I am still at an impasse in this chapter on Light, but in redoing some of the
basic motion principles over the last year and rewriting chapters 2-5 to match
(still in progress) I may possibly be able to resolve that.
Light might be a PP with a combination of linear and circular motion producing a sinusoidal motion. Proceeding from Chapter 3, case #3, I suppose it is propagated from the 3P situation where particles ABC are, along with their linear motion, rotating around the point of contact C to A.
If another particle D is directly hitting one or the other arm of A as A rotates towards the direction of its linear motion. All A’s linear and rotational and D’s linear motion goes into the torque and rotation of each other.
BC moves off with a combined linear and rotational motion.
Now from Chapter 6 the PP flow was assumed to be at the velocity of light. Considering this flow to be made of primarily 1P and doublet (2P) particles. The electrons, from last chapter, are mostly "slow" electrons, but some are "fast" electrons. These fast electrons can have various values, but statistically speaking are usually 1c, 2c, 3c etc., moving = or > c (speed of light). The 1c electron cannot overtake the doublet set (moving itself at c) but a 2c or greater can. When this electron overtakes a 2P case and forms a 3P accretion all the 3P will have a linear motion = c, and all the excess momentum from the electron goes to the rotation in the 3P case. When, in the case described above, BC goes off, its linear motion will equal the speed of light (which is what is "wanted") and the rotational motion will equal the part of the 3P case rotation that BC possessed (see Actual Light Values below for more complete picture of what happens). This may be calculated by using equation #C11 in Appendix C (see "But what is light?" below). In those equations only B is considered orbited therefore mass is neglected, however, with both B & C orbited the mass and momentum need to be considered.
If the average rotational velocity of BC = c, the average velocity is as the midline circumference (in one revolution) of 2 x pi x the rdq of B and C averaged, or
2 x pi x 1.118 + .5/2 = 5.0832 (7.1)
As linear motion = c (except in rarest of cases) then for each revolution as above the velocity of rotation equals the velocity of linear motion, therefore the wavelength will equal the velocity (distance) of one revolution.
Therefore wavelength is proportional to the value of:
linear velocity (c) : rotational velocity
or λ = 5.0832 rod widths x c / rotational velocity
when this value is unity (1/1), as proceeding, wave length = 5.0832 rod widths multiplied by the % value BC has of the ABC rotational value of c, figured out by equation C-11 under "but what is light" below after the next section.
Both B and C have “orbital” motions, but C’s orbital motion precesses around a point, therefore this point moves with a constant linear velocity, whereas the other points fluctuate according to how the direction of rotation matches the linear motion.
Actual Light Values
The above was an over simplification of what happens. The actual situation is such that it may lead to values matching known spectral types. It is this, when the fast electron let loose, they interact with other primary particles, forming a myriad of values, although statistically certain ones will be far greater than others. Current spectral line series, like the one for Hydrogen are self-limiting in values, following the equation
1/wavelength = R (1/n12 - 1/n2 2)
For the Balmer series for light emitted from Hydrogen N1+2 and N2 = 3,4,5 etc.
The values come out to 656 nm, 486 nm, 410 nm etc. Strict numbers its
equations 7-3 .138...
etc. up to limit of .25
A similar series can be gotten in my hypothesis by taking a 2c particle overtaking a 1c
particle, forming a doublet set, then later breaking up, leaving 2 P's at 1.5c each, then repeating the above with the 1.5c particle being later overtaken by a 2c again.
equations 7-4 1+2 / 2 = 1.5
1.5 +2 /2 =1.75
1.75 +2 / 2 = 1.875
1.875 +2 /2 =1.935
etc. up to 2.0
this is somewhat similar to the Balmer series, even the range from highest to lowest values is similar
Remember the value 1 is the overtaking/unison motion, only the value after decimal point is the rotational value, i.e. the energy of the light particles..
