Theory of Replication

I'm refining the the model now with that kind of configuration
here is a preview of what I'm talking about





pep epe pep
epe pep epe = 1
pep epe pep

epe pep epe
pep epe pep
epe pep epe = 2


121 212 121
212 121 212
121 212 121 = up quark = W

212 121 212
121 212 121
212 121 212 = down quark = V


wvw = "Proton"
vwv = (!"AntiProton)-
going to do the full "epe" picture for the proton
to see the extent of the geometry

notice the symmetry here...
I have a lot to do...

there is really a

Hi Mark, we did talk quite a bit about quarks some time ago. I'm afraid it got left on the back burner. I remember I went in search of how Gell Mann came up with the standard model. The guy loves to tell amusing stories of how he got the better of philosophers; particularly French neo Kantians. No, thats not the right wording for it, he trashed them, they were all perfect idiots.

Nothing at all on how he came up with fractional charges, and frankly the man was beginning to irritate me greatly. My take on Gell Mann, he's hugely into art, so he goes off as a young grad student to Paris. In a gallery he's with some mates and they look at the paintings of Seurat. As sure as eggs is eggs, people talk about Seurat inventing the television screen.

Four tubes of paint, red, yellow, blue and white, let you paint the bathers. As soon as I had that idea, of something that possibly happened to Gell Mann, I jumped to the idea of an alpha particle being an unbalanced three phase star delta starter. Something used to overcome the initial inertia of heavy plant.

Then as I say we moved on to something else. I think it was the bec particle.

With that, first I think we've got to look at any likely candidates for the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of gravity. I worked out from the electromagnetic/gravitational couple. a speed of gravity. It came out at 1.16464217444E 25 metres per second. This is a lot faster than Tom's lowest estimate, from binary pulsar measurement, of 20 billion times c.

I didn't twig at first that c^2 / b^2; we'll call b the speed of gravity; would equal h. That's a tantalising value to get! So let's look at the Lorentzian, sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) for electromagnetic space, sqrt(1 - v^2 / b^2) for gravitational space.

We have to say that something odd happens when v^2 equals c^2 a phase change. That means we change the minus sign to a plus sign. Now we can also write the Lorentzian as sqrt(1 + 1 / eta^2) Eta being the refractive index, and in this case its negative, so it changes the sign.

Hop into a time machine and show the equation to Newton. A scrap of paper with 1 + 1 / 1.5091889611E 33 written on it. That very big number is simply the reciprocal of h. Newton would say, thats a big number, let's call it infinity, expand it and get the value e. Two graphs then but they don't diverge for a long time.

This suggests that any particle is a cos n ln x shape. An f.m. wave. I did put up the graph of it in some thread or other, can't remember where now.

Now let's look at the infamous e = mc^2 and we have to also look at e = mb^2 We'll use the electron but any particle will do. Change the e to hf. Maybe as a little reminder we can write it as h(2pi)f = mc^2 (2pi) The energy is down to the fact that this thing is spinning at one hell of a rate.

hf = mb^2 that's
hf = 9.1093897E-31*1.35639139448E 50 = 1.2355897798E 20
Gravitational energy is exactly the same number as the electromagnetic frequency.
Well, hf = e so h*1.2355897798E 20 =1.2355897798E 20 This has to mean that once inside of an electron your angular momentum increases form h to the value one. Then at the Shwartzchild radius, there's a phase change and you have to climb up a very very thin spike to get back to the value of h at the top of the spike.

So, no black holes but we simply cannot see anything within a negative refractive index volume. One it has total internal reflection, and two it is spinning faster than light. We also have the interesting property of what looks like time reversal. Of course it's not, its just that in gravitational space things dont do what you might expect. Cerenkov radiation would proceed a particle, and we couldn't see it, as it would be in our future. Bosons would behave like fermions and vis versa. Push on something and it pushes back.

