Kramer

Endy 0168 We call this gravity defying force rocket exhaust. Ironically yes, there is a highly theoretical idea for a photon rocket, by and large however chemical rockets rule the day. -------- Maybe I am wrong but all chemical reactions are in fact physical actions where the main and only protagonist is photon. As I told in my post the photons for my conviction is the second ones responsible for movements. He bears movement, and he transfers it in the sphere of particles world. It has its real first origin in the belly of cosmic bodies that have tremendous gravitation pressure for beginning of nuclear reaction. Hypervalent yodine Moderator Note Kramer, you aren't making much sense. michel12345 has kindly tried to narrow down what you're talking about, but unless you can clarify yourself then I'm afraid this thread isn't going anywhere. The concept Endy is pointing out to you is one of Newton's laws. This is very basic physics and it is stuff that I am sure other members have covered with you in numerous threads prior to this one. I suggest you go through those or go away and do some reading before responding again. Please also do not drag this into another matter / antimatter thread. You had a thread on that; it was closed and you are not permitted to reopen the discussion. Moderator say: Kramer you aren’t making much sense. Please tell me where. Here is the post of Mishel12345. I don’t know if it is directed for me, or for forum. Because my thread is in fact a question too, maybe the same with other words, The questions asks answers. I gave my, as I might. The moderators that supposed to be the most knowledgeable, which have read o lot more, I think have their part in to. Michel 123456 What is the other source? 1. what makes a planet orbit?: 2. what makes a planet rotate? -----1 -- If it is how? You sure know better than a layman, how the mass gravity gave form to space, and how space say to mass gravity how to move. My question was about: is the gravity the main source of movement? Not how and why. ? 2 – I think the planet rotate by own gravity, which is a property of bases particles of mater, as it is electric charge too. The discrepancy between the calculated velocity and the fact, I think came from the counter clock movement as I have suggested in second part of my thread. Sure orbit and rotate movements of planet are linked with their kinetic energies. I suppose that must be an equality between summa of both kinetics energies, with the summa of gravity energies of sun-planet and own planet. Sensei It's simply too big to be true. Mass of electron is 9.11*10^-31 kg. Mass of proton is 1.67*10^-27 kg. Do you remember how electron and positron can be made in pair production? There are needed photons with f >= 1.23559*10^20 Hz (E >= 510999 eV). ----- Even this is out of topic, caused by my example about equivalence of kinetic energy with gravity energy, which allegedly happens only for particles in Plank—Einstein area. Out of Plank area particles, like electron, are in comparison, more far than earth by center of galaxy. My example was to show that is absurd, in view-point of gravity, that a particle in C velocity will have infinite energy. The rest answered in private message. Our rockets are accelerated by burning Hydrogen with Oxygen, and highly accelerated molecules of water are ejected from engine. With this you want to say that here is not a link with photons from sun? Gravity is not cause that I suggested? Make sense. I don’t know how those two inorganic elements are created in nature. Swanson Right. I was merely responding to a question posed in the thread title ----- So you are not against fact that sun’s gravity is the only responsible factor for velocity of planets, velocity that differs only by different distances of their centers of gravity, from sun. You disapprove the idea that sun’s gravity is responsible for counter clock moment in rotation of planets in their axes. I am not sure 100 % too. I will try other way, with equality of energies, which I think is more convincing argument than causal and provisory disturb that may create an meteorit hit, only if it is not to much as to change the mass or distance. As Hypervalent sugests you may close the thread. I don’t accept limitations in my post, without a standing argument.

Endercreepr01 is not the equation for gravitational potential energy. You are claiming that no matter what r is, . This is not correct, since the speed of light is always constant. ------ Indeed. This may happen only in Plank –Ejnshtein area. There, an alleged “tiny” particle with mass 1.85939987 10^-9 kg, in a distance, from the same other partner, 1.38054385810^-36 m., moving around each other with C velocity , fulfill conditions of both equations. Swansont I thought that was answered: No. Gravity is not the only source of movement. ------ Now to be clear: that “is not the only”, does not exclude the statement that “gravity is a source of movement. Right? About the “other source” I, only in passing, answered to the John Kuthber rebut, because I thought it as another topic. My doubt in second part of title: ‘maybe the only…?” it is because I have a hunch that “ only high gravity it is the source that deliberate free the photons, and as they are deliberated they create the second source of movement” Sensei What was first, egg or chicken.. ? If we have rocket with satellite on board and want it to stay fixed above one place of Earth, we have to accelerate rocket to certain speed, which you can pretty much approximate to: v = 2*PI*(r+h) / time r - radius of Earh 6378000 m h - altitude above surface time - one whole day in seconds ~86400 s, but we need to use sidereal day = 86164 s v = 2 * 3.14159265 * ( 6,378,000 + 35,786,000 ) / 86164 = 3074 m/s And that velocity you can find in this article http://en.wikipedia....tationary_orbit If satellite will lose that velocity it will be attracted to Earth, and suddenly destroyed in atmosphere. As long as it's going with that velocity or higher it's safe. Same is with planet - if it would collide with big enough fast moving object, it could slow down and lose its current orbit. Current orbits and current velocities around Sun are result of few billion years distant collisions and interactions with objects that are now part of planets. -----For the first part of this your post I have a question, and for short I answer my self: what source of movement you use in your racket, to defy gravity? Sure photons. In my idea photons are the source and in the same time bearers of their movements. In my idea photons are structure of interaction of two mater and anti mater sub-particles. Michel 123456 What is the other source? 1. what makes a planet orbit?: 2. what makes a planet rotate? Swansopnt Planets aren't the only things that move.

