Things learned recently. I had this number rp. I thought it was the protons radius. That was wrong. It was the electrons wave number. With that my calculations fit into standard forms. I had this other number 1.36 fermis. I found it in the literature with a negative one exponent. Lane Davis asked why the negative one? Now I know. It is the wave number. Wave numbers are presented as reciprocals. The math spoke for itself, however, it took years to get through to me. Rev 2 will be available in two days.
I am now happy. I appreciate the critical slams now. At the time I hated them. Frank Frank Znidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> wrote: >I feel really good about what I have done. The peer reviewed article forced >me to be logically consistent. I then >applied this consistency to my book. The result is simple. >I refactored Coulombs equation into the form of an elastic constant and a wave >number. Using these terms I produced the Compton frequency and the atomic >velocity. >Using the same form with the nuclear wave number 1.36 Fermi meters, I produced >the speed of sound in the nucleus. >This speed 1,094,000 meters per sec was first observed in cold fusion >experiments. Setting the forms equal produced the energy levels of the atoms >and the amplitude of harmonic motion. In other words setting the speed of >light to the speed of sound produced the atomic energy levels and the >intensity of spectral emission. >I hope that I am now done with no more revisions. > >Frank Znidarsic
