A general description, the outline of which is:
1. The system considered in this chapter
2. Overview to this point
3. Interactions off nucleon
A. General idea
B. Electrons & Quantum Number, My Take on Quantum Mechanics
C.
Work, Energy and Entropy. Energy of the Electron. Energy of the Photon.
D. More on the dynamics of Energy and the Electron. Figuring for Energy Density.
F. Electron orbitals
G Magnetism & Heat
1. The system considered in this chapter
The system to be considered here is the nucleus and electron(s) and the surrounding regions and a bit about the universe as a whole.
The motion of all the particles in the universe in my hypothesis, were, I would say, to start a certain value, stay that value forever (in a natural world). And any impacts of particles, resulting in decrease of or increase of motion of certain particles, must be matched by the converse effect.
.
2. Overview to this point
In Chapter 15 it has been shown how a nucleon might be formed from primary particles.
To form such two primary particles must form a doublet set (crossed), then triplets, etc. Each set becomes rarer to form, as breakup is more likely, but the nucleon is stable and very rarely breaks up.
So on earth under normal conditions, there would essentially be nucleons, primary particles, doublets, triplets, and less of anything else. Also elements made up of two or more nucleons.
Following is a general description of the possible interactions of primary particles off the nucleons. The details of such would require a systematic accounting of numerous processes, which I have not accomplished.
3.
Interactions off
nucleon
3A. General idea
Consider the PP’s flowing with essentially uniform motion and separated by a goodly amount of space between particles.
Consider a nucleon (or hydrogen) embedded within this flow and pushed along with it, at least partially. Chapter 2 is a similar model for what happens, but with the nucleus it becomes more complex.
Generally the nucleon might be accelerated from PP overtaking and hitting the nucleon. Transfer of motion from nucleon to PP might occur on direct hits or when the nucleon overtakes a PP.
But far and away the most PP's are hitting the nucleon and rebounding, sliding and rolling off. The Primary Particle flow is almost entirely at the speed of light. As the particles rebound, etc., off the Nucleon, it creates a Halo of particles traveling at the speed of light in various directions for a short distance, until turned back into the direction of the prevailing flow.
3B. Electrons and Quantum Numbers
The velocity of each PP in the PP flow = c. In previous chapters it was calculated a nucleon has 274 PP. Supposing the nucleon (N) to be at rest, then if the N is accelerated by the velocity of a PP, its velocity is then c/274 + 1 (by following principle 9). Transferring all its velocity via a direct hit, the PP would shoot off with a velocity = c. Similarly other velocities would occur as 2c, 3c. 4c etc., or a series possibly equated with the primary quantum numbers occurs (Chart 61) This can also occur on a slow level, as the Nucleon hit and the accelerating particle goes off at c/274, or 2c/274 and 3c/274, though possibly like 2c/275 and 3c/276 etc.
CHART 61


If N is accelerated by 
PP shoots off at (approximately) 
c/274 
c 
2c/274 
2c 
3c/274 
3c 
etc. 
My Take on Quantum Mechanics
First the idea of quantum, that is discrete quantities. This lends itself to atomistic ideas greatly. Atomistic atoms, of same size, are discrete quantities, without a continuum of values.
Second on the notion of randomness and probably. If true randomness exists at an elementary level then that is a nonstarter as all would stay that way and reality would not exist. That is to say the common world we know itself is not random but aggregated (ordered or has voids, certain material, not random material).
But if talking probability of states on a elementary level that statistically work out to certain macro states by overlapping or canceling out, that seems reasonable, but only if the elementary states are not random as above, but have higher probabilities of certain states than others.
BUT this means those states are without reason or cause, just a probability, so the question arises then are higher (macro) states without reason or cause as built from more elementary states that have none. And is not reason and cause observed on a macro level, that is; consistent laws? So I can not say for certain rather this is a disproof of quantum probability or not, it possibly is (no joke intended!).