Thanks Michel123456 and Sensei for your friendly helps in my lack of ability to post sketches. I hope that your further help will be in direction of slamming my extravagant thread, which torture me, for long time and I had nobody to debate with. Sure you are not obliged for the sake of good will, or you are not interested in theme, or are engaged in other researches. Swanson If it's actual evidence in support of your claims in compliance with the rules, sure. Post it. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. But if it's just more of the same unsupported conjecture, and avoidance of addressing issues raised by others then no, we aren't interested. ------- My thread’s title was a question, not an assertion. It was a question because I was astonished that formula (which was promoted, I don’t know from who, and I am embarrassed for my ignorance) show an evident law of nature: The amount of velocity of cosmic objects depend exact by the amount of mass of an other cosmic object. I conclude that velocity of planets is property of sun as it is the velocity of sun property of an alleged Black body in the center of galaxy. To be appeared, for perceiving this property, it is imperative the existence of another “gravity object” up on which is it applied. Until then, this property is inperceivable, is only a potential possibility. Here came the riddle of Einstein well known formula: E= M* C^2. This formula must be equal E = (M*G / R) * M. This means that His formula has a “reasonable” possibility to suppose for the existence of another M. (in this case the other M must have this condition: M*G / R = C^2 ). This is all for first part of thread. Sort of proof? ! But this is the proof : ( G*Msun / Rsun-planet) = Vplanet^2. This is so evident, that just for this …… nobody can bealive in it. (Another jibberish, another phrase worth to be derided.? Go ahead.)

I tried to post a sketch yesterday, but it was not accepted by site, Please, can somebody explain for me why and how can i post sketches. iI want to continue debate about role of gravity in movements in macro cosmos and picro picro cosmos. If staf or moderators are not interested in it, please , openly say this and close the thread.

------- I am sorry to tell this but I must: From your posts I see that nobody understand the main idea of the post. Or everybody, understood it, but for an unknown reason “by pass” it. The main idea is not about the moon or the Venus. It is about the source of movement. Is it the gravity the source of the movement or not? One direct answer from the specialist will be appreciated a lot, nevertheless is in favor or not of the thread. I see this a cardinal issue, thrown in table by a layman, which has nothing to loose because of lack of selfishness. I invite everybody that want to debate, to leave for while aside the timidity of loosing the face. In the end of debate I will go to sleep sound after an “ ups! “. Because the doubt gives me more harm than "hammering head with metallic objects". ----- Swanson say; . Gravity is a radial force, and if bodies were uniform, they could cause no rotation, because there is no way to exert a torque. The forces would act as if the bodies were point masses. Tides cause a breaking of any symmetry and there is a delay in the motion of the bulge as the planet rotates (so the deformation is not along the line connecting the centers of the spheres). It's the torque resulting from this deformation and its location that causes a change in rotation. AFAICT Kramer's "model" lacks this fundamental recognition of freshman physics: that changes in rotation of rigid bodies are caused by torques, and only by torques. ------- Can I take this as a point for debate? Leaving for a while aside the role of “tides”. (Only the debate about tides, bring for me a question about “cumulative” effect of changes in the velocity of movement. Is it that true, I mean this “cumulative effect”? Because this is in favor of my thread) Please answer for me.) Further: Gravity is a radial force. So is electric force. That’s right. 1-- But we see that “things” move in circles. This means in 90 grad’s left or right the direction of the force. And in the horizontal plan! Please denote it. Any explanation for me: Why? I mean -- why the velocity is perpendicular with force? May be this is the lack of recognition “of fundamentals” of physics by me. I am not embarrassed if you tell me direct where I am wrong. Because you must have guessed the aim of my thread, it is just about “fundamentals”. 2 --- About torque. What cause it in planets? Please any explanation for me? Isn’t it caused by the gravity of the planet? Isn’t this torque in the same sense of that of sun? That means that torque and orbital movement have the same mother: the gravity of mass. What about the origin of movement? The origin of movement, for me is disputable, even though the Pops of physic say they have solved the enigma once and for ever. 3---Why the “forces” are not able to cause rotational movement if they are not the same in different point of a rigid body as i explained with example of two Kramers.? I have explained that they are different because they applied in different geodesics. Sure they are in counter direction with the direction of the main spinning by the self gravity of planets, as have now noticed Mick, and Endy, even they don’t support the main idea. Is it true that delta velocity is un-significant in comparison with orbital and spinning velocities, but we are not able to negate their right for existence. And as they exist, they will act step by step, every second, in cumulative mode ,during the transitory period, until movement reach the point of stability, when self gravity energy and induced from outside gravity energy, becomes equal kinetic energy of orbital and spinning movement. Is it a “pun” or a "reasonable reasoning" you are the judge.

