dark matter" is the smaller stuff
I am speaking about and only some places it will
gather in "abormal" situations to be "observed".
Otherwise it is everywhere but in a uniform structure.
:)

My view is that fundamental energy in the form of
photons is the ultimate stuff. the dark matter concept
came up from physicists finding no explanations for
huge discrepancies between figures obtained from GR
and SR and what can actually be observed.

It seems to be a totally unfounded wishful notion.

It sure as well could be.
But, most of the descrepencies of GR and SR still come
from the ignorance of not realizing the clock simply
malfunctioned.
:)


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... made up of other smaller particles) have been proven ... mass of the nucleons diminish accordingly. ... in with high energy scattering with known ... with the in DeBroglies photon equation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are There Any Actual Physicists/Scientists Here?
    ... These kinds of questions (involving blackholes, wormholes, particles ... It's generally accepted that particles with mass can't be accelerated ... to the speed of light (would require infinite energy), ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Questions part II -- Deep questions on negative mass
    ... Regarding the mass of electrons, I have a rather deep question. ... electron could be so close to the proton that the electric binding ... energy, which is negative, could exceed the atom's total rest energy? ... negative-mass leaves or does something to ballance it out -- than who ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
    ... What if these fields have mass. ... Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n ... the more energy and momentum it ... mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A New Foundation for Physics
    ... > relativity theory specifically allows for m to be in dimensions of mass ... > or units of energy, electron volts, and other expressions of energy, ... Mass does NOT have units of electron volts. ...
    (sci.physics)