Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: The Reinterpretation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14

    The Reinterpretation

    I created a physical model based on an extremely dense background ether and with even higher density spheres of ether embedded in the background ether. All the particles in the universe are embedded in this background ether. Each particle consists of 2 of these high density spheres of ether and the 2 spheres in each particle expand and contract 180 degrees out of phase with each other. These 2 components of a particle are entangled with each other by sharing/exchanging a portion of their ether with each other. As one component starts expanding the other component starts contracting, the contracting component receives a portion of ether from the expanding component. This shared ether from the expanding component has some momentum and the contracting component receives this either and the momentum of that received ether pushes the contracting component away from the expanding component, thereby keeping the 2 components permanently separated. If component 1 in the pair of components has an extra amount of ether compared to component 2, that extra amount could account for a -1 charge for the 2 entangled components, this would be an electron.
    pages 3-7:
    https://sites.google.com/view/shetlar/home

    A component expands and contracts at an incredibly high frequency, and the distance it expands is incredibly far. When a component expands, the ether that makes up the component only expands a short distance, the rest of the expanding spherical wave is made of the background ether which continues the expanding wave. It acts like a standing spherical wave that is made of the components ether and the background ether. The distance it expands could be many light years in diameter and that could occur in a fraction of a second. The center of mass will not travel faster than the speed of light.

    Wave velocity is slower in a region with lower density ether:
    In a region of space where the expanding ether from 2 components are flowing in the same direction, some of the ether in that region is dragged/pushed out of that region resulting in a lower density in that region and a slower wave velocity in that region.

    Wave velocity is higher in a region with higher density ether:
    In a region of space where the expanding ether from one component and the contracting ether from another component are flowing in opposite directions, extra ether is pushed into that region causing a higher density in that region and a higher wave velocity in that region.

    How a component in particle 1 interacts with a component in particle 2. Regions 1 and 3 are equal distances in the examples, region 2 is variable. Two examples:

    Example 1: Repulsion of 2 positive components, both expanding:


    Region 1-------------|---------Region 2---------|--------Region 3
    -----------positive component 1------positive component 2
    ----------------- <-- O --> ---------------- <-- O -->

    Note:
    <--O--> = expanding component
    -->O<-- = contracting component
    O = component

    Region 1 left of component 1:
    Ether from both components flows to the left in region 1 and causes the ether in region 1 to be less dense and the ether waves travel more slowly in this region.

    Region 2 between components 1 and 2:
    Ether from both components 1 and 2 flow against each other in this region and result in higher ether density in region 2, causing the ether waves to travel faster in region 2.

    Region 3 right of component 2:
    Ether from both components flows to the right in region 3 and causes the ether in region 3 to be less dense and the ether waves travel more slowly in this region.

    Results for component 1:
    The ether wave of component 1 that flows to the right travels faster in region 2 and slower in region 3 when expanding and contracting. The distance component 1 expands into region 1 is equal to the distance of region 2 + most of region 3.
    Component 1's time spent in Region 1 is greater than the time spent in regions 2 and 3. When the ether returns to a compressed sphere it will be displaced to left due to the ether from the right returning earlier than the ether returning from the left. The same will be true for component 2, except it will be displaced to the right. The same will happen for 2 negative expanding components.


    Example 2: Attraction of 1 expanding positive component and 1 contracting negative component:


    Region 1------------|----------Region 2-------------|-------------Region 3
    -----------positive component 1--------- negative component 2
    ---------------- <-- O --> --------------------- --> O <--

    Region 1 left of component 1:
    Ether from component 1 flows to the left and ether from component 2 flows to the right. With the ether flowing in opposite directions the ether is compressed and the 2 waves travel faster in this region.

    Region 2 between components 1 and 2:
    Ether from both components 1 and 2 flow in the same direction in this region causing a lower ether density and slower ether wave velocity in region 2.

    Region 3 right of component 2:
    Ether from component 1 flows to the right and ether from component 2 flows to the left. With the ether flowing in opposite directions the ether is compressed and the 2 waves travel faster in this region.

    Results for component 1:
    Time spent in Region 1 is greater than the time spent in regions 2 and 3. When component 1's ether returns to a compressed sphere it will be displaced to left due to the ether from the right returning earlier than the ether from the left. The same will be true for component 2, it will be displaced to the right.
    pages 15-27:
    https://sites.google.com/view/shetlar/home
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Aug-13 at 03:56 AM. Reason: edited to replace spaces with dashes

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,471
    Welcome to the CosmoQuest forums, Deansh. If you haven't already done so, please read our rules linked in my signature line below. I also recommend that you read our ATM advice, also linked.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    It looks like the spaces were removed on a few lines.

    For example 1:
    ------Region 1 ------------|----------Region 2----------|------------ Region 3-------------
    ----------------positive component 1--------- positive component 2
    -----------------------<-- O -->-------------------- <-- O -->

    For example 2:
    ------Region 1 ------------|----------Region 2----------|------------ Region 3-------------
    ----------------positive component 1--------- negative component 2
    -----------------------<-- O -->-----------------------> O <--

    Expanding = <-- O -->
    Contracting = --> O <--

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    I created a physical model based on an extremely dense background ether and with even higher density spheres of ether embedded in the background ether. ...
    Hi Deansh and welcome to the forum.
    Unfortunately your idea has been invalid for over a century. The Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887 failed to detect any aether. More accurate experiments followed and no aether has been found. Your idea then gets less valid with adding that this aether has negative and positive charges and that the negative charge is an electron. We know that vacuums are not filled with electrons. A property of any proposed aether is that it has to be neutral because accelerated charges emit detectable radiation and charges moving through a mixture of those charges are affected (this is not seen, e.g. linear accelerators work as designed). Another problem is "expands and contracts at an incredibly high frequency" for these charged components. Once again, accelerated charges emit detectable radiation and this behavior will stop as your components lose energy. FYI, this is similar to the reason why atoms cannot be electrons classically orbiting the nucleus. The electrons are accelerating by changing direction, emit radiation and spiral into the nucleus.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Hi Reality Check,
    Thanks for your reply, I agree with you on that version of the aether. My model uses an ether where all particles are embedded in the ether and when particles have momentum, the gap between the 2 components of a particle are closer together. This makes any measuring equipment shorter in the direction of momentum.