Sorry if I am not able to respond on each poster. This is not an issue of preference, as it is the policy of our speculation forum, policy that divides people in friends and foes. For me is not either of any relevance the valuation of individs. For myself I know the price of my skin. So I respond only on the posts that rebut the idea of thread with concrete remarks. On my thread nobody has criticized it step by step. Just about that, I was eager to listen. Because I am not sure myself about the main idea, which I see is very extravagance and scary. 1-- About the orbital velocity I wanted to know the opinion of posters. I have calculated for all planets, and I have found that equation is a hyperbola, and the velocity depends from the distance toward the main “source of gravity”, in this case -- the sun. Nobody approved or refuted it. 2 – From the first question depends the second. I for some time have asked myself, why the earth is not rotate (spin) with the law of orbital velocity? After this law, the Kramer in equator must have a velocity 7910 m/sec. instead of 465 m/sec. which is in the fact. 3 – Here came the idea that some counter spinning moment will reduce the own spin velocity of planet. Calculations for sun and the planets for discrepancies between orbital formula and the fact, gave the idea that problem depends on the rate between diameter of planet and the distance from the “source of movement”. 4—There came the calculations of delta Vg. for each planet, considered as a hidden culprit of named counter moment, and the link of this tiny velocity with the period of orbits and the radius of planets. 5—And here is the time to tell that grasshopper Kramer has stuck in clay. Some planets refuse to know and approve those childish calculations of some Kramer.

Endy0816 Endy doesn't understand why Kramer is speaking about himself in the third person... ---- Haven’t you spiking with “second yourself “ some times? Kramer used to debate with second Kramer most of the time. And most of the time he slams the second. They are not really puzzled, it is just a result of conservation of angular momentum. ------I see some postulates as a “handle stuck on the pot” for convenience, as an observation of the fact. But not “why?’ I think they were “puzzled” by why? A top spinning on a frictionless surface is a good way to think about it. It is just going to keep spinning without some force being applied. ------That’s true fact. What if force continue to be applied but is neutralised by the inner counterforce? John Cuthber Kramer doesn't seem to realise that I can walk up stairs. The source of that movement can't be gravity because that works the other way. ------ Sure I realise that you my go against the gravity. Isn’t rocket a better example? But can you tell me,---- how this happens? Oh I know. The photons created by the burns of chemicals, which are able to “produce” photons, which they have harvested by the photons “coming by the sun”, are the real protagonists of the fact. Now tell me how photons are created in the sun? What is the role of gravity in this creation?. So gravity can't be the only source of movement. ----- That’s right. In the short hand, is electricity too a source of movement. But I say “the main source” because the gravity movement is most massive movement. There can be a dispute about priority. In Plank area I think they are equal. Out of Plank area began the differences. But this is another topic. Ophiolite I suspect that Kramer will postulate that the stairs actually move down beneath you, in response to gravity. Clearly this would not work, but neither does the OP. ------ Please elaborate further. Michel 123456 He must have been influenced by Julius Caesar who most probably used servants ghostwriters who couldn't use the profanity of speaking in the 1st person as if they were the emperor. No. A better example is the poor cabdriver of Chekhov. He being ignored by people make conversation with his old horse. From what i understand, he says that a point on a small radius from the Sun have faster orbital velocity than a point on a larger radius. Which is exactly what Keppler's law says. And he says that it is the reason why the planets are spinning on their axis. ----- Yes and no. I want to know the validity of formula about “gravity velocity”. Your opinion? IMHO it must be wrong: the difference in orbital velocities between the 2 points must cancel out and produce no rotational momentum at all. ----- A question. What happens if the left tire of your car, for whatever cause, stay behind, when you are driving? Swanson We have an example of this: the moon's orbit about the earth. It rotates once on its axis per revolution about the planet. ------ Swanson --- your example is in favor or against my assertion? I have not scrutinized the hierarchy of gravity movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

