You haven't answered my main question. Is the 2-tronnie system classical, in which case my next question is how does it avoid instability? Or is it quantised, and in its ground state? (in which case I agree that there is no energy to radiate).
On 21 May 2014 13:09, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > My understanding is that positronium is an electron and a positron > orbiting together. Both of these particles are self-propelled so as long > as they have enough speed they can orbit. If they somehow lose their > speeds or otherwise get very close together they will annihilate each other > and gamma rays will be released. (A neutrino photon will also be released > according to my theory.) Entrons on the other hand are extremely stable. > Each one is one plus tronnie and one minus tronnie, each self propelled in > the same circle at pi/2 times the speed of light by their combined > attractive and repulsive Coulomb forces. They don’t radiate energy because > they have no energy to radiate. There is one entron in each photon. > Photons from faraway galaxies travel billions of years to earth. Some are > absorbed in astronomer’s eyes, as they gaze at the galaxy, as visible light > entrons to provide a small amount of energy to an electron or maybe a > proton in the astronomer’s retina. > > > > The Coulomb force between the two tronnies in the entron, if they were > stationary would be F = k QQ/r squared. But when we integrate the force > around the circle the integrated force becomes F(I) = k QQ/r. The > attractive and repulsive *integrated forces* in the diametrical are > exactly equal. I do the math to prove this in Chapter VI (page 50). This > is the most important feature of my model of our Universe. It almost seems > unreal to me sometimes that these two charges of plus e and minus e can be > as close as 0.9339 X 10-18 m to each other for billions of years and remain > stable. If the tronnies were stationary and that close the force between > them would be 256 million newtons (about 29 thousand tons)! But they are > not stationary, they are traveling faster than the speed of light in this > tiny circle. This also sounds unbelievable. This is probably why no one > has in the past proposed my solution. > > > > But we know science presents some strange things. I am working of a > patent application right now dealing with frequency tripling where a 1064 > nm photon is combined with a 532 nm photon to produce a 355 nm photon laser > beam. I think this is equally amazing, but these lasers have been of the > market for quite a few years. > > > > John R > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:30 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES > > > > I haven't got much further as yet, so I'm not sure that there will be > daily comments. However I did notice that one of your basic units is an e+ > and an e- charged particle orbitting each other, which looks to me rather > like positronium <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium> (except that > I believe tronnies are massless.) > > Are you OK with quantum physics? (I have a feeling you aren't) If not, I > suspect that this 2-tronnie system will be unstable against small > perturbations. (If the system is quantised, then it's possible that there > are only certain allowed energy states, so it can't be perturbed by small > influences.) Note that even in our (believed to be quantised) universe, > positronium decays very quickly into gamme rays. > > Also, with two accelerating charges (circular motion is acceleration as > I'm sure you know), I think they should be emitting radiation, which will > also destabilise the system, leading the components to lose angular > momentum and collapse to a single point. This would happen inside an > atom,except that quantum physics disallows it - but it does so by > postulating that electrons are in fact waves, and that only a whole number > of wavelengths can fit within the space allowed by each orbital. I don't > see how this can be true of your point particles, so how do you overcome > what was called "the ultraviolet catastrophe" - the collapse of matter in a > burst of radiation? > > > > > > On 21 May 2014 04:13, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > I look forward to your comments each day. And I try to respond the best I > can. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 4:37 PM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES > > > > On 20 May 2014 11:17, John Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don’t smoke, but I did not expect a cigar anyway. > > > > I *believe* Chapter I is a fair assessment of current scientific > thinking. (If I honestly believe something but am not certain of, I > *believe* use of the phrase “I believe “ is appropriate.) Many scientist > are skeptical of many features of the standard model and relativity, > including one of your heroes, Richard Feynman. > > > > You have given an overly negative picture. You haven't attempted to > explain what the achievements of science were in the 20th dentury, but have > dismissed most of them as "hard to understand" as though this is a bad > thing (as I pointed out in an earlier post, the chances are against the > parts of the universe we didn't evolve to cope with being easy for us to > understand). The fact that scientists are sceptical of various features of > a theory does not invalidate the entire thing (anti-evolutionists often > point to minor quibbles about the details of the theory as though they > undermined the whole thing...) Einstein was famously sceptical of the > claims of quantum physics, but he explained why in detail, in for example > the famous EPR paper. (He didn't just say "That Neils Bohr, he just doesn't > understand quantum theory" or something similar.) > > > > Chapter II is just a summary of my thinking. Details will come. > > > > I don't want details so much as the reasoning behind this model. > > > > Thanks for giving it your attention. I really appreciate it. > > > > I would appreciate the same attention being given to all the points I and > others have raised. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