    The charges of electrons and quarks are based on the difference in the amount of ether between the 2 components. For the up quark the “positive” component has an extra amount of ether that gives it a +2/3 charge. The 2 components are permanently entangled with each other. It is only when an electron approaches a proton that the electron becomes entangled with the 3 quarks in the proton and they emit a photon. The amount of ether shared between them equals the amount of ether the photon carried away. Once entangled, the ether shared by the proton and electron keeps them apart due to the shared ether that is passed from the expanding components to the contracting components. The momentum of this shared ether keeps the proton and electron separated from each other.





    The 2 components expand and contract, they are standing waves 180 degrees out of phase with each other. As seen below when component 1 is fully contracted, component 2 is fully expanded. They are entangled with each other and this entanglement keeps them separated by a small amount. They both want to merge with each other but during each half cycle the expanding component pushes the contracting component away with the small amount of ether they share, the shared ether is what keeps them entangled.




    Here is a step by step process of 2 components entangling with each other. The asterisk shapes are fully expanded components. I am showing the positive components of the 3 quarks as just one component to keep it simple.




    The diagram below shows that when a particle is accelerated to a higher speed, a greater amount of their ether becomes shared and they experience space dilation.

    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Aug-18 at 03:55 AM. Reason: added links that show pictures

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,878

    No Ether --> No Theory

    You need to supply observations and evidence of your "ether" or your ideas are so much speculation. Until you do so, your speculations are worthless.

    Formal question: do you have any such observations or evidence?

    If so, they need to be presented here, please. And please also, real repeatable physical observations and evidence.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    This model is a reinterpretation of current observations, I don't see any measurements detecting this "background ether".

    What I do have are rules and actions for how this ether should act to explain what we observe. Let me put together responses on potential explanations for dark matter and dark energy.

    Below I show how gravity works in this model.

    Gravity:
    This diagram below shows the 2 entangle components of a quark and the ether density diagram for the quark if it was the only particle in local space. The fully expanded positive component has pushed a little bit of the background ether out of the region. This means that when the negative component starts expanding, it will expand into a slightly lower density ether and this will slow the expansion a little bit. The distance between the 2 components shift a little back and forth as they expand and contract 180 degrees out of phase and exchange the shared ether. This gives the 2 components an internal back and forth movement or ”angular”(?) momentum. The point of this diagram is to show that the expansion rate of the negative component will hardly be slowed down with only one expanded component in the local region.

    Image 1:
    https://imgur.com/m3lMonc


    When there are many particles in a local region of space there are many more expanded components. This pushes out a larger amount of the background ether. With a lower amount of background ether the 2 components of a quark become closer to each other in order to pass the same amount of shared ether between themselves. When the negative components in the diagram below start expanding, they will expand at a slower rate due to the less dense local ether. This also means that particles or planets that are close by will be affected by the lower ether density in this region.

    Image 2:
    https://imgur.com/xScsAkU



    Here is an example of a negative component being displaced towards a star. When it expands at its original point, the background ether to the left of it has close to the normal background density, it’s ether wave will travel at normal velocity during expansion and contraction. The ether to the right of the component has the mass of a star to travel through. The lower density in and around the star means the components ether wave will slow in that region during both expansion and contraction, and arrive back to the component’s origin at a later time. This results in the component contracting back at a point closer to the star.

    Image 3:
    https://imgur.com/Jt2k54N

    These are interesting ideas but I would like to see if mathematics can verify or dismiss these ideas. I do think it is interesting.

    Pages 159-163
    https://sites.google.com/view/shetlar/home

    Here is a more permanent link to my paper:
    https://vixra.org/abs/2008.0064

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    Hi Reality Check,
    Thanks for your reply, I agree with you on that version of the aether. My model uses an ether where all particles are embedded in the ether ...
    The MM experiment and others rule out any version of the aether. Repeating or extending your story does not change this. Just asserting that measuring equipment becomes shorter "in the direction of momentum" does not change the MM results. You need to match the results with your idea which cannot be done with what you have written so far.

    You imagine that a "difference in the amount of ether" that gives electrons with a charge of -1 but also gives gives up, charm, and top quarks a +2/3 charge and presumably down, strange, and bottom quarks a -1/3 charge. A coupe of formal questions.
    1. Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.
    2. Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.
    3. Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?
      If I understand your idea, a free electron will have a variety of charges according to its momentum.

    Electrons do not become "entangled with the 3 quarks in the proton" normally. They exist outside of the atomic nucleus with its protons and neutrons. Electrons emit photons because they lose energy in atomic orbitals, not because they interact with the nucleus. The closest we get to this in real world to this is neutron stars where electrons are "squeezed" into protons to make neutrons. There is also electron capture but that emits neutrinos.
    You then state the electron and proton are separated,, i.e. not entangled. Or this is your own definition of "entangled". Quantum entanglement is not electrons bound to protons.
    You have "components" for particles that show no evidence of being composite. We treat electrons as point particles in quantum electrodynamics and get the most precisely tested theory in physics. We measure a very small upper limit to the size of the electron. We treat quarks as point particles and quantum chromodynamics works.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The MM experiment and others rule out any version of the aether. Repeating or extending your story does not change this. Just asserting that measuring equipment becomes shorter "in the direction of momentum" does not change the MM results. You need to match the results with your idea which cannot be done with what you have written so far.
    This model includes space and time dilation.

    Time and space dilation in this model occur when it becomes harder for components to interact with each other due to lower amounts of ether in the local space.

    The post #7 above shows space dilation. There will also be time dilation because it will take more cycles for components to interact with each other.

    A component maintains its momentum.
    Each time a component contracts, its motion/momentum is continued by a process that creates a low-density area of ether behind the direction of travel. When the component starts expanding, this low-density area redirects some of the expanding ether in the backwards direction in such a way that when the component contracts it will contract to a location further along the path of velocity.

    Link to image:
    https://imgur.com/EQl4mbM


    Two entangled components with momentum/velocity.
    Component 1 is on the left and component 2 is on the right. Each time component 1 expands, its ether wave interacts with component 2s ether wave and causes it to be displaced to a new location away from component 1. The motion/momentum is continued by a process that creates a low-density area of ether behind the direction of travel for component 2 when it contracts.


