I can just take my book and read all about it from there I don't need to get my "knowledge" from the web.

KEWL, first we have no ideas about where the numbers that you put in come from, secondly I had a question why one has to divide by the energy density of the continuum (other than for getting your units correct), thirdly you get an "escape velocity" of millimeters per second, where a quick calculation shows it is 5 km/s (or I must have made a very bad mistake) and then TATATATAAAAAAAAAAA you stop and then you CLAIM you find the same acceleration, yeah RIGHT!

In first year physics you get the Bohr model, which is rather good at explaining the energy levels of hydrogen, but fails as soon as you get to Helium. So, it is a nice way to visualize stuff, but we know it is not the real stuff. (Just like my explanation of the uncertainty principle using a car and a camera is totally unreal, but it gets the point across).

Could you be going back to Descartes with his vortices?
I can visualize your model, but is there any reason to it, now these are nucleons you say that are spinning, later that seems to change below.

Sorry old chap, but you have a model of nucleons not of atoms, there is a VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. So, maybe you mean that this is the way that nucleons (protons and neutrons) bind together in the nucleus? There are the electrons that seem to pop-up below.

So, now suddenly it is nucleanos in the nucleus. Do you write your book like this too, just mixing up stuff? And now suddenly the interaction between atoms is by the outer electrons.

Ahh so you have also a "planetary system" like the Bohr model? Or what is spinning around?
This is rather confusing.

The area is a circle of 10^-10 (π R²) or is it that of a sphere (4 π R²) of this radius, or is it the half-surface of a sphere (2 π R²)? 1.43 is none of the three possibilities, but maybe the orbit is different from the value given?

At the moment I have no time to go further with this stuff, maybe later, it's saturday evening and now I am going to watch "the Tudors" first.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
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 )

hi,



I was wondering if you or someone could point to the thread where ^^^ this is shown.
there is so much information in the thread that I seemed to have missed this idea which could actually answer so many questions and tie up many loose ends.
thanks.

__________________
Disclaimer: I have no theories, I am not smart enough to come up with theories. I only have a hypothesis. So anything I may write, statement or otherwise is just a hypothesis based on what I observe...

The difference between a correlation and a causation... Everyone who drinks water dies... Water makes things wet...

The curiosity virus got to me and I decided that I needed to know the source for discussion.

A quick search on the web for Thayer Watkins gave me this web page where a very simplified model of gravitational collapse is presented. I must thank Jim Mash "for revealing his sources" on what he assumes is the final word on gravitational collapse of a cloud, although I had to search for it myself, and a link would have been appreciated. (Watkins has a number of webpages dealing with all kinds of stuff, all rather "nutshell" views.

I sure hope that Jim Mash does not believe this is the final word, because if I look at Bowers & Deeming, chapter 23.4 "Collapse of an isolated cloud" it clearly begins with:

So, it seems that (even in this very simplistic model which is used for showing the basics and a more real world (or should I say universe) model would be too difficult to compute analytically and can only be solved numerically), the temperature of the cloud is taken into account. Also in later sections the magnetic field comes into play (23.5) and effects of rotation of the cloud are discussed (23.3). So, really, we cannot take the "debunking of the Watkins model" by Jim Mash seriously, because he obviously has not spend any time really looking into the mainstream model from a good source, like introductory astrophysics books.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
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 )

Sabiang.

Earlier I said that a nucleon spins at 10^23rps and therefore its surface speed is equal to c when its diameter is around 10^15m. Hence the electron energy is moving around the nucleon at c. Photons are packets of fluid energy circulating along with the electron energy (as kinetic energy but completely integrated with it and not as a separate entity) and therefore when these are flung away from the electron they also move at speed c.

Now you might think that I chose the spin rate of 10^23rps just to make the surface speed equal to c but in fact I chose this speed for a good reason and it was the very first rate that I tried. FET really started when I considered what a photon would be like if it was a particle and not a wave. This is what led me to consider energy to be a real substance that was extremely compressible because it had to have a very wide range of diameters if what is currently considered to be wavelength is really the diameter of a photon.

Looking at the photon spectrum revealed that photons reached a limit where the maximum energy they could carry was equal to that of a nuclear particle. This suggested to me that as we moved along the photon spectrum and the size of the photon decreased and its energy content increased there came a point where the energy density could no longer change. This suggested that some sort of transition must be occurring at this point and that is when I realised that if energy was a real fluid substance it could reach a point where it could no longer be compressed and hence formed a solid.

