A Non Fiction Trilogy



      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.

        E.     More Thoughts and Notes on Universal Energy

        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 1-5 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 140 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/140 + 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 6-1) This can also occur on a slow level, as the Nucleon hit and the accelerating particle goes off at c/140, or 2c/140 and 3c/140, though possibly like 2c/141 and 3c/142 etc.




If N is accelerated by

PP shoots off at (approximately)









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 non-starter 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.             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 6-1                                                     p = mex ve-

eq. 6-2                                                   Ee- = | c x mass rod - ve- x mass rod|

  or equivalent to the excess or deficit v > or < c for equal mass comparisons.  


             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 semi-constant, but still hap-hazard 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 possibly be 4, 6, 8 etc. I consider the velocity is the rotational value and its linear motion (c) combined. The momentum includes mass; the energy is the rotational speed only.

Eq. 6-5                     pph = (mass rod1 x velocity rod1+ mr2 x vm2 etc.)

Eq. 6-6                Eph = (v rod1 x mass rod1- c x mr1) + (vr2 x mr2 - c x mr2 ) etc

      Or expressed in terms of one rod mass; xc - excess velocity over c for each rod added

Eq. 6-6.5              Eph = (xc + c) -c   or  Eph = xc

   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 meters2/sec   x  v/sec

Therefore    E       doubles as v   doubles

                   E       doubles as Kg doubles

                   E      doubles as v (m/sec) doubles

           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 current Physics is 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 one to a 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, and the ones that neutralize the fast electrons. 

           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 co-existent 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

equation 6-7      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  6-8     Maximum rate x ((velocity P - velocity N) / velocity P) = rate per sec

Now combining the two half's of the problem by substituting equation 6-7 for the maximum rate in equation 6-8 gives

equation 6-9    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 6-9 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, the greater the 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 140 PP's. Therefore

equation 6-10   Proton average velocity/c x 140 = rate of Collision (per average time of one turnover)


    If N adds particles for each accelerating collision then at Nv=1 Mass=140, Nv=2 mass=141, Nv=3 mass=142 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 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 at speed c, but perhaps not. If however, then at first direct hit and loss of motion the differential is formed of 140 to 1. In this case there must be a fast P at 140c, 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 140c 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.

E. More Thoughts and Notes on Universal Energy

         E=mc^2 ;    should be like E of a N = to   N mass x c^2.    “Max”, being speed of (all) N = c and that differential formed in terms of 1 P x (N mass traveling at c) x interaction rate (collisions) which increases by the same amount as speed increases, so is squared!!   SO CONTRARY TO PREVIOUS BELIEF THAT E=mc only in my hypothesis, perhaps it does equal mc^2.

        Thats the easy part! But when a N is accelerated it is forming slow e- also, not like one fast e- but through several. In fact, that would be exactly proportional to the fast e- for collisions with the uniform PP flow. So say we have a fast e- at approximately 6c, It would have taken 6 collisions at c to accelerate the N to that speed before it discharged a fast e-, generally put.   So, there are 6 motionless, or say at 1/140 c. That’s energy differential too. And this would slow down PP flow around N until fast P’s meet and neutralize. The slow should be equal to the fast e- therefore total energy for the electron at discharge should be

equation 6-11 (incorrect)    average E of e- = 2 x average velocity N at discharge - c x mass N ^2 per average time between discharges.


         Velocity of N -c in all cases to account for a differential from average speed of PP flow. The turnaround from deceleration to acceleration, means for the average speed, one must divided by 2. Which puts it back to 

    equation 6-12  average E of e- = average velocity N at discharge - c x mass N ^2 per average time between discharges


        This is average velocity for the e- calculated by the velocity of the N at discharge. It encompasses the fast e- and the slow e- together as the total average energy level of a given electron. The time factor can be dropped as each turnaround has this same average energy level. Also the average speed of the N can be used to express the energy of the e- rather than discharge speed. Average speed would be discharge speed /2 Or:

       equation 16-12.5                average E of e- = average speed of N -c x mass N ^2