    The maximum limit of the process occurs at the speed of light. In the link below the image shows 2 entangled components at slow velocity and 2 entangled components at high velocity. The component on the left is in the middle of expanding and the component on the right is in the middle of contracting. If they are lined up with each other in the direction of their velocity to the right, there is an extra amount of ether that the expanding component on the left sends to the contracting component ahead of it on the right. If the amount of ether sent increases then the velocity and momentum is increased. Because more of the ether is sent in the forward direction, there is less ether sent in the other directions to interact with other components around them and it will take more cycles and closer proximity to interact with other components, this causes space and time dilation. The image uses lines to show the ether flow directions and the closer the lines are, the denser the ether is.

    Link to image:
    https://imgur.com/ECWVV4n


    To add extra ether flow/momentum for these 2 components, other faster moving components behind them push extra amounts of ether at the slower components during expansion and the slower components get more and more of their ether redirected in the forward direction.

    During a cycle a component with momentum will be at a specific location for an instant. It will be a compressed sphere at that location and then instantly expands many light years in diameter, then will contract back at a new location in the direction it was traveling. The new location is incredibly close to where its old location was because the expansion and contraction is incredibly fast.

    Only the momentum of a component is transferred from one location to another in the background ether. Let’s say a component moves from point A to point B in one cycle of expansion and contraction. When the component is compressed at point A it is using the ether at point A. When the component expands at point A and contracts back to a small sphere at point B it will now be using the ether at point B to “recreate” its high-density sphere again.

    The background ether would need to be slightly elastic to allow this to happen. The background ether would also be dense and be very incompressible. The small spheres of ether would also have to spherically expand many light years in diameter, far enough to handle the phenomenon of gravity. In this model gravity does not extend to infinity. This places a lower limit on the diameter the components expand. It’s hard to imagine these spheres expanding a great distance like this, millions of light years, but I can’t say it can’t happen.

    If the background ether is slightly elastic, when a component expands, its momentum will be transferred to the background ether by shifting the background ether a little bit. When the component is fully expanded then the energy is fully transferred and stored in the background ether. At that point the background ether will start moving back to its original locations and cause the component to become a solid sphere again. This would imply that these small spheres have a large amount of stored energy when they are compressed, and begins transferring momentum of the background ether when they start expanding.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,878

    No Observations --> No Theory

    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    You need to supply observations and evidence of your "ether" or your ideas are so much speculation. Until you do so, your speculations are worthless.

    Formal question: do you have any such observations or evidence?

    If so, they need to be presented here, please. And please also, real repeatable physical observations and evidence.
    You have to be able to demonsrate that there is an ether. If you cannot demonstrate that there is an ether, then your ideas are just made up fantasy. The fundamental basis of your theory is flawed. You cannot reinterpret something that does not exist.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    This model includes space and time dilation. ...
    Irrelevant to the fact that any aether has been ruled out by experiments and so your idea is fundamentally wrong. What you have is an unsupported, math less story that can never include the fact and theory of time dilation and length contraction.
    IF01: Please match that actual results of the Michelson–Morley experiments, e.g. the 1887 one.
    IF02: Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.
    IF03: Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.
    IF04: Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?
    IF05: Show how you derive time dilation and length contraction from your idea. Not unsupported assertions but the actual form of these physical phenomena.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    Below I show how gravity works in this model.
    This is followed by a story about quarks that is obviously wrong, Deansh. Gravity has nothing to do with imagined "entangle components of a quark". Quarks only exist inside protons and neutrons. Any "entanglement" is inside protons and neutrons. Gravity exists outside of protons and neutrons!
    Stories about an aether that we have never detected having waves, expanding, contacting and generally dancing about, etc.
    No gravity at all in your post!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    This model is a reinterpretation of current observations, I don't see any measurements detecting this "background ether".

    What I do have are rules and actions for how this ether should act to explain what we observe. Let me put together responses on potential explanations for dark matter and dark energy.
    Well here is the thing. Scientific theories are not judged on whether they 'explain' things. It is easy to explain things ("It's all due to those invisible pink unicorns, doncha know"). Theories are judged on their predictive power and applicability. If your idea is to be seen as a better theory than current ones it needs to do one or more of the following:
    - Make more accurate predictions
    - Make different predictions to the standard models and be proven correct by observations
    - Make predictions using one model that are currently covered by multiple models
    - Make new predictions in areas current models cannot and be proven correct by observations
    - Simplify making predictions compared to the current models, either conceptually or mathematically

    Problem is all we have so far from your idea is a lot of words about how you think something that has never been observed behaves and not actual testable quantitative predictions. Lets take an example. You've 'explained' gravity. Yet nowhere in your explanation have you shown, from first principles, why we observe an inverse square law in the non-relativistic limit. You haven't shown how gravity is linked to mass. You haven't even come close to relativistic effects. So on one hand we have current theories which allow us to predict things from planetary orbits to frame dragging versus your ideas which allow you (and as far as I can tell pretty much only you) to feel like you understand things. It really isn't any competition.

    Can you do or start to do any of the things I've listed above with your ideas? If not your idea is nowhere near ready for review and you should consider taking more time to get it ready.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The MM experiment and others rule out any version of the aether. Repeating or extending your story does not change this. Just asserting that measuring equipment becomes shorter "in the direction of momentum" does not change the MM results. You need to match the results with your idea which cannot be done with what you have written so far.

    You imagine that a "difference in the amount of ether" that gives electrons with a charge of -1 but also gives gives up, charm, and top quarks a +2/3 charge and presumably down, strange, and bottom quarks a -1/3 charge. A coupe of formal questions.
    1. Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.
    2. Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.
    3. Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?
      If I understand your idea, a free electron will have a variety of charges according to its momentum.