Changing the subject slightly, I don't think we've ever talked about where we all travel at the speed of light. That's on the time plain. Personally I think that Einstein was totally wrong. All events, past, present and future are supposed to exist on this plain. If I'm running around in the three spacial dimensions, then I travel a little bit slower than the speed of light in the time dimension. That means that photons are not moving. To see these events I have to run past photons. That's hideously deterministic, absolutely no free will at all. With a faster than light speed of gravity, at least photons move.

hey Stout

I think were looking at really having to get into some heavy string theory equations
If you want to talk about traveling at the speed of light, the faster way would be the wormhole.
and we would still need to look at some type of string theory and I'm now looking at
how string theory would help in the matter at hand with the replication problem
of the mass compression I like the idea of overlapping fields and im going to try to use that idea
with the plasma physics equations

[q(E+v x = m(dv/dt)]

were q = charge , E = electric field , x = cross product , B magnetic field
to get an idea of the motions involved here


I think that your equation

hf= mb^2

looks a lot like the materialization of light energy to mass energy equation
or the "Electron Positron pair production" equation

1. hv = 2mc^2 or 2. (hf = 2mc^2) = 1.022 MeV

h = Planck's constant v = photon frequency
and if we change that equation to work with the above model we get

[ hf = 3mc^2 =(epe) ] and [ hf = 3mc^2 =(pep) ]

so its (Planck's constant times frequency = 3 times mass times the speed of light squared)
this would give us the frequency of electromagnetic energy needed to make this partial (epe) or (pep)

(( this might be the case if "hv" hits a proton,.. and not out of thin air
which is good cause there needs to be more to the equation then this
but this is a good start))

Planck's constant = 6.6261 x 10^-27 erg-second or = 6.6261 x 10^-34 joule-second

I dont see how you got this tho
h(2pi) = 9.1093897E-31

cause my calculations show

6.6261*10^-34 *2 Pi = 4.1633*10^-33 or
6.6261 * 10^-27 * 2 Pi = 4.1633*10^-26

6.6261*10^-34 /2 Pi = 1.04083*10^-33
6.6261 * 10^-27 / 2 Pi = 1.04083*10^-26

2 Pi / 6.6261*10^-34 = 9.48248*10^-35
2 Pi / 6.6261 * 10^-27 = 9.48248*10^-28

MARX

Hi Mark, sorry if that was unclear, there's a 2pi on both sides of that equation. They just cancel out. The reason I mentioned it was to remind, that what we are talking about with, e = mc^2 is a rotating system. h is a measure of angular momentum, and if the angular momentum inside of a particle increases to a value of one, so what. h would not be some magic dimensionless number but it would be important as the value at which we have a phase change.

All we've done to get e = mc^2 is to expand the lorentzian, which is, when all's said and done, simply the equation of an ellipse. However, if we make the speed of gravity much much larger than light speed, then our ellipse becomes a circle. Newton says that the speed of gravity is infinite, it would take an exponential form, we can sum it, so it's a well behaved infinity. That gives us the rather odd result that Newton would have said, don't bother with the Michelson Morley experiment, it will not show a variation in the speed of light at all. (I say it will but it will be only about plus or minus 1E-9 metres)

Could the ratio of the speed of gravity to that of light be some other value? I would say yes for the vacuum but no for where there is matter. For the vacuum we would have a refractive index of one over infinity, for the space where matter exists we again get e but to 1E -34 places. The universe is using some of its infinite energy to create matter and matter's space.

Back to our particle again, and we'll look at the electron. What's its Shwartzchild radius? r = 2Gm / c^2 that's minute! Most of the energy of the electron lives inside of this tiny radius. It's as though there are tiny holes in electromagnetic space, through which only a tiny amount of gravitational energy can dribble out.

So let's say, what is the gravitational mass of a particle which has the energy of an electron?
e = mc^2 = 8.18711116801E-14Joules divide that through by the speed of gravity squared.
8.18711116801E-14 * 1.35639139448E 50 = 6.03595039111E-64

I think that this is the rest mass of the Compton photon. If we smack such photons together we can sometimes create a electron/positron pair. I would argue that there's only enough energy to do that, in the head on collision of the photons' gravitational cores. Most of the time the photons pass right through each other, their mutual centres missing by miles.

One thing about this proposed speed of gravity, it simply loves reciprocals. No bad thing in terms of super symmetry. One of them should be of interest to you. We can write into the lorentzian,
1- e^2 mu / 2a epsilon

e is the electron/proton charge
mu the permeability constant
epsilon the permittivity constant
a, the fine structure constant.

Now something has to change here, so I went for mu changing. So h = e^2 mu / 2a epsilon.
mu becomes the reciprocal of the speed of light. So try it with the reciprocal of the speed of gravity and we get an answer that's about a metre per second. I take this to be the speed of electricity. To get this to tally with the Fermi velocity I had to assume that we, in our bit of space, are travelling at about 1 /20th the speed of light.