[Dec 8 2019-  As usual I am finding this needs refinement. The slow e-, if left at zero speed, actually have more E than the fast e- because of absolute value from the PP Flow at c. So in the case of 6c collisions the slow e- has 6/5 x E of fast e- or velocity fast e- = E slow e- in terms of 1 particle still. Or average E e- = (average discharge VALUE x 2 - c) /2 N speed needs to be adjusted to include mass of plastered particles, so with hits at c mass N =140 + (1 for each c) so at 4 hits N speed = 4c/144. Also very confusing with E=Mc^2 as double mass double E but for me its double v double E. So at rest mass the velocity is a value, double that value and E should be doubled. In standard physics it would be mass doubled for that increase then? Unless E=mc^2 doesnt really hold up. So mass x actual velocity^2 at rest mass must = standard physics mass x c^2  But it would not, N speed would not be anywhere near c at rest mass.]

            This leaves e- as having a push and hold side, sort of like magnetism – and + so are magnetism and electricity one and the same?   Electrons are far afield effect; magnetism is close around the N effect? So electrons effect other N’s but magnetism effects what? Perhaps it is mechanics that bring excited states back to normal rather than continually propagating. Now with light E is lost from system, here slow e- actually slow PP flow in that region of space if light loss is greater than light absorption, and reverse, where light adsorption is > loss.     See also the chapter on light.

         Going back to E=mc^2 again , here is what wikapedia says


“ A consequence of the mass–energy equivalence is that if a body is stationary, it still has some internal or intrinsic energy, called its rest energy, corresponding to its rest mass. When the body is in motion, its total energy is greater than its rest energy, and 

equivalently its total mass (also called relativistic mass in this context) is greater than its rest mass. This rest mass is also called the intrinsic or invariant mass because it remains the same regardless of this motion, even for the extreme speeds or gravity considered in special and general relativity.”


          Anyhow the mass of a N is constant (except quite possibly considering the particles plastered upon it as adding to its mass, temporarily).   What standard physics calls rest mass for a N would probably be what I call the average speed of a N. This average speed corresponds to the average E of the e-. When everyday matter is at “rest” compared to us. This is for free standing N’s. When in bonds or larger atoms the issues are different, like reverberation of P’s between N’s set free when bonds are broken etc.

       So in such a case the E is not from c^2 but from average velocity in terms of 1 PP shot off from an average velocity N ^2   or

equation 6-13           E e- = mass N x (velocity N - c) ^2

         ??So average velocity N - c / c   would be proportional to standard physics rest mass vs “real” rest mass, that is substituting mass change for velocity change. So standard physics rest mass is too high. I need to find what the e= is for Hydrgen at rest mass and that should = E on N too but can’t figure anything else as don’t know what speed that is.

          So then E at rest mass for H – e- E at H rest mass should give the difference between actual mass and inflated mass in standard physics PERHAPS!! Because of the slow e-, it means at rest mass a correction of another ½ greater difference, I think. ?? Dec 8 cannt seem to imagine this idea again as correct, BUT 

                                M x c^2 should = mass x (velocity N-c)^2 

at rest mass and velocity N would be its average velocity at discharge.  

so       mass N = mass N x (v N -c)^2 / c^2   which it does not, the correction factor being then the difference between real and fake rest mass  doubling vN should be same difference they use to change mass in standard physics, her e its v change though not mass change PERHAPS

           So “no energy” of a P is #particles in N x c /140. When N has zero E its e- formed is at “max” (“max” but can go higher but then is probably short lived as overtaking PP flow), but when N is at rest it has max E and e- = zero. Well actually N at c has zero speed E in relation to the average speed of the PP flow. But has “max” E of collision (discharge collisions).   This is from aberrant P happening per time of acceleration to average speed.   Higher speed N would meet such particles sooner. So if double speed of N there is double the rate of collision. But is this not already worked into the equations because of rate per turnover. If double speed of e- double the collision rate, okay. For N double speed yes double aberrant p’s as meet them twice as fast. Anyhow, at least for now, seems aberrant particles collisions (head on) are part of the turnover rate in equations. already.