    Electrons do not become "entangled with the 3 quarks in the proton" normally. They exist outside of the atomic nucleus with its protons and neutrons. Electrons emit photons because they lose energy in atomic orbitals, not because they interact with the nucleus. The closest we get to this in real world to this is neutron stars where electrons are "squeezed" into protons to make neutrons. There is also electron capture but that emits neutrinos.
    You then state the electron and proton are separated,, i.e. not entangled. Or this is your own definition of "entangled". Quantum entanglement is not electrons bound to protons.
    You have "components" for particles that show no evidence of being composite. We treat electrons as point particles in quantum electrodynamics and get the most precisely tested theory in physics. We measure a very small upper limit to the size of the electron. We treat quarks as point particles and quantum chromodynamics works.

    I agree with all of you after hearing your arguments about what I need to work on in the gravity section. I also think I am not writing clear enough when describing what is going on in the examples. I am trying to write down what I visualize in my thought experiments and I see now that I don’t clarify some parts that need clarification. For instance, when I used a quark in the first paragraph on gravity. I used it to demonstrate how 2 components would act with no gravitational field influencing them. It gave the impression that I thought a quark could exist outside a proton or neutron, which it doesn’t. My wording and use of the quark to demonstrate the effect I see was confusing. I also had confusing entries in posts that may have indicated that photons had charge, which they don’t. And another part that a free electron will have different charges, which it doesn’t. I may need to find someone to proofread my posts for clarity before I post them.

    For gravity, it may take months or longer for me to work out a well-reasoned description of gravity in this model, I hope that is possible. Thanks for all the input on what I need to work on for gravity in posts 4, 8, 11, 13.

    It takes me a couple of days to put together a post and I want to get to some of the questions you all are asking. I mentioned there are rules in this model, most of them do not involve gravity and they are interesting. I think some of these rules will help with a couple of the questions that have been asked. I will work on that post now.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    I agree with all of you after hearing your arguments about what I need to work on in the gravity section. I also think I am not writing clear enough when describing what is going on in the examples. I am trying to write down what I visualize in my thought experiments...
    You need to work on your entire idea, starting with showing how your aether can exist at all given the MM and other experiments. That "visualize in my thought experiments" is also a problem, Deansh. Thought experiments are taking a theoretical scenario and applying the known laws of physics to see what happens. Your idea as presented here does not have any physics. The rest of your post contains errors.

    Quarks and all particles with mass and energy (general relativity) will always have a gravitational field influencing them in this universe.
    The issue with gravity and using quarks as an example is this makes gravity into a force that is limited to atomic nuclei. That is obviously wrong.
    Another issue with gravity in your posts is that you have no gravity! Where is a force of gravity? Where is Newton's law of gravitation? Where is general relativity ?
    Your idea as I understand it from this thread is that there is a link between momentum and charge. This started in your first post where momentum of imagined aether components gives an electron its charge of -1. Thus
    • All neutral particles will have charges due to this aether "momentum" or their own momentum.
    • All charged particles will have a charge varying with your aether "momentum" or their own momentum.

    N.B. momentum is mass * velocity. Velocity is relative. Momentum is relative to an observer. Say Alice measures that an electron has a charge of -1 because your aether "momentum" has a value X. Bob is in a spacecraft travelling at with a different velocity to Alice.. Bob will say that aether "momentum" has a value Y. Bob has to measure that electrons do not have a charge of -1.
    I emphasize mass because an aether has to be massless - another issue with your idea. If an aether has mass then it has obvious problems, e.g. I guess colliding with planets probably makes long term stable orbits impossible

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Your idea as I understand it from this thread is that there is a link between momentum and charge. This started in your first post where momentum of imagined aether components gives an electron its charge of -1. Thus
    • All neutral particles will have charges due to this aether "momentum" or their own momentum.
    • All charged particles will have a charge varying with your aether "momentum" or their own momentum.

    This looks like another failure on my part for lack of clarity, I apologize for that. The only thing that determines charge for a component in this model is the phase difference of spherical oscillation. In an electron the larger component would be the "negative" charged component and the smaller component would be the "positive" charged component. They are both made of ether and they both oscillate 180 degrees out of phase with each other. When the larger component is expanding, the smaller component is contracting, etc. The components don't have a property of charge, they are just oscillating spheres of ether. It's how the expanding and contracting ether of the spheres interact that determines whether they move towards each other or away from each other. I don't know if this would match reality, math would need to be done for this.

    A rough analogy might be to imagine a swimming pool full of solid jello (not liquid) but has some elasticity to it. And in the center of the pool there is a high pressure sphere also made of jello. If it has just contracted to the high pressure state then it will immediately start expanding again and will eventually reach a maximum expansion that is determined by the elasticity of the jello. At that point it will contract again become a high density sphere of jello again. The jello making up the high density sphere only expands a short distance, it is the rest of the jello surrounding the high density sphere that continues the expansion. The jello would need the right properties to make expand and contract like that.

    Adding to the jello analogy:
    When the jello sphere expands, all the points inside the sphere are continuing to move outward until the maximum radius is reached. This will create a lower density volume of jello centered at the spheres origin.

    A little bit more on the expanding and contracting spheres:
    If there are expanding and contracting spheres interacting with each other, the different densities created in the ether determine the velocity of the waves. For example, if a particular volume of space has 2 ether waves traveling against each other, the density of ether in that region will increase and the waves will travel faster in that region. If the waves travel with each other in that region, the ether will be stretched out a little and become less dense and the ether waves will travel slower through that region. These interactions can cause a component to expand at one location and contract back to a sphere at a different location. This happens with all the components in electrons, quarks, photons, and heavier particles. Unfortunately I have no direct evidence of this.

    If this is not how ether is supposed to act, then I need a new name for it
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Aug-25 at 01:40 AM. Reason: Adding text to clarify a bit.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    This looks like another failure on my part for lack of clarity, I apologize for that.....
    Adding more vague and wrong assertions to your story does not make anything clearer or address my questions:
    IF01: Please match that actual results of the Michelson–Morley experiments, e.g. the 1887 one.
    IF02: Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.
    IF03: Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.
    IF04: Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?
    IF05: Show how you derive time dilation and length contraction from your idea. Not unsupported assertions but the actual form of these physical phenomena.