IS IT GRAVITY THE MAIN SOURCE OF MOVEMENT? MAY BE THE ONLY? Kramer, doesn’t recall where he read once that scientists are puzzled about cause that make cosmic bodies to spin around their axis. That’s very simple to solve it! “--- He told me.---- It is a known boaster that lay man Kramer. But let be patient with him and throw down step by step his mode of reasoning. Kramer say: 1 – The velocity of planets depends by gravity of sun and by the precise distance “Rsun-planet” from center of sun to the point where is the center of gravity of planet. Vg1 = ((G*Msun) / Rsun,planet.)^0.5 Is it that true? 2 – But planet is not a point. It has a radius “R planet”. Here must be the clue for solving that puzzle. Let say that in the diameter of planet, directed to sun, Kramer 1 is in front and Kramer 2 is in the anti-pode. It is evident that Kramer 2 will stay behind in the orbital movement of them.(If we suppose for simplicity that gravity of planet is un-existent) Is it that true? 3---The difference on velocity between Kramer 1 and Kramer 2 will be: Delta Vg = Vg1 – Vg2 = = ((G * Msun) / (Rsun,planet – Rplanet)^0.5 – ((G*Msun) / (Rsun,planet +Rplanet)^0.5 Is it that true? I assure it’s true. For Earth Kramer 2 will stay behind 1.22m/sec. 4—Big deal , say the reader. 1.22 m/sec are zero in cosmic velocity! But not in this case, my friend -- says Kramer. You may calculate that Kramer 2 will stay behind after full orbital movement, in a distance equal perimeter of planet in equator: Delta Vg * Torbit = 2*pi*Rplanet.! 5 After this rebut Kramer continue: – Let return in point 2--. Kramer supposed (for simplicity!) that gravity of earth is inexistent. That we know was only a supposition. It is gravity of Earth (for example), which holds Kramer 2 tied in the same distance toward Kramer 1. But what happens with delta Vg? Will it be neglected as un-existent? Certainly not! It was applied in the center of gravity of each halves of planet, in the form of a spinning moment. 6 – It is this spinning moment that turns around the earth. This is the cause of spinning. Solved problem! Ha?-- asked I to Kramer. Solved problem?! How is “the period of spinning”? This means to be called “ solved problem”! 7 --- The Kramer mum! … may be for a while.

Ajb. This is not something I am very familiar with. Maybe a quick google could throw up some analogies. ---- Thanks Ajb. I will try with myself ways.

Ajb I think the most popular mechanism suggested is the via the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix. The seesaw mechanism is also important here. Thanks Ajb. I thank you for giving me the satisfaction that my post is not a gross stupidity. Four scientists have suggested an explanation! From your replay I see that exists some other suggested mechanism. I would liked to know “in crude” the suggested ideas of the mechanism that rise about 10^6 times the mass of electron neutrino. I am a lay-man that because for the lack knowledge of high math, I can’t logic by means of math. So, if it is possible, what is the “seesaw mechanism”, is something I suppose “ give and take’ energy?! May be one of those, share my naive idea that neutrino is a composed particle from two sub-particles, that play an important role in nuclear theory binding electron with proton in a new particle –neutron. Even though, in modern physics neutron is supposed to interfere low with mater..

THE FLAVOURS OF NEUTRINOS -- AN INTRIGUING SCIENTIFIC FACT When I read about scientific fact that neutrinos change their “mass” with but-strap mode from < 3*10^-6 MeV / C^2 (electron neutrino) in < 30 MeV / C^2 ( for Tau neutrino) I was amazed and wanted to post with label “ Controversy”. That because, even though I scratched for a long time my lay-man’s head, I didn’t was able to grasp how this can happens. Everybody understands that to loose energy when you run for long time is not against nature, but to gain energy from thin air in this case is upside down. So I thought to post in this forum, ( with-out that hated “controversy” label) maybe somebody knowledgeable and good willed may give any clue, how this miracle can happen.

Swanson If it's confusing, I refer you to my above comment about learning the basics. That's really your responsibility if you want feedback from people who have spent considerable time doing so. ---- Thanks for reference and advice. About feedback –I am sorry to tell—was not much helpful because they dodged the problems and questions most of the time. Sure, based on the data and the fact that a lay-man don’t have any idea about Lagranges and Hamiltonians, and must be pleased on what say knowledgeable people. Short shepherds and sheep. I am sorry too about your considerable time spent. Sure I appreciate your patience and tact. But I see that I have overreacted in my tenacity. I think that after this say, is without any use to continue the debate in this post.