.          MUST CONSIDER COLLISION RATE AS OVERTAKING AND OVERTAKEN which could be complicated, but have done already elsewhere I think, nevertheless I think I can simplify. Because for PP or N speeds > c overtake but are not overtaken (considering PP flow only) and < c are overtaken but don’t overtake. At c neither, is uniform, so zero

         Ordinally N nowhere near c, so not overtaking. And the overtaken hits only increase slightly, so collision rate is close to constant over small increases in velocity. Fast e- collision rate is: to its speed, overtaking collisions. Slow e- its collision rate is : to its slowness,   overtaken hits, as well as their differential.   Therefore, both are ^2 and in tandem, or close to it, when created. And are constant until destroyed, but go from locally much each to diffuse, little each. The N varies its E from E (minimum speed) max to zero to upward to infinity max. It's average velocity is its rest mass in standard physics, after that its velocity not mass that changes only, (except for plastered p)

         THEN ONE MUST CONSIDER THE BACK AND FORTH MOTION OF THE N. Does e- discharge against or with the flow? All collision as overtaking has more to do with flow direction in this perspective, though direct hits. Also then speed of e- still increases with collision rate in either direction, but N unlikely to be accelerated in both directions. So, should be able to make an equation here finially. E=mc^2;


equation 6-14   E of the e- then at standard physics rest mass is = to   │ (average velocity of e- – c) x mass 1P │ ^2  

         When velocity = c, E=zero.   Except for E of direction.   Since I have determined that is : to speed E it would be dependent on direction, if opposite flow having a max of I assume of   mass x c; if with flow zero, likely average then of ½ mass x c but should be much less as off N because N should be somewhat with the flow. This is an undeterminable value.   When N at c (all) e- would be 140-1 c^2 , anyhow same equation. This already has an average collision rate figured into it. So can call rest mass as uniform rest mass and zero, non-uniform rest mass is up to ½ mass x c and is directional not accelerative E and probably is magnetism. Never can produce light. At speed > c collision rate is automatically into equation EXCEPT we have to note E is per standard time of average turnover. When PP flow is thicker or more energetic, turnover is quicker producing more E per unit time. This would be proportional to heat, more E more heat. Note; hotter environments lose mass and E to radiation into space, but colder environments can form into hotter by gravitation if unbalanced so inward flow to a center is > than random motions, which small imbalance probably has a cascading effect, is a natural process of motions.

          For the N then its average E is = to the following equations  (1/2 for average)    


equation 6-15      │ absolute rest E of N │ + │ c x mass N - average velocity N x mass N │ / 2^2 


equation 6-16         │ mass N x c │ + │ c x mass N - average velocity N x mass N │ / 2^2  


equation 6-17            │ 140 x c  │ + │ 140 x c - average velocity N x 140│ /2^2

Dec 29 NO NO this wrong averaging averages. The average speed of N already includes any time it has zero speed. So average E is directly proportional to average speed, figured into a differential. Therefoe average speed includes a time factor that is NOT quatized. Each acceleration is usually a descrite quanta by in large, but the average speed is a combo over a long period of time of how long various speed last, say until turnover. The quanta of collision would be related to a higer order quanta of rate of collision and change of rate due to each quanta added, but all still types of quanta. But turnover, has a unrelated rate, really a more random average most likely. So the figure of average speed will be thrown off quanta by that addition to the equation. I beliweve

          Just opposite of e-   But also zero at c and directional issues the same, and turnover issue the same, but no directional issue at absolute rest. A N can be at absolute rest, but is not destroyed, whereas e- has no absolute rest and is destroyed. E at absolute rest for N is mass N x c or in terms of mass PP 140xc.       

         Note for e- , the slow e- is always produced in tandem with fast e- so no sperate issue, and are part of equation. So, at any given point total E (energy density per N, e- pair) is a combination of N + e- over average turnover rate and is

  (velocity e- = velocity N x 140 )  

equation 6-18        │ 140 x c │ + │ c-avg velocity │ / 2^2   +   │ average velocity – c │ ^2


          Now lets do a calculation! A proton at rest mass is 1836 x the mass of an electron in standard physics. By my hypothesis it is 140 to 1 If you represent the electron as 1 P, the particle shot off the N. 