I then considered what would be observed if a photon particle was to pass me by. If a photon is considered to be a spherical particle then I would register a pulse of energy that started at zero just as it reached me, went to a maximum as the centre passed by and then dropped to zero again at the trailing edge. Hence it would register as a half wave of energy with a wave height inversely proportional to the amount of energy and a frequency for the highest possible photon energy of 10^23 waves per second, i.e. the upper limit of the electromagnetic spectrum. So I chose to use this as my first calculation for spin rate of a growing neutron particle and naturally it gave a surface speed of c when the diameter of the particle was equal to that of a neutron.

I hop this answers your question,

Jim

Tusenfem,

You accuse me of being confused but you are certainly not grasping the basics of FET. I described how an FET atom consists of nucleons made of solid energy that spin at 10^23rps and have fluid energy circulating around them like a fountain of water. So why on earth do you consider this to be anything like the Bohr model of an atom? In his model, electrons are point size particles whizzing around and kept in orbit by goodness knows what whereas in FET an electron is a stream of fluid energy that is attached to the spinning nucleon and extending away from it and returning back to it as a continuous band of energy that is driven around by the spinning action of the nucleon. The energy density of the electron energy varies with distance from the nucleon according to the inverse square law. Thus an FET atom looks more like a flower with petals radiating in all 3 dimensional and at the end of this posting this picture will clarify another point you have raised.

FET electrons do not change orbits when energy is absorbed or emitted but simply extend or shrink in length. Until the basic points of FET are understood it is not possible to go into details of why each atom absorbs specific amounts of energy. For example, before then you have to understand how fluid energy is stored as kinetic energy, how electricity and magnetism are generated, how the tick rate of an atomic clock changes with speed and gravitational fields and how the speed of light varies with the source atoms etc.

You can see why it is said that an electron has a probability of being found in a certain location if it is considered to be a point like particle moving around the nucleus but if you plot the probability against location you find that it does not resemble a series of specific orbits that an electron can jump between. An FET electron has energy dispersed over a specific region of space and because it is always attached to a nucleon it gives this impression of having a strong attractive force to it. It is possible to tap into electron energy at any point along its path from the surface of the nucleon to as far away as the electron energy extends. For a normal atom that is stationary upon the Earth the extent of an electron is around 10^10m but if extra energy is added there is really no limit to its extent just as long as that extra energy is trapped on a stationary atom and the atom is not moving at a speed commensurate with the amount of added energy. If this was the case then the electron energy would be only extended a fraction of its possible distance.

In FET the notion of the electromagnetic force is replaced by the flow rate of energy. For an electron flowing around a nucleon the flow rate is around 10^39 times the flow rate of energy that a spinning nucleon accumulates and gives rise to the gravitational force. Hence electron energy can be exchanged much faster than it can be gleaned from the flow of continuum energy as gravity. The gravitational force acts over very large distances when a large number of nucleons are packed together because they generate a flow in the continuum that only decreases in strength according to the inverse square law. This flow of continuum energy is translated into a force of acceleration when an electron captures the energy flowing past it and absorbs it as kinetic energy.

One way that the electron flow rate is translated into a force is because a circular flow of fluid energy generates a centripetal force (because energy is a continuous substance which is something you obviously cannot get to grips with). So a hydrogen atom is nothing more than a neutron particle that has grown to its critical size where the centrifugal force equals the centripetal force and some of the solid energy of the core becomes fluidised. Hence a hydrogen atom is a single entity and is not composed of separate proton and electron or even quarks and gluons or any other sort of particle that has to be invented as more and experiments fail to agree with the current model of an atom. Two hydrogen atoms combine to form a single hydrogen molecule by sharing some of their electron energy. Because a certain amount of fluid energy passes around both nuclei it generates a centripetal force (a real one and not a fictitious one) that binds them together. The apparent isolation of a proton and an electron is also a bit too advanced for you yet.

A repulsive force can arise when two flows of fluid energy are circulating in different directions. This can be envisaged as being like two water jets aimed at each other. But electron energy does not always repulse other electron energy. A beam of electrons does not spread out as rapidly as it should do if they are assumed to be point like particles. This is because FET electrons are streams of fluid energy that can flow along together quite happily, although they do repel each other slightly as they expand with distance unless pushed back into alignment by the flow of more fluid energy from say a magnetic field. Likewise, two like magnetic poles can repel each other because they are forcing energy outwards which cannot be combined into a single flow.

And what is wrong with going back to the ideas of Descarte. The ancient Greeks knew about the Earth being a spherical body that orbited the Sun thousands of years ago but that did not stop numerous people after that believing something quite different because it suited them. If Descarte had considered the aether to be a continuous substance and worked out its properties he might have come up with FET all those years ago and by now people like you would be quite happy to believe it.