The same type of series can be done with a slow electron, if you discard the first value
equations 7-5 1/273 + 2 /2 = 1 + 1/273 x 2
1 + 1/273 x 2 + 2 / 2 = 1.5 +1/273 x 4
1.5 +1/273 x 4 +2 /2 = 1.75 +1/273 x 8
1.75 +1/273 x 8 + 2 /2 = 1.875 + 1/273 x 16
1.875 + 1/273 x 16 + 2 / 2 = 1.935 + 1/273 x 32
Thought they are not a match, the possibility exists of finding numbers that fit, if they make sense. For example take
equations 7-6 1 + 1.5 / 2 = 1.25
1.25 +1.5 /2 = 1.3525
1.3525 + 1.5 /2 = 1.42625
one can also work backward from the Balmer series to see what. if anything matches my formula above (although other equations are possible to work, just a question of what is reasonable to occur in PP interactions). Working backward since I divide by 2, I will multiply equations 7-3 by 2:
.138... x2 =.277... .1875 x 2= .375 .21 x 2=.42 .222... x2= .444...
then I will subtract;
.375 -.1388 = .2362
Oct 2017 so perhaps this is what I was thinking
You want to end up with the Balmer #'s (raw ratios) on the right of the = sign
But following the equations clear out the divide by 2 from the left by x by 2 on the right. But we want the last number to be same as Balmer series, therefore the first number in each equations is carried over from that last number
1 + X / 2 = .1388
.1388 + X / 2 = .1875
therefore .1388 + X = .1875 x 2 and
X = .375 -.1388
now will this #, .2362 form the series?
.1388... + .2362 /2 = .1875
.1875 + .2362 /2 = .21185
.21185 + .2362 /2 =.2240
it is very close, which would make the first value .0414 + .2362 /2 =.1388
One can then perhaps adjust .0414 up to 1 and adjust .2362 accordingly and the ratios then of the results continue to be the same, which is what is necessary to make match with known spectral numbers. Here's a try
.0414 x appx 24 =1 .2362 x 24 = 5.66 5.66 x 3 =17 24 x 3 = 72
OCTOBER 26, 2017 SERIOUS IMPASSE HERE, AFTER 30 YEARS I MAY HAVE PROVEN THIS IDEA WRONG. THERE SEEMS NO WAY TO GET THE 3 FOLD INCREASE IN ENERGY FROM BALMER SERIES GOING TO THE LYMAN SERIES, MY DYNAMICS ALLOW ONLY A 2 FOLD INCREASE AT MOST, AND FURTHER IF MANY PP IN NUCLEON, 274 I AM SAYING NOW, SHOULD REALLY BE A SERIES FOR EACH QUANTUM OF ACCELERATION 1-274, WHICH THERE IS NOT.
For heavier elements, the speed of motion is still about the same as lighter elements as the acceleration and deceleration is self-regulating as the faster a N travels the less P's overtake it, and the slower it travels the move overtake and hit it. So all N's, regardless of mass will reach an equilibrium of the same speeds. The slower and faster electrons from heavier elements will be at values proportional to their mass. Obviously the faster electrons, at > c interact very soon, and that is why they are not observed on a macro scale, whereas particle at or nearer the speed of light go farther afield from the N, particularly electromagnetic radiation ( I am loosely calling such "light").
Of course these values from any series end up as the rotation values in a 3P case when a particle traveling > c forms a 3P from itself and a doublet traveling at c, then generating a light particle, when the 3P breaks up, consisting of 2 particles traveling at c, with rotation also (see start of chapter) that is the energy, or momentum of the light particle. Its wave properties are due to its rotation and or dispersal effects of light particles on a macro scale.
Further numbers can be had using all the above reasoning, plus the in cases of more particles rotating than in the 3P case, say 3 together on one side of the midpoint of particle B, or 4 or 5, that creates a possibility of more numbers to work with, as well as light particles of greater mass resulting. I also question rather the bending of light in a prism, does not, in all reality lower the strength of the light particle, so that light in is not exactly light out, nor are the ratios as perceived the same as those in working from my pure numbers, that is spectral numbers are worked back from the results.
But which is light? Reflection (revertability) of light. Redshifting of light (loss of energy of light particles).
The question remains however is the 3P case itself the light particle (configuration of three particles), or just the particles BC when blown off the 3P case. Considering the need for light to be reflective off surfaces, only the BC particle will have the reversibly of motion to do this, although the bigger 4P Balanced particle would also. But not the 3P, that in collisions would break apart rather then having reversibility. Here is what I mean by reversibility. For the set BC, coming from the 3P particle set ABC, so that BC has speed of c and some "virtual" rotation speed also around the former point of contact AB, this set is in upright parallel configuration. When it collides with another particle, say hitting on C all motion is stopped and C torques to the colliding particle, but then re-toques to B, and being aligned reverts to linear causing a change in direction of BC, but preserving all it former speeds, linear and rotational. Too complex not done 2-27-2020
As light travels linear, if taken away, its rotation would be around the point of contact that had been with A. Any direct hit with another P will cause reversal as per above. Any overtaking hit that would potentially stop BC's rotation would cause reversal instead. Any overtaking hit that would not stop BC;s rotation
In light of recent changes to chapters 2-4.5 there may be other candidates also for the light particle(s). But the 2P particle set blown off from the 3P group i the most likely (2P parallel set, or I will call it the 2P-pl), as only that can reflect (change direction).
