Sorry for the delayed response to this thread--I was golfing.
The epo design of the proton is related to the Philippi Hatt model of the
proton and neutron and I think the muon. Hatt presented a paper for this
model at ICCF-19. As I have noted in previous threads, it correctly
predicts the magnetic moments and rest masses of the stable particles. I do
not think it addresses quarks. It does address the existence of matter in
greater quantities than antimatter.
Jones suggests that its epo turtles all the way down. I think Hatt's model
of the neutron includes only 900 turtles and the proton model, 900.5.
Quarks being mythical and not having rest masses that can be measured are
not considered. They are not necessary to explain measurable events IMHO.
Bob Cook
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Wormus
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 9:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Vo]:A model of the proton to describe Holmlid's results
Jones,
Brightsen's Clustron Model of the nucleus also has antimatter in the
nucleus.
I have pdf's of all his papers if anyone is interested.
Ron
--On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:58 PM -0700 Jones Beene
<[email protected]> wrote:
Of interest - wrt the "9 muon model" of the proton is an old paper
by Harold Aspen where he came up with the same conclusion.
http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/books/Asp/1988c.pdf
Aspden missed the important detail about binding energy showing up as
mass deficit, but still it is more than coincidental to Stubb's model.
One more point for John Berry about antimatter and matter coexisting in
the nucleus without annihilating. It turns out that the standard model
of physics has the quark and antiquark coexisting without annihilation,
so there is an exact precedent for this, already in place and no good
reason the muon and antimuon cannot do the same.
I haven't had the time to review exactly how Don Hotson imagined the
proton to be constructed, but epo pairs are likely to be involved – so
here too we have a similar situation of bound matter and antimatter
showing up as building blocks. Stubbs mentions something like this in
one of his papers but rejects electrons in favor of muons, yet the muon
itself could be imagined to be 103 epos plus an electron .
Instead of "turtles all the way down"… it's looking more and
more like "leptons all the way down"
For the turtle challenged:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