BUT ALSO there is no reason that these quantum probability states are not just so diverse (complex, large is number), but still mechanical in nature, that when we observe or measure them they APPEAR as probability states/randomness when they are not. This definitely needs to be the case for my hypothesis, and the randomness (really diversity) it produces at the elementary level should match with QM. This then all goes back to a first cause of the universe, from God, with laws of nature being mechanical from hence. Any true randomness thereafter would only be possible by God again supernaturally changing a state of something. To clarify, God is unfathomable, only the natural universe created is ours to understand as to its laws and order, cause and effect.
3C Work and Energy and Entropy
My scientific terminology may be off here, I speak in a common sense of work and energy. I read an interesting old piece, pages torn from a science/philosophy text called "The Constitution of Matter". I quote from page 193 paragraph 3:
"If, however, anyone should choose to halt his search for the ultimate stuff of the physical world at the stage which scientists call electricity, he may repair, if he wishes, to the physicist and ask him what electricity is. The answer will be that the question is useless. We do not know what it is, but only what it does. It is a name that we give to certain peculiar forms of energy; and if we ask what energy is, we are told that it is the potentiality of doing, the capacity for doing something, for doing work. We see work done and we can measure it  and these measurements are our data for the construction of our science. It is not being, but process, to which we are always led. Things are what they do. We cannot know what energy is; we can only know what mathematical ratios prevail in its various manifestations."
For some reason this got me thinking, that whereas up until this point I considered the shooting off of PP attached to the nucleus at speeds > the average speed of the PP flow were electrons, dissipating then back into the surrounding PP flow. But this is not true, speeds slower than the PP flow would have as much effect to do change as speeds greater, both are work and energy. Indeed by considering a particle coming of the nucleus at 1/273 of c (speed of light) I have been able to fairly closely reproduce the Balmer series (see the chapter on light for more details).
So here is a great dynamic,
that from various original motion of PP's moving at the speed of light,
from just the shape of the particle, and the laws of impact (as best
discerned), is created a nucleon which, in being accelerated and decelerated by
PP's,
throws off PP's that are attached
to it, sometime at speeds > c, sometimes at speeds < c, a system of
creating a differential, thereby "energy" to move mass (nucleons,
etc.) around is formed in which all the complex structures of the universe and
of nature are formed. On this primary microscopic level then, opposite of the
idea of entropy (that the complex structure of the universe is moving toward
disintegration and chaos), is found a system creating order out of chaos.
Energy of the Electron
For an electron its momentum can be > or < c. It is the absolute value of the differential from the primary particle flow that is "energy", not the % difference. For example e at 1 1/2 c has E=1/2 c, at 10c, E=9c. An e at 1/2 c has E = 1/2 c at 1/10 c, E=9/10c.
p=momentum v=velocity c=speed of light e^{}=electron E="energy" m=mass
equation 61 p = m_{e }x v_{e}
^{}_{}
^{}
or equivalent to the excess or deficit p > or < c.
The electron, after coming off the N as one particle, then disperses back into the PP flow. The original p and E of the e disperses to more particles via direct hits, formation of doublets, etc., but remains conserved, until it is matched with a particle or particles going slower than c, including the possibility of accelerating a N,
So in one sense E is not conserved because theoretically all the stray p of an electron could be absorbed by N's, giving a N the speed of light and all matter in the universe would be at that speed again, and no energy present. But in the other sense matter is not all flowing parallel, therefore interactions occur and N losses p and the e (just PP's really) gain p creating the differentiation, creating capacity to do work as previously mentioned. This flux then occurs, and in a semiconstant, but still haphazard way. Rather one considers the electron the initial p of the rod coming off a N, or rather the rate of flux that is occurring over time, I do not know.
Energy of the Photon
Most photons are 2 particles (see next chapter), but some can be 4, 6, 8 etc. The velocity is the rotational value and its linear motion (c) combined. The momentum includes mass; the energy is the rotational speed only.
Eq. 65 p_{ph}^{} = (mass rod_{1}^{} x velocity rod_{1}^{}+ mr_{2 }x vm_{2} etc.)