Swanson Since "gravity mass" is a non-standard term, your question is not at all clear to me. You appear to be introducing something new, which you have not defined. ---- Sorry. Different topic, after which “mass” is not inner property of particles, --- it is induced by Higss field. “from outside” . And cover the debate under rug. My shallow lay-mans knowledge, can’t be conformed with this excellent idea, --- for scientists, and seems to me as a speculative patch to get rid from a nuisance that tether gallop toward total mystification of physics. What has to do this, with the topics we are debate? Introduce I something new? Not at all. My conviction is, as it has been, that all elementary particles are structured from material unique sub-particles, which posses at least three property: incessantly movement in an unlimited space, electric attractive or repellent ability, gravity attractive or repellent ability. It is for this that I want to know what is the mass of this Pion 0. Great. Come up with a model for it. Calculate how much of a difference there is, so when the people at CERN answer this question you can compare your prediction with it. ----- Now I can’t. When CERN will pinpoint the cardinal question: Have anti particles , anti gravity? Then will opened the way for many different calculations. By the way, the duty of calculations are upon scientists, not upon lay-mans. Sensei In high energy physics electronvolt unit is simply useful and convenient. ----- Yes! So it is said. But where is the convenience in “eV”? Here “e” is a constant, what is the rest, the driver? ---- “V”. or “giga V”. As we know the potential is created by electric charges, that is from constant “e”, so the only variable is distance in “meter”, potential create a force, which is applied upon “e”., but force is Newton - Kgmsec^-2. etc. Yes Maybe convenient but most is confusing and derailing. I don't want to hijack your threads. We would have to speak off-forum. ----- I have no idea what is it “hijack” even though I have had one awareness about “hijacking”. Who is ones that protests “hijack”? is it O.P. or staff of forum? And--for what reason? I would be happy if somebody has ideas similar of mine, better of mine, in contrary of mine in whole or in partial. For this I think is “speculative forum” , to debate, to make the ideas property of society, for scrutiny. Sure in a civilized manner. As for selfishness, authority , profitability, those have their post in forums “for per view”. So I don’t see why “off-forum”. Indeed if you want to slam me and don’t like in open, take example by gentleness of Swanson, and I go with one “ouch”

Swansont It is the mass. Gravitational and inertial mass are, as far as we know, the same. --- I think that gravity is a weight tied in the leg of quantum theory, which bother and irritate theorists. In the most cases they ignore it, but they can’t get rid of it without going in strange speculations. My question was clear: Has “gravity mass” this Pion0 sub particle? Because I think that particles with gravity mass have distinguished features which can’t be covered with random used, equivalence of mass : eV / C^2. For a particle at rest, E=mc2 (if it's moving there is an additional term to account for the kinetic energy) ----- Right. Known in eons, but this “at rest” is confusing via relativity. Different topic. We say the photon is massless because it has no mass and thus travels at c. One result of this is that it responds to gravity relatively weakly as compared to massive objects. ------ Right. Known. For “Respond to gravity weakly” here my speculation: Unique sub particles have a tiny discrepancy in gravity and anti gravity. Neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. ---- That a blow for me. My conviction is that does not exist particle without electromagnetic property, hence without electric charges. Is it sure-sure that doesn’t interact? I hope you have some appreciation of how this is insulting and condescending to scientists, that you will not accept any of their work until you understand it, because of the good chance they are deceiving you. ------ That ridicules. Who care what a crack - pot lay man feel, think and say. And where--- in speculative forum? Only --- if in himself of (alleged) scientist, resonate faintly the same doubt. Sensei But 1 C is quantized by e const 1.6*10^-19 C 1 C / e = 6.25*10^18charges/electrons. ----- Thanks Sensei for really accurate and pedantic explanations They are very helpful for a lay-man that has a lot of lack in knowledge. Only I have, especially for you, request for help about two dilemma: 1---- Why is fading from modern physic the system of unity Kg,m,sec.A? 2---- If “C” is quantised in “e” what is your thought about fractional electric charge?

Sensei Pion 0 has mass ~135 MeV/c^2 In kg it would be ~2.40676*10^-28 kg ~264.2 higher mass than electron. ---- Now this confused me: “ this eV / C^2”. Is it a gravitational mass or an mass equivalent of energy via Einstein ? All the debate is about the conundrum: what is exact the relation Mass – Energy! What is the mechanism of their reversion in each other status, on a particle or wave? The photon has energy, but we say is mass les, because interact weakly with gravitation bodies. The neutron or neutrino have zero electric charge (only for outside observer – I think), but they have gravitation mass, and slightly electromagnetic behavior. I think you have your right to be correct and precise with science data: Viva Vikipedia, and cover with rug the essence of questions or problems: the structure of particles, the mechanism of decay, the byproducts of decay and how are they linked with previous status…. I hope you will give your insight, about the problems that derive by the certain data facts which are out of dispute. swansont A pion is a composite particle, comprised (as all mesons are) of a quark and antiquark. In this case, an up and a down. So it has a structure. Sensei has already taken care of the mistaken notion that pions are massless. But mass is one form of energy, so there is no inherent violation of any laws for an energetic massless particle to form massive ones in an interaction. ------- I have some vague ideas about “sub particles quarks” and about their scheme in interactions with protons and neutrons, about their “broken” electric charges (that aims to justify and pacify some discrepancies in “spins” and I think is the hugest minus of “quarks theory”, this fraction of unity of electric charge). I am not aware if now is pinpointed experimentally the quark, or if it is absolute sure it’s existence. ---- In our debate about the decay of Pion 0, I would like to know the role of quarks, their fate after decay, their link with by products of decay, especially the link with the ending byproduct electron positron pairs. I can’t grasps how two quarks results in a bunch of electrons or neutrinos. They might look like assertions and speculative, but that is likely based on not being aware of the science that’s been done over time. ------ Well, just for this the ignorant lay man poke the nose in unknown fields, via the curious and dubious humans nature. Some buy cheap and go on, some resist to buy the pig in the sack. I have no idea what your area of expertise is, but I'd wager that if a neophyte showed up and told you that you were doing it wrong, you'd find that annoying. Especially if that person had obviously put little effort into gaining at least some level of competence in that area. ---- I got it. I admit again that I am a lay-man, --- a neophyte that has no intention to bother anybody. Every human being is doted with hunger to feed his intellect with news in various fields of human’s activity. I find very interesting various and wonderful physic’s achievements. But what made me annoying disputable person are some weird, transcendent, interpretations of physics. Those I can’t digest. Sorry. I think that is no need for competence to admit or refuse weirdness. It depends on person. For example: Let say: Is it mathematically true that ( -1 + 1) = 0 ---à 0 = ( -1 +1) = (-10^500 +10^500) . With all respect for this kind of scientist, I let to by his product, somebody else. May be I am wrong to dispute. But this is very simple: ignore me.

