I have added a page to show how the CLF model explains the Fine Structure Constant. Once again the difference between experimental observations and theory are explained using the difference between the particles used in experiments and the particles used in theoretical work.

I cannot close this gap at present but the frequent 'near agreement' between experimental results and the CLF model predictions are a clear indication that the CLF model provides a reasonable interpretation of all the experiments.

The difference between using single elementary particles for predictions and composite particles for experiments remains to be resolved.
elas

PS Can we please stop debating side issues and stick to constructive criticism of the proposed model.

Having added a page on the Fine Structure Constant. I realize that:

1) I should have used an arbitrary value for area per square unit of the surface, however treating the value used as an arbitrary value it will be noticed that subtracting the value for two u quarks from the value for the d quark gives a figure of 137.032; which is close to the value of the Fine Structure Constant. The difference can be accounted for as the force between the two u quarks where they are in contact with each other when wrapped around the d quark.

Keeping on adding more pages does not answer questions and a lot of questions are still open elas, with respect to the basics of your ideas.

Like in post 9 I asked what you meant by summing the forces, when I was supposed to draw a force field

then in post 13 I had list of 4 questions, all based on the first page of your website, the basics of your ideas

and in [url=http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=983144&postcount=15]post 15[7url] I have another 3 questions and ask for answers on the other 4 questions.

You could just write something here to explain it all to us. It seems that you like to discuss the far reaching results of your ideas with Papageno much better, than try to explain to me why we should even take your idea seriously, when the first few equations of your ideas are already flawed and you need a specific value of the velocity of the particle, to even create the equations that come after Eq. 8 and 9 on your website.

You do know that it is the rule of BAUT forum that you answer questions that are asked you. So, please, once more, answer my questions.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

tusenfem

I thought I had answered clearly, but, will try and do so again despite the fact that you had clearly stated you had ended the debate.
Circumstances mean that I have to grab whatever short interval I can to do a bit more work. Perhaps I have been to excited at finding a connection with the Coupling Constant to pay attention to past queries; I will make a determined effort to do better during the next period I get at this project,
elas

tusenfem

In reply to your questions:

What do you mean by drawing the force field?

Newton showed that a gravity force field without a central mass consisted of two lines; to the left of the maximum force the line increases from zero to maximum force at a ratio of 1:1 and to the right the force decreased according to the inverse square law

Why do you think that eeisemceesquared has something to do with directional motion?

Because all the books I have define it as a constant of speed.

So now you are summing the forces at different radii, so you get sumr(F(r)). That's cool, but it still leads to a sum of quatities with unit Newton (kg m / s2) whereas your Fl still has units kg m (Fl = r m) so, you talk about force but you ain't working with force.

Physicist measure mass in units of eV the V stands for volts a measure of electromotive force.

Using the radii found with the CLF equation plot a field with no central mass so that the force (mass in eV) is divided equally either side of the maximum force. Measure the force at regular intervals and add them together; it will be found that all particles have the same total force; this is the Linear Force Constant. Because the vacuum wave rotates around the central Vacuum Zero Point, the wavelength is equal to the diameter therefore it is convenient to change the constant so that 2r equals the wavelength.

I have shown that this produces an equation which, as you pointed out; applies to a single momentum. I then re-worked the equations to produce an equation that holds true for any rate of momentum.

Finally I have shown, in a rough draft; that the Fine Structure Constant (Coupling Constant) can be derived from the proposed particles structure.

I have not been able to track down any reference to Einstein’s dissatisfaction with ‘c’ squared so I will concede that point rather than debate what is only a side issue to my proposal.

Gravity in the absence of a central mass, how, what, why, do you mean the mass is uniformly distributed over a very large volume and you are somewhere inside? No, I don't think so, because you say that there is a maximum in the force, and along the two lines the force increases and decreases. Are you trying to explain here that there is a r^-2 relation and are you looking at the gravitational potential defined as GM/r²? If so, please state that, instead of giving mumbo-jumbo. Ofcourse the unit of your potential would be N/kg = m/s², still not the same units as your Fl.

About c², this has NOTHING to do with motion of the mass, because E = m c² calculates the rest-mass energy of the particle. If it would move you would have E = gamma m c², where gamma is the relativistic factor. The c² here comes in only as a conversion factor, nothing moving here. I would advise you to go back to your books and read up on it again.

Physicists measure mass in units of kg. Now, it just happens that kg is a bit big when dealing with e.g. protons 1.7 10^-27 kg (and electrons even a factor 1836 smaller) and therefore, they convert the mass of the proton to its [b]equivalent rest-mass energy[b], i.e. 1.7 10^-27 kg is equivalent to 940 MeV.

Then you go on with your "without a central mass" stuff and make the clain the "the force (mass in eV)". Again, this is not a force, a mass in eV is just an equivalent energy in units of eV, or changed back to kg. Whereas a force is still measured in Newtons (i.e. kg m / s²). You are not dealing with a force and you are not even dealing with a potential.

Measure the "force" at regular intervals, and one will see that all particles have the same "force", so if I measure it for the second time, but cut the intervals in half, then the "force" will be double that of the first measurement, mmm, something fishy here.

The changing of the 2r to lambda now suddenly has a new reason, because "the vacuum wave rotates around the vacuum zero point". What is that? I guess you mean the wavelenght in vacuum. What is a zero vacuum point? It that the central mass that is not there, like above? Give us some understandable definitions, and use mainly mainstream definitions and not your own for standard stuff. And why would we not expect that the wavelength is 2 Pi r instead of 2r, if it is moving around the "vacuum point".

And you did most definitely not work the equations such that they are valid for all velocities. On your page 5 you say well if I choose v = some small number (in unnamed units) then I find that 2r is equal to the deBroglie wavelength. Then you do some other math, saying Einstein had some emceesquared and the Fl has a mass so I take out the two masses and divide and get 1. And then I can put in the special result for v = some small number again. Well, this makes your ideas, if anything, valid for that small number.

With so much wrong in the beginning, you can get any result in the further pages.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

elas,
is your answer to my question yes or no?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

With so much wrong in the beginning, you can get any result in the further pages.
So
1)finding a fractional sequence that matches a FQHE sequence.
2) using that sequence to predict mass values that match (within the margin of error) all the masses for leptons and quarks in the PDG 2004 tables
3) using those mass values and linear force to predict wavelengths that match those given using de Broglie's equation and
4) producing an equation that gives a constant applicable to all particles;
is just any result; just a coincidence?
I do not see any point in continuing a debate with such complete absence of constructive criticism.
elas

tusenfem
papageno

see;
http://elasticity2.tripod.com/pji.htm
end of debate.

I asked a straight question:
and I expect a straight answer: yes or no.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)