    Now you have explicitly uncharged aether components producing a charged electron seemingly just because you write "negative" and "positive". A jello analogy that invalidates your idea by making orbits unstable as in I guess colliding with planets probably makes long term stable orbits impossible (objects in jello experience drag). More on what you imagine "expanding and contracting spheres" to do. Again you assert with no support that particles with no evidence of substructure are made of your "aether components" which have to have mass, charge, spin, etc. to add up to the observed properties of the particles. Electrons have charge and so any components must have charge. An electron has spin 1/2. Any components of an electron also have to have spins that add up to 1/2. Quarks have the property of color, thus their components have to have color.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Below are some of the rules and/or configurations used in this model. This is a physical model and needs diagrams to show the rules and configurations. These are possible physical reinterpretations of current measurements.

    Entanglement Rules:
    In this section the different entanglement modes are shown, some more stable than others. It shows parallel and serial entanglement for electrons and nucleons and the maximum number of parallel and serial entanglement that electrons and nucleons can have. It also shows some of the different particles that can entangle with each other and the relative stable distance between different entangled particles.

    Image for entanglement rules:
    https://imgur.com/OsvULpY


    Spin Rules:
    This section shows the spin direction points from the small component to the large component in the particle. Spin directions are shown for electrons in different shells and sub-shells.

    Image for electron spin:
    https://imgur.com/fVhvjM3


    Configurations for electron shells and a diagram for orbital angular momentum:
    The configurations for electrons in shells are diagrammed in this section. Orbital angular momentum is also in this section.

    Image for electron shells and momentum:
    https://imgur.com/piS0cmz


    Configuration of molecules:
    This section shows how electrons are shared between atoms to create molecules. The water molecule, frozen water, and the O2 molecule are shown in this section.

    Image for molecules:
    https://imgur.com/a/ihwVrkj


    Creation and decay of pions:
    The creation of pions from colliding quarks is shown in this section. The decay of pions is also shown.

    Image for pion creation and decay:
    https://imgur.com/JXAwCXi


    Rules/configuration for adding protons and neutrons to fill nuclear shells
    Protons and neutrons are added to nuclear planes. Each location in these planes have a specific spin value and the planes show a physical symmetry that would allow greater stability for the nucleus when these sub-shells are filled.

    The sub-shells are filled in this specific order:
    1s spin 1/2, 2 protons
    1p spin 3/2, 4 protons
    1p spin 1/2, 2 protons
    1d spin 5/2, 6 protons
    2s spin 1/2, 2 protons
    1d spin 3/2, 4 protons
    1f spin 7/2, 8 protons
    2p spin 3/2, 4 protons
    1f spin 5/2, 6 protons
    2p spin 1/2, 2 protons
    1g spin 9/2, 10 protons
    1g spin 7/2, 8 protons

    Image for nuclear shells:
    https://imgur.com/vaQznxv


    Additional diagrams are in the paper at:
    https://vixra.org/abs/2008.0064
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Aug-27 at 07:32 PM. Reason: Added link

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,310
    It looks like you are just making up rules to fit observations so that your ideas still work. This approach has less predictive power than the current model so must be judged worse.

    Still not seeing anything resembling a scientific theory here. Looks like you are making up a story you like and adding in arbitrary rules to keep it working.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    Below are some of the rules and/or configurations used in this model. This is...
    Deansh,

    Our rules require that you provide direct and timely answers to questions...and there are several questions pending. For instance,
    Reality Check repeated five questions he put to you on 8/23. Here we are almost three days later and you still haven't answered them. If you wish this thread to remain open, please begin providing those answers in your very next post.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Adding more vague and wrong assertions to your story does not make anything clearer or address my questions:
    IF01: Please match that actual results of the Michelson–Morley experiments, e.g. the 1887 one.
    IF02: Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.
    IF03: Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.
    IF04: Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?
    IF05: Show how you derive time dilation and length contraction from your idea. Not unsupported assertions but the actual form of these physical phenomena.
    IF01: Please match that actual results of the Michelson–Morley experiments, e.g. the 1887 one.

    I will have to do more research on this question.



    IF02: Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.

    In this model the photons and neutrinos have "charge" components but the "positive" amount of ether equals the "negative" amount of ether giving a net charge of zero. I suspect they are too close together to be detected.



    IF03: Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.

    Using the example of pion jet creation in the post above, two protons collide. If the up quark in one proton collides with a down quark in the other proton, the smaller components in the 2 quarks produce the smaller components of the pion and anti-pion. The larger components of the 2 quarks produce the larger components of the pion and anti-pion. Both a pion and anti-pion are produced. If that is all that is produced then the pion and anit-pion will fly away and decay eventually into an electron and positron. If the 2 quarks have a much higher velocity collision, then there will be additional pion anti-pion pairs produced and some of these pairs may not be able to escape fast enough, maybe their escape is blocked or hindered by the quarks squeezing them close together as more pions are produced. Those pions and anti-pions may be decaying to electrons before they could escape. There could be many variations on this idea. The idea is that maybe there is an electron and a positron pair and an additional electron that are temporarily bound or confined together. The energy it took to create this state is the energy it took to create these particles plus the energy it took to confine them close together.



    IF04: Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?

    The angular momentum and orbital angular momentum are quantized in this model. Each time one of the two components in the electron expands, it pushes away the other component that wanted to contract closer to the expanding component. It is the momentum of the shared ether that gets transfered back and forth that is the quantized part. All electrons transfer that amount of ether between their 2 components during each half cycle.



    IF05: Show how you derive time dilation and length contraction from your idea. Not unsupported assertions but the actual form of these physical phenomena.