Sensei say: Pion 0 can also decay to gamma photon, electron and positron. It's just one of decay modes. They can be really complicated.. ------That’s exact conforms with my reasoning: that “pion 0” has a structure. The structure “must have been created” in itself from elementary base blocks. Those blocks must have property to combine with each other in different modes. So after fall down (decay) the structure of Pion0, those blocks combines in simpler structure: gamma photons, further in more simple combinations : electrons , photons (those elementary particles base of objective reality). Gamma photon will collide sooner or later with charged particle and accelerate it, and new photon will be produced with lower energy. See Compton scattering. http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering Without collision of photon with something, you have no idea that photon was there.. ---- That right. The Compton scattering and the Compton wave length reinforce my credo that reality consists in “particularity” existence of matter. The basis of this particularity are alleged blocks of matter which are able to create all kind of particles perceived or not, by us humans. ----------------------------- But specialist of science rejects down this idea. And specialist is sincere in his objection. Based on data of a century research. Based in "irrefutable" interpretations of these data. Forget about disputes: Strings? Loops? Etc. Those are all inside the box. They are based in sancta math, and math has nothing to do with common lay mans reality. The math is subtle, is Platonic. It create things where is nothing from. Only one thing the science has not pinpoint: How something, without charge or mass called Pion 0, gives birth of things called electrons which posses charge and mass ? Swansont No, it does not. There's no reason (within physics) to expect photons to behave this way. -----Please explain for me how are created gamma photons from Pion 0. Pion 0 has to do with gamma photons, gamma photons have nothing to do with Pion 0, this is something strange. No, pions are not a kind of photon. ---- My ignorance. I thought that something in physics that has not mass, has not charge is Photon. And Pion0 is one of them. A different kind in the zoo of particles! Photons don't decay, so the mean lifetime is infinite. They can interact with other particles, though. ---- Is this sure? How comes that from gamma photons take life electron –positron? No, it does not. Not in the context of science. If you are doing science fiction, though, then you can make up anything you wish. But if you want to do science, you need to make yourself aware of the larger picture, of all of the interactions that are (or aren't) taking place. ----- I don’t make science. I only throw my doubt about some aspects and assertions of modern physics that seems to me weird, irrational and far away illogic by the common sense. If I speculate with idea of “unique sub particles”, and the particularity of reality, in the forum of speculations, I think that my aim is not to irritate interlocutors (if any) but only to make stressing that for me “modern physic, in a lot of assertions, is highly speculative”. And if this is premeditated is very bad. And rightfully so. It ignores known physics. ----- I see. It’s not only your opinion. It is of all readers of my posts. I am not able to convince nobody about my so called hypothesis of sub particles, even those that think that electron is the basis block--- (because I think that electron positron and photon have similar structure). I don’t blame anybody, even my self. Again who knows? Maybe in the future-- if scientist will find that antimatter has anti gravity—the science will change what is irrational.

Thanks Sensei So, “pion 0” decays in two “gamma photons”, doesn’t this give me the right to suppose that pion 0 was structured by two gamma photons? ! So, pion0 was not destined to move in eternity. It splits without traveling 1 meter. My mistake. --- But wait a minute, why not? It is kind a photon, and photons are stabile! Ha? Further: What about it’s offsprings -- gamma photons? Have they any mean life? Have they possibility to travel more far than their mother pion 0 ? As I am aware they too splits in two ” mass particles” electron and positron. I don’t know if they degenerate in lower frequency photons. This gave me the right to suppose that “pion 0” is a bunch of electron positron pairs that dance for a short period a kadrill called Pion 0 and after a while split in grups called gamma photons which going home split in pairs electron-positron. This is a lay-mans reasoning and sure by specialist will be ignored as senseless crap. I have doubt myself but not about the fact that the so called mass-less particles are structured by mass particles with opposite gravity property. My doubt is about the by - product of “ annihilation” of proton. There must be compulsory the neutrino particles in the ensemble.