Eq. 66 E_{ph} = (v rod_{1}^{}^{ }x mass rod_{1} c x mr_{1}) + (vr_{2}^{}_{}^{ }x mr_{2}^{}  c x mr_{2}^{} ) etc
Or expressed in terms of one rod mass, xc  excess velocity over c for each rod added
Eq. 66.5 E_{ph} = (xc + c) c
when xc = zero, this expresses the fact a photon has been unable to be formed.
The velocity of the rod is a combination of its linear velocity, "always" c, and its rotational velocity. The energy of a photon, it seems, is independent of t, until it is absorbed (2P broken up and dissipated like an electron), except it is a function of its velocity which is expressed with time. Their are "photons' that might form off doublets that are traveling < or >c, but such are short lived as they collides quickly with the PP flow, and are, even if longer lived, rare.
Some Musing
E= hv therefore E= X x Kg x meters^{2}/sec x v/sec
Therefore E doubles as v doubles
E doubles as Kg doubles
E doubles as v (m/sec)
Double the time and E = 1/2, which makes sense as frequency rate of 1/sec changed to 2 per second (when time doubled), which means 1/2 the wavelength value. This is all consistent with E = the value of the momentum of the rotation of the light particles.
D. More on the Dynamics of Energy and the Electron. Figuring for Energy Density
So in my hypothesis photons have mass, but essentially electrons do not, they are dispersal's of motions off the atoms. When a photon is "adsorbed" it not longer exists as photon, but its energy goes to dispersal and its mass to Primary Particles without note. Indeed its the same particle(s) just a different "configuration". So perhaps that's why Physics cannot equate easily, they are trying to account for a particle (electron) that does not exist as a particle. It has no mass except if you want to relate it to the mass of each particle, then group of particles that are dissipating the motion from the acceleration/deceleration of atoms. So after the first single PP flies off an atom, collisions occur over and over and each collision results in more PP's carrying off smaller velocity differentials with the PP flow, but more and more PP's doing so. Equation wise then the "mass" of the "electron" goes from 1 to a very very larger number. So that, if true, would probably mess up many a physics equation. But along the way PP going slower than the PP flow are encountered and these collisions result in actual equalization of the energy differential. This above has been all figured with the fast PP's from atoms, there are also slow PP from atoms, and this also is energy.
How can the
universe have one energy flux? atoms/elections in the hot sun are
much more energetic, even without nuclear process, just from and
coexistent with the heat caused by high rate of collisions, as opposed to the cool of space. But yes
one energy density at first creation perhaps, but with my hypothesis
atoms create the energy differential, by acceleration and
deceleration (discontinuous from impact, therefore change in motion
is not "from acceleration", but the result is acceleration,
that is change to faster velocity, but at constant speeds each
change, not an acceleration force causing continuous change in
motion). And if the atom
is destroyed back to PP's, there is a release of energy, and some
change in overall trajectory on a localized level But at that form
the PP's are brought into a uniformity with the existing PP flow and
the energy is lost, as well as the ability of that atoms to form
energy.. Thereafter, less atoms, less energy flux in system. Likewise
when a atom is formed, it creates a new body for creating a energy
differential, therefore more energy. This should, I believe be
independent of the long established idea of no change of state in
overall parameters of a system, though i am may not be expressing
that well.
To figure the rate of collisions of PP with Nucleons.
Figuring the two sides of the problem. If the Nucleon, N, is stationary and overtaken by Particle P. All Particles are assumed to be a uniform average distance apart.
Distance apart velocity  rate of collision
1particle/100ft x 100ft/sec = 1 particle per second
1p/50ft x 100ft/sec = 2p/sec
1p/10ft x 100 ft/sec = 10p/sec
No its simpler than that even
equation 67 P velocity / distance apart = rate of collision (if v N = zero)
The second half of the problem. If particle N is moving at any velocity and overtaken by particle P.
2a) Maximum rate of collision is if N is stationary.