  So, equation 6-19       x is to 1836 as 1 is to 140 or   x/1836 = 1/140   solving for x   x=1836/140  x=12.93



   So the ratio of N to e- mass is 12.93 times out of kilter. Therefore N needs to be 12.93 x the energy of the e-. to make e=mc^2 work at rest mass for both. Using equation 6-17 

equation 6-20

  140c + ((140 x c - average velocity N x 140) /2 /12.93)^2  should equal equation 6-14 or  average velocity- c x mass 1P ^2 

        Simplified calling average velocity x

equation 6-21    (140c + (142c - xc) /2/12.93) ^2 = (xc - c) ^2  by trail and error this gives figure of approximately 10.3865 ^2

       This then is the average E of the e-  the average E of the N then would be 10.3865 x 12.93 or 134.297 ^2   

       The velocity of the e- at discharge would be 2x the average of  11.3865 or 22.773 c  but the average velocity of matter (N's) would be  11.3865/140 c ! Probably all wrong but a calculation to test.

dEC 10 2019 NO WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THIS IF ASSUME RATIO IS RIGHT AS FAR AS ENERGY GOES, AND THATS WHAT PHYSICS MEASURE I BELIEVE, THE 12.93 OUT OF KILTER NEED TO BE MADE UP BY TAHT AMOUNT OF ADDED SPEED DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE N AND e-. BUUT THAT MUST BE BROUGHT TO A BALANCE SO THAT Average vaule of electron via the average value of energy of the nucleon is reciprocal and also proportiomal to the standard ratio. So will go off line and work on it.  

        That’s the average E on earth for any N, e- combo. As they come in combos just x by # of N    Now as turnover rate goes up so does E, : to heat

        Photons formed are E and mass is lost to system, reverse as photons adsorbed. As life seems to be a balance between cold and hot in the universe, this then can be taken as the E in the Universe for any given area of equal mass content as earth. Appears then God created PP flow, and with various speeds to start, First E, which diminished except as N formed it was re-ignited (E) now as N still being formed? is are they lost, and at what rate: to formation.  

         So average E   of e- should be average acceleration/collision rate for   N     so


  equation 6-19         e- mass x c^2 / x   = e- E

          should give that rate in TERMS OF A % of PP mass x c

          Question then, can we talk about E of N and E of e- or are they one and the same thing? From a practical point of view the N itself does not collide with other N much, so it’s the intermediaries carrying the energy.   But it is collided into.   I’m defining energy as the capacity to do work, re-arrange things. So PP at rest no E or PP in uniform motion no E. But is this so or should any motion equal energy. Because even with PP at same speeds, they can collide and re-arrange, so is that not energy? And it’s the uniform PP flow that accelerates the N! So how is that not E? Perhaps this, the speed above or below the average speed, as I have been describing energy, is, let’s call it, absolute energy. Uniform speed and uniform (parallel) =zero energy so likewise, and a special case, absolute rest of all PP is zero energy. But then we have uniform speed but non-uniform direction, trajectory energy of sorts.

Creation of the Universe, Issues of Energy

              If all PP flow equal speed in one direction. No E. If just ONE comes from the other direction it should/would cause a cascading effect that would change the ½+ entire universe to random motion, because rotation to doublets gives a random direction of motion to them. This is despite the fact that more collisions would occur against the PP flow than with, as any collisions produce random direction again, but around 50% of P’s should be worked back into the flow by this statistic. BUT no differential of speed would occur in this system. Might it however create a system where flows opposite each other at different levels occur? Even crisscrossing with speeds that avoid collisions? Don’t know just a thought.

        In such a system no N could form. So early Universe must have had varying speeds enable to have N formed.  

       If all at rest except one P at speed 10 something. This would eventually put all particles in the universe into motion. Now if P speed was 100 something instead, does universe have more energy in the end or is this when thought of relatively the same? I think more because distance is real, absolute rest is real, so motion is real, and higher speed gives faster motions, and E seems to be expressed with a time frame. So, could we say the universe in first case had energy “level” of 10? Or just started at 10 and ended at zero when spread out to uniform. Couldn’t in an infinite universe, the propagation or dilution of the motion would never end.   So, some interesting questions here, like if two particles to begin would that fill universe, and directions would matter, etc. But seems no would never equalize. No never if there was a background of P at rest. But if all particles had motion? No same thing if all the other motion was equal. But if all the other motion was random it would become equal? What’s going on!   As soon as you say a definite # of particles, then infinity propagation, but if you say ½ P in universe, that is a non-static # and can even out, so can have any % of a infinity non-static #%. So the energy of a # of particles : to their speed does not cause uniform motion. But of an infinity#% yes it can even out to uniform. So, difference here between PP flow and e- discharge.   But because of slow e- this infinity propagation is arrested and E destroyed back to a uniform state in principle.