    I will have to work on a more detailed explanation for this.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    Below are some of the rules and/or configurations used in this model....
    Cartoons that you draw are not rules, Deansh. Likewise an unsupported story is not a model. In physics, a model is physics and math that matches observations and makes testable, falsifiable predications.
    1. An "entanglement" story (nothing to do with quantum entanglement, etc.) that you make rules up about.
    2. Spin: You basically repeat textbook rules for spin as your own rules. Added nonsense about southern and northern hemispheres of an atom. Some "radius of entanglement"/"serially entangled" stories.
    3. Shells: More nonsense about hemispheres. Deep ignorance about electron shells! Electron (atomic) orbitals have experimentally verified shapes that are not in your cartoons. Unlike your cartoons. electrons show not sign of being restricted to hemispheres.
    4. Configuration of molecules: A cartoon very ignorant about the structure of water (the angle between H atoms is 104.45 degrees). "Potential configuration for ice" cartoon that iignres real configurations of ice. Ditto for O2
    5. Creation and decay of pions: A cartoon about pions. "This is the same process as photon creation" ignorance when photon are created in many processes. A pion creation story with no physics or math.
      "Some speculation on pion decay" with some ignorance. There is no "missing step due to 2 neutrinos" in the decay of a negative muon. A muon and electron and neutrino have spin 1/2. A muon decay into into an electron and neutrino(s) has to produce an even number of neutrinos so their spins cancel and the law of conservation of angular momentum is kept.
    6. "fill nuclear shells": These do not really exist. There is the nuclear shell model that is good for some purposes. The cartoon has lots of nonsense.
      There are no "spin -1.5" neutrons or "spin +3.5" protons. Protons and neutrons have spin 1/2. If added to a shall, the spins add and subtract. A shell with 2 nucleons (proton or neutron) will have spin 0 or spin 1.
      Negative and positive "levels" nonsense. The nuclear shall model based on empirical data only has levels with n = 0 upwards.
      An implication that shells are only filled with protons. Neutrons exist! The "magic numbers" for more tightly bound nuclei are for nucleons.
      The rest is imagination unrelated to nuclear shells starting with a "level 0 subshell is spin 1/2, 2 protons, 2 neutrons added". The real level 0 shell has 2 nucleons and would have spin 0 or 1. This is deuterium (has a spin-1 state).
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Aug-28 at 12:27 AM.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Cartoons that you draw are not rules, Deansh. Likewise an unsupported story is not a model. In physics, a model is physics and math that matches observations and makes testable, falsifiable predications.
    1. An "entanglement" story (nothing to do with quantum entanglement, etc.) that you make rules up about.
    2. Spin: You basically repeat textbook rules for spin as your own rules. Added nonsense about southern and northern hemispheres of an atom. Some "radius of entanglement"/"serially entangled" stories.
    3. Shells: More nonsense about hemispheres. Deep ignorance about electron shells! Electron (atomic) orbitals have experimentally verified shapes that are not in your cartoons. Unlike your cartoons. electrons show not sign of being restricted to hemispheres.
    4. Configuration of molecules: A cartoon very ignorant about the structure of water (the angle between H atoms is 104.45 degrees). "Potential configuration for ice" cartoon that iignres real configurations of ice. Ditto for O2
    5. Creation and decay of pions: A cartoon about pions. "This is the same process as photon creation" ignorance when photon are created in many processes. A pion creation story with no physics or math.
      "Some speculation on pion decay" with some ignorance. There is no "missing step due to 2 neutrinos" in the decay of a negative muon. A muon and electron and neutrino have spin 1/2. A muon decay into into an electron and neutrino(s) has to produce an even number of neutrinos so their spins cancel and the law of conservation of angular momentum is kept.
    6. "fill nuclear shells": These do not really exist. There is the nuclear shell model that is good for some purposes. The cartoon has lots of nonsense.
      There are no "spin -1.5" neutrons or "spin +3.5" protons. Protons and neutrons have spin 1/2. If added to a shall, the spins add and subtract. A shell with 2 nucleons (proton or neutron) will have spin 0 or spin 1.
      Negative and positive "levels" nonsense. The nuclear shall model based on empirical data only has levels with n = 0 upwards.
      An implication that shells are only filled with protons. Neutrons exist! The "magic numbers" for more tightly bound nuclei are for nucleons.
      The rest is imagination unrelated to nuclear shells starting with a "level 0 subshell is spin 1/2, 2 protons, 2 neutrons added". The real level 0 shell has 2 nucleons and would have spin 0 or 1. This is deuterium (has a spin-1 state).



    1. An "entanglement" story (nothing to do with quantum entanglement, etc.) that you make rules up about.


    This model uses entanglement for almost everything except gravity. The interesting thing about it is that with the components expanding millions of light years then contracting in a fraction of a second, it provides a posible match to "spooky action at a distance". The rules are for how this physical model works. Perhaps I don't know the definition of the word "rule"?


    2. Spin: You basically repeat textbook rules for spin as your own rules. Added nonsense about southern and northern hemispheres of an atom. Some "radius of entanglement"/"serially entangled" stories.


    The s electrons in the "northern hemisphere" in this model have the opposite spin values as the s electrons in the "southern hemisphere". The diagram in the link below shows the spins of the 1s, 2s, and 3s electrons in the "northern hemisphere" all point in the same direction. This shows why the 1s, 2s, and 3s electrons are pointing in the same direction: The negative component of the 3s electron is "attracted" to the positive component in the 2s electron. The negative component of the 2s electron is "attracted" to the positive component in the 1s electron. this keeps them approximately aligned with each other. This posible internal structure of "positive" and "negative" components attracting each other helps explain why the spins are in the same direction and in a "hemisphere".

    The electrons entangle strongly with the protons in the nucleus and in this model electrons can entangle weakly with each other. The positive component of an electron, electron 1, will entangle with the negative component of electron 2, and the negative component of electron 1 will entangle with the positive component of electron 2 and they will be parallel entangled. If there is an atom where electrons are being added, and the 2s electron has a spin down value and there are no 2p electrons, the first electron added will become weakly parallel entangled with the 2s electron and have a spin up value and will be the first 2p electron. The second electron added will also weakly parallel entangle with the 2s electron in the same way, and the same for a third electron, they will entangle with the 2s electron and they will become 2p electrons, each of the new 2p electrons will have spin up values due to parallel entangling with the 2s electron. See in the diagram on page 2 in the link below with 4p and 4d electrons where the positive component in one electron aligns with the negative component in the other electron and vice versa with the other components. The diagram below does not show the case of adding 2p electrons, but it will give an idea of why the electrons have the different spin states in that hemisphere in this model. Not all the 2p, 3p, and 3d electrons are shown in page 3 of the diagram.

    Link from other post:
    https://imgur.com/fVhvjM3


    3. Shells: More nonsense about hemispheres. Deep ignorance about electron shells! Electron (atomic) orbitals have experimentally verified shapes that are not in your cartoons. Unlike your cartoons. electrons show not sign of being restricted to hemispheres.