2b) If velocity of N is = or > the velocity of P then no collisions (zero)
therefore any point in between is a simple fraction of 2a. or
equation 68 Maximum rate x ((velocity P  velocity N) / velocity P) = rate per sec
Now combining the two half's of the problem by substituting equation 167 for the maximum rate in equation 68 gives
equation 69 Particle
velocity/distance apart x ((Particle velocity  Nucleon velocity) / Particle velocity) =rate of collision
I have tested it all out with various numbers and it works
For example if Pv =100 (ft/sec) and distance apart =100 ft and Nv = 10 ft/sec then
100ft/sec /100 ft x 100 ft/sec 10ft/sec /100ft/ sec = 9/10 P collisions per second
And if reverse that to how many seconds it takes for one collision, or 9/10 x 10/9 = 10/9 seconds or 1.111... second for 1 collision. If Nv = 50 ft per second equation 69 comes out to 1/2 collision per sec, or reversed one collision every 2 seconds. If long hand when P moves 100 ft N moves 50 more when P moves that 50 ft N moves 25 more when P moves that 25 etc up a limit of 200 ft or 2 seconds for one collision.
Energy Density
What then on "energy density" is it a function of collision rate? How about dissipation rate? Energy is capacity to do work. If PP are farther apart collision rate is less, therefore dispersal rate off of atom is less, but also dissipation rate is longer. So longer time, a certain energy. Closer PP are together over the same time, there is greater energy turnover.
The rate of collisions is a function of distance between PP and their speed. This can be figured numerous ways, one given above, another here follows. We are dealing with averages, and the average speed of the PP flow is definitely c . Average distance apart is some value. Now the speed of the Nucleon (N) figures in here too. Its average speed at discharge /2 gives its approximate (assuming a near uniform "acceleration" rate) average speed so rate of collision can then be figured knowing that a Proton has 274 PP's. Therefore
equation 610 Proton average velocity/c x 274 = rate of Collision
If N adds particles for each accelerating collision then at Nv=1 Mass=275, Nv=2 mass+276, Nv=3 mass=277 etc. this then would shift both the value of the mass and change the velocity of the whole mass per PP collision. But I haven't figured that math out yet, or the mechanics of it all.
Energy density would have several factors.
Assuming PP in flow are equidistant and same speeds. Of course there will be PP that are not, but as average is okay.
average rate of collision therefore average distance apart, as related to same as distance apart from the N.
number of atoms in the universe, or at least per unit volume
fact that average speed larger atoms goes like slower atom > collision rate faster atom < rate
therefore large and small atoms have average velocity that is same. But e stronger > the mass.
must figure most collisions are not accelerating collisions. But it should be pretty much a consistent average, the % of accelerating collisions to total collisions. Therefore rate of accelerating collisions is not just just average distance apart for PP , but also that x the above ratio if known.
Rate
of discharge could be what determines energy level. As if one
discharge per x time, with constant average collisions, the discharge
will be a certain level, the momentum the N is at then. The rate of
dissipation back to the PP flow is also an average but I don't know
how to figure this, it doesn't correlate w collision rate or
discharge rate directly. but might be sort of self regulating as
faster the PP sooner the collision but more collisions needed to
bring it down to c level, and vice versa.
As number of N formed then
are related directly to energy density. When formed seem to be all
all speed c, but perhaps not. If however, then at first direct hit
and loss of motion the differential is formed of 274 to 1. In
this case there must be a fast P at 274c, after that average
acceleration/discharge rate (before N formed fully assuming no
discharge possible) creates an energy differential, but the discharge
rate is statistical average, so rate of collision is value x # of
collisions until average discharge, should be rate of energy per turnover. Per time values are discussed below under other sections. Energy at the 274c discharge is a temporary thing,
not a constant thing, but is sudden energy burst in system until all
made uniform again.
This all assumes all the momentum of the nucleon is lost via direct hits which allow PP at center of mass to fly of with all the speed of the N, there maybe, and fact should be however spin to the N as well as linear velocity, and the mechanics of this need to be worked out.
3F Electron Orbitals
The PP shot off then goes through many interactions until dissipated back into the PP flow. The areas of dissipation would be as the electron orbitals, that is as mentioned previously, the electron would be as a turbulence around the nucleus not just a single particle, although at first a single particle holds all of the momentum associated with the electron.
On the
nucleus I believe the electrons would be occurring at an
angle perpendicular to the rod laid across the extra and toughing an edge.