            So again, is E absolute motion or difference from norm. If all the particle in the U started with different motion, speed E would be rearranging to uniform motion, but not directional E.   T otally random would stay random. And it seems any uniform directional would become random too by the process of rotation and then random direction. That is a BIG problem, as it would destroy any PP flow in favor of totally random motions, which is not what I have been going with nor feel would work. I had though Uniform flows would statistically blend deviant P back into the flow but because of rotation and randomness this appears not to be so. Perhaps the N also reestablish uniform flow somehow, they do reestablish speed differentials. So must work on this but for now am overlooking the issue.    


           Nucleon then goes from Max E to Zero and in doing so helps neutralize the energy of the e- , from fast (fast e-) to slow or slow to slower (slow e- if it still overtakes) thereby destroying E in the e- while reducing E in the N also. But some e- E is converted to slow e- as its speed s reduced below c, this is a % due to initial speed and resulting speed. So over all though E is neutralized as speed N increases, until next discharge and process is instantaneously reversed. So takes time to destroy E, but E re-created instantaneously.  

                  But as far as speeds go, I am saying on the infinite #% world, which is ours it seems, absolute motion establishes smaller and smaller differentials. At some point that is so small that in regard to the distance apart particles are in has very little effect on transferring and motions, perhaps or perhaps at real slow rates its easier to form certain configurations. One thing is for sure I believe is that the speed of torque would be so slow particles would slide past and separate before forming doublets etc. This speed should be calculable due to the size limit of each particle.

               Energy then is continually created on a N and would not be arrested except for the reuniting of slow e- and fast e-, or the effects of the same indirectly of course.


       But as far speeds go I saying on the infinity #% world, which is ours it seems, absolute motion becomes uniform in PP collisions only, so absolute motion has E to start but ends as zero energy. So is differential that matters, say of 6 particles one could call them #%, 3 with 10 and 3 with 20 they even out to 15, the energy expressed when the even out goes from 20 - 10 to zero. 10 E to start and 5 (average) over the time of evening out. So that is a differential. I will stick with differential idea. So E level should be (at discharge) the energy of the e-, fast and slow, and E of the N at rest, its mass considered, and it speed in relation to the PP flow. So, N at c x its mass has zero E.  

        Now this e + mc^2 thing relates like this perhaps, The E from direction is related to rates of collision say, being a flow exists as opposed to random chaos, Max to minimum by direction turn 180 degrees. That as said before added to speed makes ^2, but it varies, so the standard physics E=mc^2 is and average or something, actually is at rest mass from what I read, which would be normal situation, or indeed the average.

        So N does go from minimum to max , actually can go infinity beyond max, by speed and also, better put

         Max to zero and back up to something again   --by Speed

         Min to Max effect on collision rates   is direction


        But still need to consider is that same as e-

         If one had N acting with principle 9 only, yes, energetic to begin with but ending no energy (uniform). Likewise, PP only same thing, although for both one has to consider infinity’s correctly to get the results desired as explained before. So yes that way both have E states. But actual situation for N exchanging motion is not only Principial 9, but have, due to size etc., an acceleration, and discharge cycle, flux it may be called,   where E is re-created by reforming a differential of values, speed and directional,   to moving particles, as opposes to everything becoming uniform, and unreactive, which is a state of no energy. This as it where is the definition of Energy, what it is, a state where P can interact, and change values, as opposite to the opposite of that.

          So the e- is just an extension of N collision via a different process than Principal 9. That is it would normally lead to a smoothing out of all motion to a uniform state, but instead takes the collisions caused by a uniform type state and transforms them into a non-uniform state.