    Quantum mechanics is an excellent mathematical model, no argument there!

    I hear a lot about experimental evidence. For example the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital shows in the section "Types of orbitals" that a 4s electron can be in the yellow area close to the nucleus or in the yellow area farther away from the nucleus (lower probability in the yellow area close to the nucleus, then a gap with little probability, then even farther out is a higher probability again). Has this been physically measured in experiments? That the electron is in the area close to the nucleus, and another run of the experiment shows it in the area farther away from the nucleus?

    My model is a physical model trying to match the mathematical model. The electrons in the model are shown in specific locations, but the diagrams do not show the movements of those electrons caused by the kinetic energy they would likely have. The kinetic energy would cause them to move in a lot of different directions and have a location where the electron would have the highest probability of being found.


    4. Configuration of molecules: A cartoon very ignorant about the structure of water (the angle between H atoms is 104.45 degrees). "Potential configuration for ice" cartoon that iignres real configurations of ice. Ditto for O2


    The diagram states that the measured angle is 104.5 degrees for a water molecule. It also states that it is possible that the two protons of the hydrogen atoms could entangle with each other and close the gap a bit, that is what would happen in this model. I don't know by how much it would close the gap.

    The graphic of the ice molecule in this image https://imgur.com/a/ihwVrkj shows the same configuration as in this image:
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig2_289042542

    The graphic for O2 shows 4 electrons shared between the two oxygen atoms. This matches lewis diagrams for O2. https://imgur.com/a/ihwVrkj


    5. Creation and decay of pions: A cartoon about pions. "This is the same process as photon creation" ignorance when photon are created in many processes. A pion creation story with no physics or math.
    "Some speculation on pion decay" with some ignorance. There is no "missing step due to 2 neutrinos" in the decay of a negative muon. A muon and electron and neutrino have spin 1/2. A muon decay into into an electron and neutrino(s) has to produce an even number of neutrinos so their spins cancel and the law of conservation of angular momentum is kept.


    I got this one wrong, Thanks for pointing out my error. Back to the drawing board on this one.


    6. "fill nuclear shells": These do not really exist. There is the nuclear shell model that is good for some purposes. The cartoon has lots of nonsense.
    There are no "spin -1.5" neutrons or "spin +3.5" protons. Protons and neutrons have spin 1/2. If added to a shall, the spins add and subtract. A shell with 2 nucleons (proton or neutron) will have spin 0 or spin 1.
    Negative and positive "levels" nonsense. The nuclear shall model based on empirical data only has levels with n = 0 upwards.
    An implication that shells are only filled with protons. Neutrons exist! The "magic numbers" for more tightly bound nuclei are for nucleons.
    The rest is imagination unrelated to nuclear shells starting with a "level 0 subshell is spin 1/2, 2 protons, 2 neutrons added". The real level 0 shell has 2 nucleons and would have spin 0 or 1. This is deuterium (has a spin-1 state).



    You are right, there are no "spin -1.5" neutrons or "spin +3.5" protons". This model only has 1/2 spin for protons and neutrons.

    One thing I noticed on the site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shell_model is that they are using the word "level" differently that what I am using "level" for. Maybe I need to change my "level" to be "nuclear plane" since each "nuclear plane" contains multiple nuclear shells. Each nuclear plane is consistant in that each has the same order of increase in shell number. Each nuclear plane has one each of subshell 1, subshell 2, subshell 3, etc and they are split by quadrants. The shells are in diagonal rows in the grid of the nuclear planes. The protons are in quadrants 2 and 4 of the grid, and the neutrons are in quadrants 1 and 3 of the grid. For instance, of the 8 protons in subshell f spin 7/2, 4 of the protons go into the the diagonal +7/2(+3.5) spin positions in quadrant 2 and the other 4 go into the diagonal -7/2(-3.5) spin positions in quadrant 4. The spin of the nucleus has no net spin from those 8 protons because their 8 spin values add up to zero.

    The grid also nicely fits the access numbers of neutrons in the heavier elements. The grids have good symmetry for the most common isotopes of the heavier elements.

    In spin 0 nuclei each positive spin value location that is occupied in the grid there is a matching negative spin value location that is occupied, they cancel each other out. Looking the diagram on that web site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_shell_model in the "predicted magic numbers" section I see that I am using the "spin-orbit" values in the grids.

    Link from other post:
    https://imgur.com/vaQznxv
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Aug-30 at 05:03 PM. Reason: added word for clarity

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    IF02: Why do neutral particles such as photons and neutrinos exist? They also are particles with momentum and it looks like your idea gives them charge.

    In this model the photons and neutrinos have "charge" components but the "positive" amount of ether equals the "negative" amount of ether giving a net charge of zero. I suspect they are too close together to be detected.
    More of your story and guesses rather than science, Deansh. Relying on what you imagine leads to more questions. Why are charge, positive and negative in quotes? These are real properties of particles. A separation of charge is easily detected. What you have get a electric dipole. Pass one through a magnetic field and the path of the particle is curved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    IF03: Why do heavier charged particles have the same charge as their family, e.g. the heavier muon and tau have the same charge as the electron.

    Using the example of pion jet creation in the post above, two protons collide....
    Nonsense about pion decay that is nothing to do with my question. You have a connection between a nonexistent aether, its momentum and charge. Why does this give the same charge to different particles in the same family, e.g. the electron, muon and tau. These have different masses so even at the same speed they will be colliding with you aether and changing its momentum differently. Which brings up:
    IF06: Why is a aether with mass, charge and momentum undetectable in simple experiments or even ordinary life? It will act as a drag on any motion but we can send spacecraft to Pluto and beyond! It will affect the movement of charged objects - why does the Large Hadron Collider work as designed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    IF04: Why is charge quantized when momentum may not be?

    The angular momentum and orbital angular momentum are quantized in this model. ...
    What you write in a story does not make charge or momentum quantized. Quantization is that a quantity comes in discreet units called quanta. What makes momentum quantized is a particle being bound. Free particles can have any momentum subject to relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    IF05: Show how you derive time dilation and length contraction from your idea. Not unsupported assertions but the actual form of these physical phenomena.