If the 3P has rotational value of c the value when BC are blown off will be (equation C-11)
(F-M/137.036) x 68.5198 + ([34.25099 - (F-M/137.036) x 68.5198] x F-M/(68.518 + F-M)
Distance F-M 1 for rotating B. But C is rotated also. With mid-mass point of 1/2 its value if along the F-M axis would in this case also be 1/2. So 1 1/2 for both particles, or
(1.5/137.036) x 68.5198 + ([34.25099 - (1.5/137.036) x 68.5198] x 1.5 /(68.518 +1.5)
or .010946 x 68.5198 + ([34.25099 - .010946 x 68.5198] x 1.5/70.018)
further .75002 + ([34.25099 - .75002] x .02142) or .75002 + (33.50097 x .02142)
so .75002 +.71759 = 1.46761 or 2.1419% of c
Is my Hypothesis in Range of Radiation Energy?
The range of visible radiation is 400-700 nm a short range that doesn't even double.
For most radiation the Range is from Gamma Rays at 10 -2 A (Armstrong’s = 10 -12) to radio as long as 10km, there are also others above and below this but this is close to all. so that range is from 1014 to 1000 m or 1017 range.
In my hypothesis if N accelerated is 140 PP and slow P off would be 1/140 (when N is accelerated first by 1P at c, then values for all N particles would be as 1/140c, and if P comes off N at that speed only it would be 1/140 c). Fast P off N (when all p of N is transferred) would be 1 for N that was accelerated by 1P at c. If N accelerated near c in total, then would be 273c if full transfer, assuming each accelerating particle falls off, rather than stacks up. Or range here of 1/140 to 140 or 105. But N could be accelerated by fast electrons to >c, but unlikely. Light particle, only take about 1/15 of rotation value, put things at 106 so rest must be made up of slower and slower N values from acceleration from slow electrons? But there is a problem I perceive here, as slower electrons off N the energy of them is greater, as the differential from c is greater, but the radiation particles produced are weaker, less energy, longer wavelengths, though when absorbed should really produce greater energy as greater differential from c, so more capacity to do work? But as its absolute numbers not ratios (see eq. 6-6 ) this may be a minimal issue.How long would it take a P at c + 1/14010 to overtake a P at c? At 186,000 miles per second, 1010 leaves 1/100000 of a mile per second. that is if distance apart is 100,000 of a mile in one second it would overtake it. We know nuclear distances are much shorter than that, so in much less than a second it would overtake it.
Interference patterns from atomistic atoms are fairly simple the way I see it. It basically is combining a main flow with a deviated flow, and you produce a pattern. As long as the combining flows have a steady source, as opposed to completely random motion, this should happen.
For example in the case of light going though the famous slits. One slit and there are three flows, the straight though flow, and two minor ones where the particles rods bounce of the edges of the slit and are thereby reflected at an angle into/across the main flow. Some of these then pass though the main flow to created a spot on either side of the main spot. Also in interacting (certain % of them) with the main flow a diffusion of the light beam occurs, as rods in rotating on each other end up with random directions to there motion also.
With two slits there would be a further overlapping of the the flows mentioned for one slit, with stronger reinforcement and separation, creating more distinct banding.
As to the idea that if only one photon at a time goes though the slits, and over time a interference pattern still shows up on the detector screen. Yes, because the pattern is not really caused by interference but by deflections going though other flows (of PP), so indeed it would still show, and probably more distinctively with less diffusion. I would think this type of pattern follows the same rules as wave interference patterns, so have been thought to be that, but of certainty for my hypothesis light is a arrangement of particles, not a wave.
Forming a Wave with just PP and Doublets
If a mass was dropped in water, considering the smallest part of same, the PP and doublets of the PP flow. They are displaced outward by exchange of motion in collisions. Thereafter they re-collide and rotate with other PP, causing a random motion to occur. But some of that random motion is caught back up in the outward flow, some of it collides with the same random motion coming from the other side of the first large mass impact site, and reverses outward from same again. So by this process concentric rings/wave are formed most going outward, others going in other directions, at least temporarily.