A rough calculation of this angle is done in
Appendix E.
Generalized diagram of electron off nucleus
Figure 61
For hydrogen the nucleus turns this way and that as it rotates on the PP that collide with it. Therefore the electron, over time, forms a spherical cloud around the nucleus (s orbital).
For the p orbital the N is stabilized
parallel to the PP flow, as the electrons momentum dissipates back into the
flow it forms the dumbbell shaped cloud of the p, d, f, orbital.
As long as the nucleus is rectangular the
orbitals are from the 2 faces or as the p orbitals. When N accretes on the sides
of the nucleus (after Sc45) there are then 4 faces, forming d orbitals, the
shape of the nucleus being as Figure 62.
Nucleus with d orbitals
Figure 62
When
the nucleus is large enough to branch again, f orbitals develop.
The shape of the nucleus is as Fig. 63.
Nucleus with f orbitals (not to scale)
Figure 63
Speculative and more refined ideas combined and discussed here.
So here are four related factors, disturbances of the ether around the nucleus,
Electricity (electrons)
Magnetism
Heat
Light
Electrons
As a nucleon or element has PP hitting off it, it forms a petunia shaped dispersal from the front (side opposite flow). From the back (side closest to PP flow) the same occurs, these disperse back into PP flow and are shaped back up and around the N in a heart shape the point being in the front. The front dispersal from direct hits then interacts with the heart shaped flow to form the melon shaped field. In most elements the nucleons are spinning wildly all around and this shape does not appear, but we have more of a cloud as such. But statistically speaking, both are present and overlap, and interact. Apparently in magnetic substances the elements in congregation, like ships rudders, are spinning less and form, at least in clusters of elements, the classic magnetic field, from this interaction of the PP flow off them.
Now the electron is a type of the PP field, caused by PP coming off the nucleon from direct hits, ie , the momentum of the N is transferred to a P at speeds > the PP flow, alsp Particles are left behind at speeds < the PP flow.. It originates and then disperses back into the PP flow, back to equilibrium that is. However it may, first, and as an extended lifespan, have the potential of resonating with another element creating a bond, or in the case of conductors, finding paths to follow were it is shielded enough and enhanced by electrons flow, to reenhance that flow, like water creating a path on asphalt, once it forms the same, more water flow more easily.
The System, Cosmic on Down
To me the Motions of the universe are probably in giant swirling patterns, like snow driven in a windstorm. All matter in space, then regions of spaces, then galaxy clusters, galaxies, the solar systems, individual planets and last the matter contained therein down to the level of atomic nuclei. Here parallel flows of primary particles in straight line motion, nonlinear motion is discussed in chapter 8. But first at the level of nuclei and up one sees frequent but limited random PP at angles to the main flow causing literal collisions and slight changes in the flow as things are swept back up into parallel flows. This occurs with individual PP and also doublets, triplets and others, and light particles. Also random nuclei movements. As one gets closer to nuclei there are much much greater number of collisions due to the embedding of nuclei at slower speeds than the PP flow. This causes the dispersal of particles off the nuclei at speeds < and > than the speed of light (which is the speed generally of all the PP flow). This is the electrons no doubt and the cause of energy (see the sections above on energy). But also at that level there are many PP that simply hit the nuclei and flip off in quasirandom directions still at the speed of light, these create there own field of dispersal as they blend back into the PP flow, but are NOT the electrons. Perhaps this is the magnetism.
Magnetism
This (magnetism) would be then a type of energy in that it could rotate nuclei, but is a directional nature, that is the particles are traveling in directions contrary to the PP flow (ether if you will) but at the same absolute speed, whereas elections are divergent from this speed and travel both in contrary directions and contrary speeds. So magnetism is more steadily moved back into the PP flow, therefore forms loops over time, whereas electrons are constantly dissipating in a manner that causes rotation to occur during collisions and particles to fly of in random directions after each collision. But as the energy from the electron is close to dissipating back to the speed of light it behaves closer and closer to how magnetism is. However at the same time it is dissipating it is reformed off the nuclei (independently and not a repetitive speed, except statistically). So therefore magnetism is more steady. but electricity somewhat herkyjerky perhaps. BUT also as each collision of the electron (electron is a sum total of many particles traveling , < or > c) dissipates there are auxiliary collisions of particles at c that "flip off" so this creates other magnetic fields in addition to the ones off of nuclei.