    I will have to work on a more detailed explanation for this.
    Adding more words to your story will not answer the question. Time dilation and length contraction have a mathematical model derived from physics. This model matches the real world. Students can do the classic time dilation of muons experiment (muons from cosmic rays travelling at near c have lifetimes longer than slow muons as predicted by SR). You will have to derive the actual equations.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2020-Aug-30 at 09:27 PM.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    1. An "entanglement" story (nothing to do with quantum entanglement, etc.) that you make rules up about. ...
    Repeating your story does not make your story more credible. Cartoons that you draw are not rules, Deansh. Sceince is not done by drawing cartoons, especially when they contain obvious errors.
    • You make up "radius of entanglement"/"serially entangled" stories.
    • You stick electrons into imaginary hemispheres.
    • You still ignore the theoretical and measured shapes of atomic orbitals. Electron (atomic) orbitals has the theoretical shapes. We can measure the orbitals indirectly with high energy lasers. Electrons can be captured by the nucleus matches inner orbitals overlapping the nucleus. Molecular bonds match the shapes of outer or
    • You add "movements of those electrons caused by the kinetic energy they would likely have", ignoring a fundamental reason for quantum mechanics. Classical mechanics says that atoms are impossible! We learned that electrons exist outside of the nucleus over a century ago. Classical movement of the electrons around the nucleus is an acceleration (their direction changes). Accelerated charges emit radiation and lose energy. Electrons spiral into the nucleus and atoms do not exist.
    • You add "a lot of different directions" when that produces a random mess instead of the theoretical and measured shapes of atomic orbitals.
    • A value of 109 degrees appears out of thin air. Your cartoon implies an angle of 120 degrees.
    • Imagining that protons in water molecules are "weakly entangled" does not change 109 degrees into 104.45 degrees.
    • You still get spin and nuclei fundamentally wrong.
      Spins can be parallel or anti-parallel. 2 protons will have a spin of 0 or 1. Deuterium has a spin-1 state. 8 protons can have a variety of spins and are not constrained to your (irrelevant?) assertion of 0.
      You seem to ignore the existence of isotopes. Elements have a set number of protons. The number of neutrons varies. This need not match the proton number for stable elements, e.g. beryllium has 1 stable isotope with 4 protons and 5 neutrons.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    The image link below shows one possible way of looking at the fission of Uranium-235.

    Fission of Uranium-235 into Strontium-94 and Xenon-140. Strontium-94 decay chain: Strontium-94 decays into Yttrium-94 by beta decay Yttrium-94 decays into Zirconium-94 by beta decay Sr-94 -> Y-94 -> Zr-94 Xenon-140 decay chain: Xenon-140 decays into Cesium-140 by beta decay Cesium-140 decays into Barium-140 by beta decay Barium-140 decays into Lanthanum-140 by beta decay Lanthanum-140 decays into Cerium-140 by beta decay Xe-140 -> Cs-140 -> Ba-140 -> La-140 -> Ce-140

    The products Strontium-94 and Xenon-140 are one of the ways Uranium-235 can split.

    This image shows step by step decays and results of the decays. It is interesting that there is a weak area in the uranium nucleus that allows it to split the same way to produce Strontium-94 and Xenon-140.

    fission of Uranium-235 image:
    https://imgur.com/a/Q41mxmM

    This is a cool website for the elements:
    https://periodictable.com/

    This link shows some of the isotopes of Xenon:
    https://periodictable.com/Isotopes/054.140/index.html
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Sep-01 at 12:38 AM. Reason: added links

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    The image link below shows one possible way of looking at the fission of Uranium-235. ...
    Imaginary nuclear planes with a "weak area" and a cartoon are irrelevant to nuclear fission or nuclei.
    Nuclear fission includes radioactive decay and induced decay. Uranium-235 spontaneously decays to 231Th. Uranium-235 colliding with a neutron decays into a variety of products. Typically the first products listed are Ba-141 and Kr-92. For fission of uranium-235, the predominant radioactive fission products include isotopes of iodine, caesium, strontium, xenon and barium.
    Atomic nuclei are not nucleons arranged in planes. Their nucleons move around in the mutual attractions of the strong force.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,310
    I take it from your responses that you are going to stick to the "telling stories that make me feel like I understand stuff" approach rather than actually doing any science?

    If so I don't see anything else to discuss really. You have a narrative that you like and you alter on a whim to fit observations. You can't extract anything new from it and it doesn't deliver any scientific value. So to me and anyone who wants to have a model they can actually use it is worthless because you still need to use current models to make predictions (that you will then add another arbitrary rule and diagram to 'explain').

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF06: Why is a aether with mass, charge and momentum undetectable in simple experiments or even ordinary life? It will act as a drag on any motion but we can send spacecraft to Pluto and beyond! It will affect the movement of charged objects - why does the Large Hadron Collider work as designed?
    In post #1 I specify the pages that show how the oscillating spheres of ether produce the same effect as charged particles. There is no drag on the components in this model. The components only appear in a compressed state after they have expanded and contracted.

    Added images below for how the components have charge and how they attract and repel each other.

    Here is an image that has some more detail on the components and why they do not drag through the ether:
    https://imgur.com/V7GTRgZ

    Image for ether charges:
    https://imgur.com/HnFBpYr

    Image for ether components attracting and repelling each other:
    https://imgur.com/TnHKDl2
    Last edited by Deansh; 2020-Sep-02 at 02:09 AM. Reason: Added links

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,878

    Either Aether Or Ether Or Neither

    Quote Originally Posted by Deansh View Post
    I created a physical model based on an extremely dense background ether and with even higher density spheres of ether embedded in the background ether. (edit)
    The quote above is the first sentence of your original post . You must show with observations and evidence that an ether exists or else all that you have written here and self-published elsewhere is so much speculation about something that does not exist.

    Do you have such observations and evidence? If so, could you kindly present them here, pleae. Until you can demonstrate the basis of your theory, there is nothing else to discuss. When you have the data - real physical data, not stories - to show that there is any ether, please tell us. You will win a dozen Nobel prizes.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •