At 07:36 am 21/05/2006 -0700, you wrote: > Appropriate for a Sunday-choice ... when in Rome <g> or in the > Mall, if the movie-house in the Mall is your epistemological > choice for "breaking the code" ... > > A new essay by Ken Shoulders entitled "Which Mass?" can be > downloaded from: www.svn.net/krscfs/ > > > The key point is almost biblical, and as heretical as DVC:
But surprising topical, Jones, in view the controversy which rages over the Tridentine Mass and the nervous ordo. 8-) I haven't yet read Ken's essay so I can offer my completely uncontaminated opinion. <g> Since both charge and mass (inertia) have to be manifestation of stuff in motion, how's about charge being algebraic motion and mass being arithmetic motion. The size of the proton arises from the fact that the positive charge and negative charges don't quite balance cos one is above space ambient motion and one is below. I think Aspden sees the proton as being made up of electrons and positrons ([c + delta]^2 - [c]^2) <> ([c]^2 -[c - delta]^2) Add the positive and negative charges together and eventually n.([c + delta]^2 - [c]^2) = (n + 1).([c]^2 -[c - delta]^2) and they do balance which accounts for the stability of the proton. Add one more to get the neutron and we are slightly out of balance again which accounts for the instability of the neutron. Mind you, I've always though the neutron scored very well in the instability stakes. An average of 14 minutes or so seem bloody miraculous for an unstable fundamental particle. 8-) Cheers, Frank Grimer