It is interesting that we arrived at different values for the escape velocity of a giant molecular cloud. I believe that both of the calculations are correct and that there must be a reason for the discrepancy between the two results. A clue can be found in that for the planets, the FET calculations yield flow rates of continuum energy into them which does agree with current values for the escape velocities. Furthermore I believe that the FET value for what I said was its escape velocity of the molecular cloud is also correct because it allows the correct value for the acceleration of an object into the cloud, just as it does for the planets.

I believe that the difference between the FET and the usual method for calculating escape velocities is that the FET method only generates the same value as methods using the gravitational constant when an object is gravitationally bound. Because the Sun and the planets are gravitationally bound objects that are compact enough to generate a flow at their surfaces that is greater than their escape velocities the two methods agree. However, when the matter in the sun is spread over a sphere with the radius equal to the orbit of Pluto (which is what is assumed in the giant molecular cloud example I cited), then the gravitational force is so thinly spread that its pull at the edge of the cloud is not strong enough to overcome the natural speed of atoms. Thus I am correct in equating the flow rate to the escape velocity but only when everything inside that radius is gravitationally bound. If this is correct then the FET method can be used to test whether or not a specific body of matter is gravitationally bound or not. I am continuing with such calculations.


As for the area of an electron being equal to 1.43x10^-18m^2, which I quoted in order to calculate the rate of acceleration of a body into the cloud, this is not the area of a circle or sphere because an electron does not circulate around a nucleon in a complete circle or sphere. I have stated that an electron is a jet of fluid energy that starts out with a diameter equal to that of the nucleon and then spreads out so think of them as I suggested above as being more like the petals of a flower.

In my postings I do not explain everything because that would mean putting over a thousand pages of information here and you have already said that you are not prepared to invest that much time reading my work. So I try to keep it short each time and then if you asked in a civilised way I might be prepared to offer more. However, I have already said that the content of book 1 is available for anyone to read and I am willing to discuss its content where things are not clear. But as for book 2, this is not yet finished and therefore I will tend to restrict what I say about it.

It has proved very useful to discuss the gravitational collapse or not of a gas cloud because it has set me upon a line of thought where I had a potential problem with a particular subject. FET kept on throwing up unexpected answers but I now believe that I can see why it does and moreover why they are correct. So thanks for that.

Jim.

The ancient Greeks did figure out that the Earth is a sphere. One or two did speculate on the Earth orbiting the Sun, but educated opinion of that time settled on a fixed Earth at the center of the Universe, and we are still trying to correct this fundamental error, as the many threads on Geocentricity started by The Poster of a Thousand Sock Puppets will attest.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

first, I think you mean that a proton or neutron has a diameter of 10e-15 meters, otherwise your particle would be very big. I am sure this is a typo.
second, i thought that when we take apart a nucleon, we end up with pairs and packets of quarks.
I completely agree with your assessment (from a previous post) that the atom actually looks like a "turkey leg", this is not a new concept, but has been known for decades, I learned about the structure of the atom and electron shells in my high school chemistry class




but it is well known that a photon does not come off of the nucleon rather the electron shell. the electron is placed in a higher energy shell and drops back to it ground state and the resulting photon that is emitted has a wavelength that is equal to the drop in energy level of the electron.
if this were not the case, then lasers would be impossible to build and if they were, then the resulting wavelength would be random.



yes, energy is a real substance and is infinity compressible, as a matter of fact, matter and energy are the same. and I think that mainstream physics agrees. however, the energy is compressed into Hadrons (fermions, baryons, mesons) and Leptons (electrons, muons and tau) Hadrons are built from quarks while leptons are, well, actually leptons. These particles do not have a diameter, they are "point" particles and are only denoted at a charge. usually in Mega electron volts.

A photon is the carrier of electromagnetic energy, It is a wave first and foremost with particle like qualities. I disagree with the suggestion that a photon is a particle and has a diameter and here is why:

Photons act exactly like acoustic energy and can be described with the same math. They have a wave front that spreads out from the source which is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
according to your idea, there is no room for the observable effect of entanglement, I have my own idea that actually described how entanglement would happen which from what i have read so far is more plausible. I see the entanglement issues as the simple fact that one photon has a continuous wavefront just like an impulse from an acoustical source. as it spreads out, in a very shot time, the wave front becomes very large and can encompass a huge distance spanning several light years. since it is the same wavefront that carries the same information, it is not unreasonable to have correlations between states of the photon happen at exactly the same time regardless of the distance that the photon is spread out over.