I would like to know “the fate” of the by-products of ”annihilations” sort of pions 0 , gammas, even simple photons of light. Where is their destiny? Eterne travels toward infinity? Somebody knows the answer. Please elucidate a curious lay-man.

Even though nobody want to dispute about this thread I will continue for awhile. The huge potential energy, results if we use unities Volt, Amper, Herc, ( instead of electron volt), that is, when treat electron as a dynamic, continuous interaction and movement inside him, of electric charges. So: P = U^2 / Rk = 10115904, 73 V.A. = (Mpl.*sqrtα* C^2) / 16.51989 V.A. = Hpl. / τe Here “Hpl”. Is upper constant energy of Plank mass equal 167113697,2 J. (For us, reveals only a tine part of this energy: Ee = (U^2 / Rk) / fe = 8.18710195*10 ^-14 J. = me * C^2 = e^2 / (4*pi*ε0*re) = = h* (C*α / 2*pi*re) etc. In the formula, “τe” is interval of time that corresponds gravity velocity inside electron. ”Rk” – Von Klitzing constant. τe = ((2*pi /α) * re) / Vge = 16.51989 sec. Here Vge (gravity velocity) inside electron structure. Vge = sqrt ( G * me / re ) m/sec.= 1.46872039*10^-13 sec. ------------------------------------ In the closure of this thread I give “my” conclusions: Von Klitzing resistance (Rk) is a Plank area constant that may be used as capacitive, inductive, or active. And in this thread I gave a short explanation for the link of Rk with my hypothesis that all particles are structured by sub-particles, the so called -- tiny black holes.

I think Dekan is right. I think electrons are material particles, real particles that have nothing to do with annihilation. Even interacting with positron they dance with him preserving hidden in photon own entity,. They display themselves when divorce with positron.

( The layman say the opposite: What you call Quantum, is nothing else but classic physics of super high frequencies, where the resistance is always a composition of capacitive, inductive and active. Now we have a resistance, Von Klitsing resistance : Rk = μ0 * C / 2 * α = 25812.80762 ohm. = RL this is equal RK = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) = 25812.80762 ohm = RC In my electron’s hypothesis R = Ue / e * fe = 25812.80762 ohm ( I think, “ fe” is motivated. This is not something fudged. It is equal ---- fe = Ee / h. ) What troubles me, is the huge amount of potential energy: P = U^2 / R = 10115904.73 V*A P = I^2 * R = 10115904.73 V*A P = U * I * R = 10115904.73 V*A I think that this huge “potential” energy is linked with gravity of hypothetic sub-particles. And with this , I think, is linked the “ Quantum momentary energy h / dt “

Andy 0816 It's a constant because it is derived from constants. Planck's Constant and Elementary charge respectively. Planck's Constant = 6.62606957×10−34 J·s Elementary Charge = 1.602176565×10−19 C Von Klitzing's Constant = Planck's Constant / (Elementary Charge)2 = 25812.807557 J·s/C2 = 25812.807557 Ohms You can divide the two yourself and have proof of this. If you want how it relates to the real world you'll need to look at the already mentioned Quantum Hall effect.| ------- All you say is exact. What I say is that Von Klitsing constant fits in Electric elementary particles, as i suppose they have structure: RK = h / e^2 = Ue / Ie = ( e / ( 4 * pi * ε0* Re) ) / ( e * fe ) = (e / ( 4 * pi * ε0 *Re) ) / ( e * ( C / ( (2 * pi / α) * Re) ) ) = (2 * pi) / (α * 4 * p i * ε0 *C) = 1 / (2 * α )* ( ε0 * C ) = μ0 * C / 2 * α -------------------------------------- So let me get this straight: you can't find any information on the von Klitzing constant*, and yet you are able to conclude that it applies in situations other than the quantum Hall effect. Yes . I am, even though my reasoning not satisfied opponents. Swansont *despite the fact that I provided a wikipedia link, which includes references, and a Google search yields almost 50,000 hits. -----Thanks for the help. I am not ungrateful, even though I hopped for something more concrete. Fine, then: go and find experimental results that show quantized conductivity that is not related to the quantum Hall effect. Until you do, though, you can't claim the constant has applicability elsewhere. ------- May be Hall effect is the experimental fact you ask with insist. Up on what is applied “ quantum effect” if not up on the electrons? May be this is some kind of “dielectric hysteresis”? that caused RK = constant, based on the alleged fact that electrons resistance is constant too. I can't fathom the logic that allows one to conclude that particle physics links quantum physics with classical physics, making them interchangeable. The quantum Hall effect, as the name implies, is a quantum effect. -------My lay-man logic is based in: 1 The particle has an over-all energy. 2 The energy is conserved. 3 The energy may tranformed from one kind in another. 4 In exact the same amount. 5 The quantum energy, is one of them that has its specifics, as the others have own. .

