Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by martillo, Oct 28, 2016.
And vice versa.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Not necessarily. The observation that you made about the stark difference between our models, your particle model and my wave model, is intriguing. It is like neither of was has any idea of any physics that could relate to the others model, and so each point of comparison leads to a fresh slate; a new topic for comparison that should allow both of us to strengthen our individual ideas in the face of opposing ideas.
My work in Physics is done. Nothing else I could do. As I say at the main page of my site "I have no more time, no more resources and no expertise to develop it further. I'm claiming for physicists to take that work and develop it further. I cannot do that."
I must turn back to my daily work and life. I think you will understand that.
Yes, I do. My situation allows me all the time I want to contemplate the universe. I'll tell you this; out of respect for the effort you put into your book, I will look some more and think about what you have proposed. I'm sure that will benefit me as I continue to try to sort things out. Peace.
Hope you could find something could give you some good inspiration in your work in Physics.
Good luck in your things.
You already have. I've been thinking about your response to waves and interference. The interference patterns appear in a two dimensional slice of space, but in three dimensions the waves are spherical, and the interference that shows in any two D slice is the conjunction of high and low energy peaks as a series of spherical waves pass through each other. A surface wave has a large component below the surface, and the velocity of the wave is governed by the depth of the liquid. I find it interesting to think about that in regard to our models.
Alright, good luck to you too. I'll just finish out with a response to the rest of your earlier post:
I don't have answers that are generally accepted, or that I have the ability to demonstrate and test, but in my view, one way to characterize electricity is as a flow of energy through electrons in a conductor. That flow is a series of wave intersections between the out flowing electron wave energy components along the conductor; the path is not spherical because the conductor's shape governs the path of the flow, from high charge to low charge. However, there is also an out flowing energy along and perpendicular to the flow along the conductor because each transfer of energy along the conductor is accompanied by the spherical out flow of energy from the particles involved.
Magnetism is similar except that the strength of the flow is not from high charge to low charge, but is altered by the alignment of the atoms and molecules in the magnetized material. The out flow from the particles follows the internal orientation of the aligned particles within the magnet, creating lines of force, hypothetically.
As above, this is speculation and hypothesis, but in the nucleus the nucleons are continually exchanging their contained energy by way of the out flow and inflow of wave energy that I attribute to the presence of particles. The energy density of the nucleus though is very high, and has a potential that is not just the sum of the individual particles, but because of the exchange of energy form any one particle to all of the other particles at the same time, the inverse square law is altered exponentially in those close quarters.
The electrons, which have the opposite charge from the nucleus, are continually attracted to the nucleus, and there is a continual exchange of energy between them and the nucleus, but there is also a repulsion near the boundary of the nucleus because of the extreme out flowing wave energy from the nucleus relative to the small inflow of that energy into the attracted electron; call it a nucleon wind, lol. The exchange keeps the electron from joining the nucleus, and the excess energy from the exchange would produce photons whose out flowing energy expands spherically. Of course that is a fine helping of word salad, so you have your choices of dressing, lol.
Now we are talking about the nature of gravity, and in my model, there is a quantum solution. I won't try to get it in this post, but maybe will write it in this thread or just reference to where I have written in my current thread.
All of the above is off the top of my head, and I haven't put it in writing before, so I will need some help from those who see the obvious mistakes.
Separate names with a comma.