Honestly, there really is no solid anything in matter. matter is demonstratively made of nothing but energy from force fields. hadrons only have diameter because two or more point particles are zooming around each other.

It would seem that you should see if your math would allow for the photon to collapse into a lepton or quark. then work backwards to see if the energy level is the same.


and I dont think the wavelength (frequency) of a photon has no theoretical limit as to the frequency or energy level..


lets look at this thought experiment below.

I really don't think photons are spherical or have any diameter, They are wave function and this is demonstrated every day in any high school lab with a 17 year old, a laser and a razor blade.


I am not really a math person but it seems to me that you just said that if you could measure a photon passing buy you, it would have an energy that is a function of of the highest possible frequency that can be obtained by a photon.

you stated that a photons highest possible energy is "10^23 waves per second"

nasa disagrees with you:



http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970412e.html
which is several orders of magnitude larger that your figure.

but i have to wonder how you came to the conclusion that the upper energy level would be so low.

Thank you for suggesting an answer, I really appreciate the time you spent chatting.


However, i must say that it still does not answer how electromagnetic waves propagate in space and why EM radiation would follow the same math as acoustic energy.

Thank You again.
Cheers

__________________
Disclaimer: I have no theories, I am not smart enough to come up with theories. I only have a hypothesis. So anything I may write, statement or otherwise is just a hypothesis based on what I observe...

The difference between a correlation and a causation... Everyone who drinks water dies... Water makes things wet...

Well maybe your expression:
electron energy is circulating around the nucleons the cores of solid energy are spinning around on the spot and all of the electron energy is circulating around them
got me thinking that the electrons were orbiting.

And the 10²³ just happened to come to you (from your reply to sabianq):

Now you might think that I chose the spin rate of 10^23rps just to make the surface speed equal to c but in fact I chose this speed for a good reason and it was the very first rate that I tried.

Just accidentally you "chose" a number and KAHBANG, the surface velocity of a nucleon is c, wow, you must play the lottery!

Lots of text again disguising the fact that the problem of obfuscation of scientific knowledge is present. This totally goes past the fact that first you say "nucleons" and then you talk about "atoms" in your "chemical bonding to make molecules"

And what made you chose 10³⁹? This would not, maybe, possibly, accidently come from the "fact that the gravitational force is 10³⁹ times smaller than the electric force" as lots of EU proponents claim constantly? Or what and why?


Oh, I can get my head around energy and the centripital force. However, as I commented to Daffyduck, you do not seem to realize what a centripital force is. To you it is a real force in the same list as I gave to Daffy.

So, now hydrogen consists of a neutron and an electron???????????
You are really rewriting physics here.

What force is acting as the centripital force?

Nothing wrong with Descartes, just making historic parallels here. Although his idea of vortices was not one of his better ideas.

Uhhh, both maths are correct and still we get numbers that are 10⁶ apart? I don't think so.

As you refuse to show you calculation of the "acceleration" that you got, I will not believe that you get the same number.

The nice thing of "Newtonian physics" is that is does not matter actually if the "cloud is gravitationally bound" (if it collapses it NEEDS to be gravitationally bound, but that as an aside). The gravitational pull is not diluted or anything, just all the mass that is in the sphere acts in the gravitational force. But if your FET does not even get something simple like this correct, well.......

So, again another number that we cannot verify and have to trust you to be correct. This starts to look like fundamental religious dogmas, believe them!!!

For the rest, you have not yet said anything about mainstream taking temperature into account in gravitational collapse.
We get no calculations only magical numbers.
"everything will be revealed in the sacred book number 2"

Well, whatever.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
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 )

Looks like the clock has just about run out on this thread. Just wanted to point out that with regard to the issues I raised in this thread, Mash never even attempted to respond to:

• the elementary logical error I pointed out in my Post #33,
• the question in my Post #38,
• the issues raised in my Posts #45-47,
• my critique of is reponses in my Posts #50-51.

(And I might add that it seems to me, Mash never responded directly to the issues raised by a half dozen other posters. There are so many problems with Mash's claims that we pretty much all addressed nonoverlapping subsets!)

My other posts mostly consisted of my repeating that he had not yet responded to my questions/critiques, with the exception of my Post #63 (written after he seemed to say he would let the thread die), in which I explained why I took the unusual step of making an example of Mash. It seems to me that this is the only post which really matters in the end, because it has general significance. I hope it will help young persons ambitious to do something important in physics to achieve that goal, by making a genuine contribution to science rather than becoming a regular poster of unsupported (and incorrect) ATM claims. Real science is so much more fun and satisfying!

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!