Em... Come to think of it, what you are doing reminds me that I once posted here about the famous spindizzy of space merchant fame. I might see if I can find it again.

Think of a particle as being dual in nature, with a gravitational radius and mass. and an electromagnetic radius and mass. Two gyroscopes, one inside the other. One is tiny but contains the bulk of the energy, and it's really belting around. The other is no slouch either. We are talking about a cross product here.

As for diving into string theory. I think we already have one in the Le Sage theory. Particles and suns cast shadows. With a negative refractive index theory, we can consider these to be wires.

Have you any idea what kind of environment and drive system would be required to make protons from energy of whatever energy? Although its not yet known to science it clear to me energy transforms into protons. It seems to me science will never make this discovery due to the rules that are in force at this time but that does not mean making protons is prohibited-It just means science is a human tool.

HERA PROTON COLLIDER EXPERIMENT RESULTS:

"The Electron-Proton Storage Ring HERA started operations in 1992. It collides electrons of 27.6 GeV (1 GeV = 1.000.000.000 electron volts) with protons of 920 GeV. It provides a resolution which is more than ten times better than that achieved by the best experiments at CERN and FNAL.

The gluon-strings between the quarks inside the proton can break and at the ends quarks and antiquarks appear. One has therefore to expect a dynamical mixture of quarks, antiquarks and gluons, in contrast to just three quarks of the naive proton model.

The measurements at HERA provide such a close up picture. They show that the number of quark-antiquarks pairs inside the proton is unexpectedly large. The figure shows the new measurements together with old measurements at lower energy. The variable x is a measure of the energy of the quark inside the proton. The HERA measurements are a probe of the quarks and antiquarks inside the proton at small x-values. Their number rises fast as one goes to small x-values. This was a great surprise, since the old measurements had not hinted at such a behavior.

The gluon-strings between the quarks inside the proton can break and at the ends quarks and antiquarks appear. One has therefore to expect a dynamical mixture of quarks, antiquarks and gluons, in contrast to just three quarks of the naive proton model.

The measurements at HERA provide such a close up picture. They show that the number of quark-antiquarks pairs inside the proton is unexpectedly large. The figure shows the new measurements together with old measurements at lower energy. The variable x is a measure of the energy of the quark inside the proton. The HERA measurements are a probe of the quarks and antiquarks inside the proton at small x-values. Their number rises fast as one goes to small x-values. This was a great surprise, since the old measurements had not hinted at such a behavior."

www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/chap2.html

Hi Mark and Stoat, I think Stoat is on the right track regarding a La Sage or what Tesla would call 'tubes of force' exchanging energy in a plasmoid as an internal and external interface to the greater energetics taking place with in this scale of motion. I think the proton is a micro-model of how Universe works. We have inside the proton the basic design of the universe which is two paired motions one a quark and the other an antiquark attached to gluon strings. If the plasmoid is configured as a tube with magnetic gravitons incoming and antigravitons exiting then this becomes a phase conjugated template that operates above light speed with elements of the exchange taking place just outside of our time slot---A three phase exchange with neutral being where we exist at light speed. The problem is it appears that [cpt violations] symmetry is broken during collider experiments for antimatter because it is a reverse time wave and does not really belong in the galactic ecliptic rotation of graviton motion so it evacuates faster heading in the opposite direction of our forward time. We only see light frequencies, yet the main bulk of this graviton cycling energy operates way above the frequencies of light. That is why there is limited understanding on why with higher impact energies we see unlimited quark and antiquarks flying out of protons during collisions. Modeling can only get you so far, unless you see the big picture of how energy circulates in this local large scale motion you cannot understand how mass is formed in the first place.

Nothing could exist in Universe if time was not divided in two directions. So, matter cannot exist with out antimatter it is a paired exchange. Antimatter induction takes place as the central reverse motion cores of black holes. It is the antimatter that causes mass to form around the ecliptic graviton circulations of galaxies, and it is the black hole antimatter cores where antigravitons are forming an hour glass reverse motion antimatter magnetic field and shooting antigravitons back towards reverse time. This is a continuous creation process and a galaxy only exists because of this greater graviton cycle. John