Weak magnetic effects should be also found in 2p, 3P and up particle collisions, but not electron effects in those cases, except in relation to real electron dissipation, and perhaps some rare cases.
So there are several parts to this Magnetism question vis a vie my Hypothesis. If magnetism is trajectory of PP different from primary flow, then these could be the PP bouncing of atoms at c velocity or also the e at different speeds than c. But the e itself is a difference of speed from the PP flow. So is magnetism both c speeds at different trajectories or also the e trajectory changes too? And the e just that part of the situation of carrying the speed differential itself?
Electrons create;
1. Light
2. Create bonding, chemical energy, and the ability to move atomic structures
3. Creates a magnetic field, and e in flow create magnetic field that can move items via a motor.
Magnetism creates
1. Change in orientation of atoms
2. A moving magnetic field induces e
So seems magnetism as all trajectory change would work in a sense. And perhaps even in a sense e and magnetism overlap in nature and effect as regards trajectory differentials <> c. But speed differentials are e alone, and c only trajectory differential is magnetism alone. The e is induced by moving magnets because it is excess over normal e creation by PP flow. Indeed then electricity flow is always an excess, whereas the normal pace of e creation is associated with the normal motion of atoms though space. Excess motion of atom is quickly dissipated back to normal, so usually no relative motion change though space, except if it causes high heat and bonding is broken then the relative movement of atoms IS changed from normal. Therefore perhaps heat is a function of excess actives of e in total. not magnetism at all.
Therefore magnetic change is
1. Directly proportional to e values that cause PP value <> c. And
2. Indirectly proportional with trajectory change values = c (PP bouncing, and flipping off atoms) due to ratio of hits on atom that do and do not cause acceleration of the atom, which is a constant average value.
In fact in #(1.) the ratio Magnetic change/Electron change = c would appear as they both change in direct proportion.
But also in #(2.) the same thing, as in say (hypothetically) for every 999 hits that are not accelerating, and 1 that is, there would be a universal average, and the e is directly related to the acceleration of the atom, that is directly proportional to above, so 1 and 2 together are still Magnetic change/Electron change = c but magnetism is of those two types.
Most of the time matter is moving but no Light is created. Of course that is not entirely true, heat is created, but not visible light. And on colder planets there is about the same celestial motion but they are much hotter or colder, why? Of course solar heat, perhaps gravitational effects. But still motion is the same through space actually greater in outer planets. So difference must be vibration. So in colder planets there must be less acceleration  deceleration that is N travel freely with p for longer distances before change. Hotter places there must be more acceleration/ deceleration more turn over, but speed stays the same through space. What does that all mean? Well photons breaking up increases interaction around N's. Perhaps that even means PP flow is denser in these areas, so there is a double effect on acceleration/deceleration Where does lost PP flow go, it escapes to space, we know photons travel vast distances. So density in space maybe small, or is primary PP flow a constant density everywhere?
So heat must be directly proportional to acceleration/deceleration rates. What about slow electrons, are they heat? They can stop N and stop other PP's causing work. They get adsorbed to fast moving particles back to neutral.
More turnover per
unit time the more heat. And this must be turnover per same amount of
acceleration. [my note use speed generated not dissipation rate to start].
so equation heat.1 v x mass (velocity reached before deceleration) x # of times it occurs / time is proportional to energy/heat.
But no heat from light until adsorbed. and e flow in cooper wires causes little heat. Lets say heat is only movement of PP > c , but in #'s equal to the slow particles left behind. Or another way to say this is heat is only a P with speed between c and < 2c. slow e are not heat, nor are they cold. Absolute zero is P at c, not at rest. P < c are E but not heat. They can neutralize heat but they are not cold.
so eq Heat.1 E = Radiation + PP heat + e e is PP's >= 2c Heat is PP's < 2c but > 1c. Total E produced over unit time is dissipating so that at end of unit time E= E  ((radiation lost to space + heat adsorbed back to c + e lost to flow outside area)  radiation gained + heat gained + e gained)). In stable earth environment. e is constant with N. In a black box situation perhaps E = heat and eq. Heat.1 is straightforward.