A digression Nov. 25, 2017 Issues with Standard Physics
Energy is the capacity to do work. Work must be done on something. Energy cannot do work on itself.
yes if you are talking about Nucleons!! Because of the differential
the Nucleons create in the primary particle flow, if broken up, the
change in motion of the particles that are liberated from the N will
give a burst of ""energy". But the particles that make
up the nucleon are still present and never are "converted to
energy" just their geometric configuration, and velocity and the dynamics that
go with that. This includes the ability of energy within/associated
with the particle being created or destroyed, but not the particle
itself being converted to energy.
Mass is a constant in this hypothesis. Energy is related to the absolute value of the difference of momentum from the momentum of the standard particles in the primary particle flow, which are at the speed of light. So energy and momentum are proportional. Standard physics throws in another term so Energy is momentum valuess squared so to speak. In chapter 6 I postulate that squaring being from rates of collision which follow in proportion to velocity, ending in a renergy, or capcity to do work, value that is squared.
At rest mass, so to speak, E=Mc 2 . A particle traveling at 2c would also have E=Mc2. A particle traveling at 1c would have E= Zero. . Nucleons have 140 PP. Their potential energy if traveling at c is zero, if traveling at 1/140 c , potential energy (if broken apart to each particle) is 140 x 139 /140 c2 . A N traveling at 2c would have, if broken up E= 140 x 140/140 c2. Electrons are, at first, single particles accelerated off N so E=c2, 2c2. 3c2 usually. Photons have mass, two particles worth, perhaps more.
That said the way mass is measured does not take into account all the geometric and dynamic interaction with the measuring medium. For example in an magnetic "field" different particles will react differently in there displacement in such a field!! So all in all measures for mass in standard physics are what is off target (in terms of measurements, concepts are off target too if I am correct). Energy I think is close to okay as all is proportional to electric energy which is pretty straight forward in its effects. However it seems to me saying electrical energy, as in Maxwell's equations, is all electromagnetic radiation is false (unless I am confused or ignorant of facts here, which I may be). Electricity and Energy are pretty much the same, at least in values. First PP off a N it is NOT light of any sort. Light is propagated from the p of PP off N which interact with the PP flow after coming off the N. Further at any time there can be and is E in terms of p dissipating into space though particles that are not light. Energy is constantly being created and destroyed, so "electrons" are constantly being created and destroyed. Its the rate of such that is fairly consistent, so it seems "electrons" are a particle, which they really are not. Note then the "Electron" energy carried by light can last millions of years in space, but at some point comes back to balance.
To summarize just a little more, light travels at c because the momentum over c goes into rotation (see way above). Other particles travel > c, that is what electrons are! Why this motion deviated <> c does not show up in standard physics I do not know. N are embedded in the PP flow so to speak, velocity < c cause it takes on a lot of collisions, and it is progressively more difficult to get them up to c (or above) and they discharge (though impact) sooner than that.
This hit me this evening reading about Lorentz, stuff I know nothing about. It appears both he and Einstein were concerned with frames of reference. For example, if throwing a baseball to someone on a train it hits their mitt with so much force from the throw. But if someone on the ground would catch that baseball, thrown parallel to the train and in the direction of motion it should, I think, hit their mitt with a combined force. But for a baseball of light one wants to say, according to experimental facts, that the light travels at the same speed on the train and off.
Whowla it hit me, my hypothesis explains that. Matter (Nucleons), which by their configuration have certain properties, travel in fits and starts, that is accelerated and decelerated motions. Other motions are relative to this overall steady state of motions (steady though it is through the discontinuity of acceleration and deceleration). So, the baseball on a train is a relatively faster motion than the ball at rest on the ground, and compounded, as the case may be, when thrown from the train by Cy Young. Light on the other hand, is not bound by this acceleration and deceleration process, being a small number of particles with a different geometric formation, and in its forming off PP's (ether flow) having a linear speed equal to c. As well as not being able to be controlled or caught or thrown, which indeed is part of the macroscopic world (its own property, traceable back to the nucleons). The PP flow particles and most smaller assemblages of them, like light, cannot undergo the same process of acceleration and deceleration, therefore light has an absolute motion relative to Nucleic masses.
To say a little more for clarity, N are embedded within the PP flow and in being able to be decelerated (which in turn accelerates a single PP at high speed, which is the birth of an electron) without being broken up, move slower than the PP flow and photons and other small assemblages are not so constrained.