             Further one would think as N E goes up e- goes down and vice versa, sort of a balance. Rather as N goes to zero E, it’s when N transitions from zero to max E that e- goes from not existing to Max . As N speed increases its E actually decreases. When speed drops it E increases.   e- greater at greater speeds, both slow and fast e- involved are greater at greater speeds.     If speed is above c it goes up again for both to Infinity, but is also a level maybe where it bridges distance between particles. But again is it one and the same, as what am saying is e- is just the transfer of motion from a N collision.

          If P at c hits P at rest c P had zero rest particle had c E, after they are at ½ c speed but E total still =c but for each is ½ c. No, accordingly works towards uniform in which case speed c is irrelevant, and I have just used it because presuming a PP flow of c.   So, call uniform speed US any energy present at first was from non uniform, if average this in terms of 1 P its /US – Non US/ is E.   The greater P’s speed was < or > US to start the greater the first E level. So then with the N one creating a constant E differential, So the average speed > c, which is our US, is the average energy level, it automatically carries the corresponding speed below c with its formation. This is the average e- which x # of N in universe is average energy level in universe.   Anyhow back to first Q?   Likewise, when N has no E it creates a P with much E and when N is high E it creates a P with low E, so that’s a balance = average E also. Average turnover rate just expresses this average E at a point which the distance apart x speeds x accelerating and decelerating collisions create a turnover. That average turnover is creating the average e- divided between fast and slow x its collision rate for average E. So, the N must lose the corresponding E? at N =c all its E = 0 at discharge e- =140 c x collision rate N becomes 140 c also x collision rate. BUT we have overtaking and overtaken collisions, how does that work. It’s an average, as P or N moves faster, they overtake more and are overtaken less. At c they do neither in respect to average PP flow. Setting aside deviant P its zero overtaking until speed> c and all overtaken, especially with N for speeds < c.   So, for ex. If N at 10c overall (10/140 c actually) at disc, e- =10c N goes back 140-10/140 c in speed or does balance with e- and collision rate would be in balance when consider P hitting N hits 140P and e- hits at rate with 1 to 140 P eventually. I believe. So, E at discharge. Creates e- with certain E and N gains the same amount!! Then over time they both lose until next discharge. But e- can create increase in collision rate for next N! but that aside, if we consider full absorption into PP flow between turnovers, then E level is ½ e- at discharge x 2 for corresponding N level over time between average discharges. Since in different situations time to reabsorb fluctuates, but still working w average, BUT when photons formed the E is lost from local area, and theoretically things change particularly w time. But E ph lost slows down PP flow in local area due to buildup of slow e-    WOW AGAIN!   E lost locally per turnover time should equal time for photon reabsorption mathematically?     But a rough calculation of E levels can therefore be made neglecting E lost. And it shows that E over turnover time, or any time, is BOTH in the N and e- and fluxes from perspective of one P, but for many probably do not flux in unison, so level is fairly constant universe wide. And E levels are equivalent in both. So in standard physics if not equivalent is because masses are off? So relating to standard physics again here is another difficulty as need to know how fits in, oh it had to do with rest mass in standard physics, which is average speed in reality, and etc. 

Next slightly different Topic

     So are we to say its potential E until collision occurs? No because fast e- in colliding still has same E just spread out to more PP. So would have to say potential goes to kinetic but potential is still there. E- collision too can accelerate a N so there kinetic makes potential. No is all E rather it’s the ability to move other P’s or the doing of it. Notably E is conserved in some interactions, but others it is destroyed. Until its destroyed its potentiality and actuality are the same, just the dilution of E is changed. When its destroyed an actuality, destroys its potentiality.

Anti-matter  (parts of article from Wikapedia) My empazises 

    Antiparticles are created everywhere in the universe where high-energy particle collisions take place. High-energy cosmic rays impacting Earth's atmosphere (or any other matter in the Solar System) produce minute quantities of antiparticles in the resulting particle jets, which are immediately annihilated by contact with nearby matter. They may similarly be produced in regions like the center of the Milky Way and other galaxies, where very energetic celestial events occur (principally the interaction of relativistic jets with the interstellar medium). The presence of the resulting antimatter is detectable by the two gamma rays produced every time positrons annihilate with nearby matter. The frequency and wavelength of the gamma rays indicate that each carries 511 keV of energy (that is, the rest mass of an electron multiplied by c2).

Observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant antimatter cloud surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetrical and matches the pattern of X-ray binaries (binary star systems containing black holes or neutron stars), mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron–positron pairs, as ordinary matter gains kinetic energy while falling into a stellar remnant.[25][26]

Positrons are produced naturally in β+ decays of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes (for example, potassium-40) and in interactions of gamma quanta (emitted by radioactive nuclei) with matter. Antineutrinos are another kind of antiparticle created by natural radioactivity (β− decay). Many different kinds of antiparticles are also produced by (and contained in) cosmic rays. In January 2011, research by the American Astronomical Society discovered antimatter (positrons) originating above thunderstorm clouds; positrons are produced in gamma-ray flashes created by electrons accelerated by strong electric fields in the clouds.[32][33] Antiprotons have also been found to exist in the Van Allen Belts around the Earth by the PAMELA module.[34][35]

Antiparticles are also produced in any environment with a sufficiently high temperature (mean particle energy greater than the pair production threshold). It is hypothesized that during the period of baryogenesis, when the universe was extremely hot and dense, matter and antimatter were continually produced and annihilated. The presence of remaining matter, and absence of detectable remaining antimatter,[36] is called baryon asymmetry. The exact mechanism which produced this asymmetry during baryogenesis remains an unsolved problem. One of the necessary conditions for this asymmetry is the violation of CP symmetry, which has been experimentally observed in the weak interaction.

Recent observations indicate black holes and neutron stars produce vast amounts of positron-electron plasma via the jets.[37][38][39] 



         Some very preliminary thoughts.    Standard physics anti-matter is high energy in value, perhaps even slow e- above speed of c!! (from high speed e- over N=c [all]) Ordinary anti-matter, unaccounted for in standard physics may be my slow e-, but as it is sweep by PP flow as well a fast e- it is quickly upgraded to PP flow speeds. Whereas e- last slightly longer and can “channel’ as opposed to slow e- which is spread among more particles to start and adsorbs rather than moves fast.   



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 6-1


             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 6-2.

  Nucleus with d orbitals



Figure 6-2     





                        When the nucleus is large enough to branch again, f orbitals develop.   The shape of the nucleus is as Fig. 6-3.

Nucleus with f orbitals (not to scale)

                                                       Figure 6-3


3G.       Magnetism and Heat

          Speculative and more refined ideas combined and discussed here.

          So here are four related factors, disturbances of the ether around the nucleus,

Electricity (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 re-enhance 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, non-linear 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 quasi-random 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.


           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 herky-jerky 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.

Heat (and more on Energy)

        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. 

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.2      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 1/140 c has E of 139/140 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 1/140th and a fast is then 139/140 so a double fast is appox. (needs more figuring) 2 x 139 / 140 speed. Then when reunited back to 1. So which is speed of light?


       E for N/e- per sec is discharge total - re-absorption 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 re-absorbed yet. So it exists for a certain amount of time before it is re-absorbed (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 ACELERATION-DISHCARGE-DISSAPATION RATES. Heat is related to that to. Motion of N through space is related to Acceleration-Discharge 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 1/140c for the Nucleic matter (its velocity through space).   

Postscript Feb 14, 2019

In fact the “energy”, the differential, never dissipates or soaks up, whether from fast or slow e- , it only spreads and smaller amounts of difference from c over greater and greater # of PP. The total E is still the same but probably more ineffective in doing local work, but still in widespread effects. Only when slow meets fast does annihilation occur. This probably leaves many a great dynamic to occur. So, after creation of the universe, and of Nucleons later perhaps, the E must have increased in density because some was not equaled back up, but more was being formed. Over time though so much E becomes present that the rate of formation Universe wide equals the rate of annihilation (of past E surplus). So also, there is the local quick annihilation, soak up that occurs and then a much longer and fast ranging equalization in full. Depending on the ability of fast and slow to run into each other in any given situation these numbers could be quite variable.



Chapter 6.5 Primary Particle Flow