Swansont In the classical Hall effect, the conductance does not take on quantized values. It's still the Hall effect, though, so you should expect the overall effect to look the same If you read up on the effect, you have a chance of figuring out these answers. ------I tried to find any source material, that explain Von Klitsing constant. I didn’t find any, except some historical and experimental information. If you know one that has more specific explanation, especially (lay-man desired) with numerical examples, with units on it, please make me know. I think that Von Klitzing constant is not limited in only Hall effect. It revealed itself after scientist scrutinized Hall effect. And (who know?) may be is one of the most important constants in particles physic, which links classic with quantum. So the topic is Von Klitzen constant. Not Hall effect. OW you don't understand the physics, but have a proposal in terms of your own model. But this is a separate topic from a discussion of the mainstream physics of the QHE, and as I said, you already have a thread for your pet theory of particle properties. ------- I am not offended by your sarcasm, simply I don’t care about opinions. I don’t understand the nature, kind, application of this constant. But as it holds as unit “Ohm” I consider it resistance, which is under the rule U / I. It “casually” appears in my classic mode calculation of characters of particles, and attires my interest because it is a quantum constant. I have the right to question myself, and who may be interested in speculation forum, why this unknown term in my room? Using infallible method in scrutiny of units, I found that in my specific case I am in right track: Ue / Ie = h / e^2 = Rk So are: Flux = Ee / Ie = Ue / fe = h / e = 4,13566728*10^-15 V/s and Kj = 2*e / h = 2^fe / Ue If you think this is coincidence I don’t think so. -------------- I haven’t any intention to open a debate about Standart model. Who am I? I think that what divide Quantum from Classic is: E = h / dt instead of E = h*fx In my “ so called” model frequency is one property.

Swanson Then go read up on the Quantum Hall Effect. You get quantum effects when you put the electrons into a situation where they have quantized energy values. ____ That is “ go fishing “. I see in Hall effect only classical effect: The intertwined of two kind of magnetic fields, one from outside --- the other from the flow of current. In one side of flow the magnetic field will be stronger, in the opposite weaker. This will push electrons of the material, conductor of the current, in the side perpendicular with direction of flow, where field is stronger. If material (conductor) is an allow that has trapped, in its atoms some-how, the positrons, the so called “hole”, they will pushed in opposite direction. Sure this is a mess explanation from the lay-man. But my questions continue to have not an explanation from specialists: It is the “Von Klitzing constant resistance”, property of conductor? property of electrons? property of space?. Why is it constant? That’s what I wanted to listen. About the part II ( above ) that you ignored at all as “ nonsense “ the Von Klitzing constant revealed as a property of structure of electron. I think this is much more important than how it ‘s revealed in Hall effect. By the way --- two other constants may be taken from the domain of Quantum, in my classical interpretation of electron: “Josefson constant” and “flux constant”. Anyway—thanks that have patience to debate with a lay-man.

wansont Non-sequitur. The von Klitzing resistance (conductance) is a constant, that manifests itself in the quantum Hall effect. The complex resistance is a general formula for determining the impedance with a resistive, capacitive and inductive circuit, for classical circuits. If you learned the basics before you dig deeper it would probably help a lot. Kramer, on 01 Jan 2014 - 1:55 PM, said: I will bring here my simple calculation for my alleged structured electron and proton: It's nonsense, and you already have a thread on your WAGs about particle structure. ------ Thanks for “encouragement” with your ”non sequitur” and “non sense”. Both your sentences I am ready to accept because a lay-man knows his place in dispute with scientist. But I would like an elaboration from you about my flaws in both issues: 1—Why classical resistances (or the inverse of it– conductance) have different physic’s meaning “on sequitur” with Quantum? I am sure that you work with capacitors, inductances, resistors (even though, this kind is not desirable), in your application of “quantum projects”. I think, that an artificial division of quantum from his mother (classic), is strange. May be is normal to dispute in this case about the questions : Who posses this property (conductance) : space, wave or solid matter (particles)? Why in quantum it is constant, why in classic it may change.? That’s what I wanted to know in my O.P. II--- What part is nonsense in my lay-man’s mode calculation? Admit for while that electric charge is an entity on it’s own ( not an electron particle), that move in circles with C velocity, in a radius that is linked with Compton wave. Here you have two results that can not be disregarded: Voltage and ……and a strange coincidence?…. the Von Klitzing conductance (resistance). Are they cooked? Didn’t they cause a kind of curiosity? ----- About learning the basic. Alas ! The last few giga bite I hope to have in disposition, I want to spend ….. inciting dispute in “controversies”.