But how about dissipation rate. Well we know light has special properties and can escape long distances. This leaves an excess of low e particles and deficit of the fast e. This excess of low e is slow moving so gets hit by PP flow. So one could conclude the PP flow is slowed down in areas of high heat, like sun, and the radiant heat lost to space and planets means the PP flow there is increased., at least when light is absorbed. Only where the faster and slower flow merge to we get a restoration of average speed of PP flow, and considering the age of light, this is a very long process, so the deviation of speeds of PP flow in and around mass would be significant. So there should be a temperature of mass that corresponds the a PP flow of average speed ?? SO IT IS NOT SPACE AND TIME THAT FLUCTUATE WITH VELOCITY BUT IT IS THE SPEED OF THE ETHER IN AREAS OF HIGH CONCENTRATION OF MASS (N) AND PERHAPS THE DENSITY OF THE ETHER ALSO, BUT NOT AS IMPORTANT. REALLY THE DENSITY OF N IS DUE TO AGGREGATION OF LARGE TYPES AND DENSITY OF ETHER PERHAPS FROM SECONDARY PP FIELDS ASSOCIATED WITH MAGNETIC FIELDS AND GRAVITY (INITIAL INERTIA). SO ACTUALLY ON HOTTER STARS THE PRIMARY PP FLOW IS SLOWED DOWN BY EXCESS OF SLOW ELECTRONS, AND THE REVERSE IN PLANETS.
So also
need to go with the idea that
temperature,
if cooled to absolute zero what about motion through space? If
temperature is back and forth motion and or a function of energy. Then
also is energy e or N? If both then N at speed 1/274 c has E of 273/274 c.
If in 10 hrs one turnover at 50 and it takes 10 minutes to dissipate. If also system started at Energy of N then to less of that more of Potential e then to real e then back to start. So most confusing because energy between N and e is a constant, however E of e goes from 0 to 50 to zero in 10hrs, if increase turnover more E per 10 hr until you reach dissipation time, no can go though that. But more E greater dissipation time? Perhaps, but more low particles too. But N has less E too match e greater E, but N E may effect magnetic field , whereas E has father range effects, including light and heat and electrical flow. So all work is done, and all structures of the world are caused by arrangements resulting from the energy of motion available from this turnover process, although it all coalesces back towards stability. Then repeats itself. The finer structures of planets and ultimately life are made then by a more delicate balance between energy and stability, with the maximum rearrangement of N in patterns of order, whereas hotter stars and such have a more energetic environment, but more chaotic in terms or orderly arrangements.. But when one thinks of it this makes sense, though the continued destruction and reformation of energy seems disturbing to our sense of well being, it makes sense in that forming energy without its destruction would create and ever increasing energy state, and forgo delicate balances for hot as hell environments.
Why Temperature goes only one way. Motion of particles increases upward, but there is a more defined lower limit to cold as in terms of one particle its motion increases, but absolute rest is on the cold end. And no negative motion in my opinion just because reverse direction. But there is a complete balances because as single P speeds go up, the slow electrons are built up in greater numbers also, so the increase on the slow end is in # of particles not in increasing "slowness". As fast e dissipates, the # of particles involved does increase. So too the speed of slow particles increases as impacts from faster motions occur. Note too a slow at 1/275th and a fast is then 274/275 so a double fast is appox. (needs more figuring) 2 x 274 / 275 speed. Then when reunited back to 1/ So which is speed of light?
`12818
E for
N/e per sec is discharge total  reabsorption total  E lost
to space . No that would be about zero silly, otherwise if just whats
created , it would be increasing with t. So its how to consider it,
that is important. Work done, is done while it exists and is not
reabsorbed yet. So it exists for a certain amount of time before
it is reabsorbed (Tex) that needs to be divided in 2 for average E
per that time . So for p =1c (1c over 1c of PP flow) ; E = 1c/2 per
Tex if the regeneration happens just as the dissipation ends, then
that is the E over any long time, as per sec. If the regeneration
happens sooner E per sec is that much greater. If regeneration
later then E per sec that much less.
Also consider that if looking at a time frame < Tex then E is greater , if t frame of 2 Tex, then E is 1c/2 + 1c/2 x %Tex /2 (for 2 units t Tex) so on at 10 units of time is 1c/2 + [1c/2 x %Tex (in last frame only) /10] At per sec this would be negligible.
But then you must consider, as in first sentence, the radiation lost to space. Also radiation gained from space. For each planet this must from an equilibrium with its temperature. That is during night loss E to space, during day gain E from space, creating a certain acceleration/deceleration ratio which reflects the average temperature of the planet. Or again the temperature gain from photons from sun, versa the natural radiation loss at any temperature will reach an equilibrium so that temperature of planets reflects the balance between what it gains and what it losses to some extent. Also, for example if there may be a certain excess of radiation lost to space, which will gradually cool planet, the slow e then build up, slowing the ether on the colder planets, restoring an equilibrium?. So at absolute zero does ether slow to zero? N at zero would be problem, no movement in space, and have reached absolute zero in lab. Therefore absolute must be at 1c speed of PP so that N is at 1/275c but motion through space must be at speed < or = to this. If got to that speed through space, then would reach barrier in matter would begin flowing around slowed matter in lab experiment and equipment would shatter or explode. No reason ether could not slow that far, as long as energy is being put in to drain it out where it interfaces with faster flow,but such extremes are temporary.
SO E IS FROM ACELERATIONDISHCARGEDISSAPATION RATES. Heat is related to that to. Motion of N through space is related to AccelerationDischarge rate only if rate was instantaneous, then motion through the universe would be Zero. time for acceleration is time of motion, after discharge that motion repeats. So actually the motion through space is a constant speed., regardless of # of turnovers. But E increases with turnovers
BY GOLLY E DOES "INCREASE " WITH TIME , here is the paradox for a given time , per sec say, increase the turnovers during that time and the energy used during that time increases, in like manner, but is not accumulated, so that there is more at end as opposed to start, but is the same due to it being destroyed also, EXCEPT for any differential due to radiation lost in space, creates an E loss, but also can receive radiation from space, but not in balance always?
Anyhow absolute motion is not a function of turnovers, but Energy is. Absolute motion is a function of average rate of motion per one (average) turnover, regardless of time period. So is not a real vibration as so figured. but vibration (back and forth) motion is possible for the N I believe. which would complicate things (also light particles have a back and forth motion). As well as spin the N may have, But actually a back and forth motion should not effect the figuring for average acceleration/deceleration. Although the magnetic fields and directional qualities of e's would be changed. Also spin motion would probably be all lost at any discharge so is no effect on average acceleration/deceleration. but would effect as would vibration, the macro motion through the universe.
Jan 30 2018
In the beginning if all the PP where created with one speed no N could form, unless created also. But assume not, therefore all the PP had to be created with various speeds, allowing overtaking hits which could form N. Over time the faster PP overtaking the slower would coalesce the universe to one average speed of PP motions, thereafter N can only be formed around other N that produce e field thereby the possibility of faster PP overtaking others.
But this average speed smooth out things so that the absolute motion of N matter through space is the average speed of average speed to deceleration point, minus any back and forth motion of same plus any spin motion also, would leave the absolute motion through space from point A to point B, though it could be compounded and consists of fits and starts which allow apparent circular motion relative to other bodies.
SO ALL THOSE MOTIONS NEED to be <1c for the PP shot off the N to be at absolute zero. but one can neglect spin, or if spin is gone, and the other motions must be still present to achieve a relative union motion with the surrounding matter. So one can make a very rough calculation if one gives the absolute motion through space of matter the MAX it can be of 1c (shot off particle), or 1/275c for the Nucleic matter (its velocity through space).
SEE ALSO "NEW IDEA ON GRAVITY" IN CHAPTER 8!!
>Chapter 7 Light