On Nov 21, 2:34 pm, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 21, 9:23 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote: > > > > > > anyway, you can play with those figures > > > > > to get them to look right in avariable width font, > > > > > i just haven't felt like messing with it. > > > > > > > > [fixed width text] <====== > > > > > > > > _+m"m+_ > > > > > > > Jp qh > > > > > > > O O > > > > > > > Yb dY > > > > > > > "Y5m2Y" > > > this one should be a variable width ellipse... > > equator for electrons is deleted > > > > > > > > > > > > > 99999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999 > > 9999999999999 9999999999999 > > 99999999 99999999 > > 99999 99999 > > 999 999 > > 99 99 > > 9 9 > poles for electron > > 9 9 > > 99 99 > > 999 999 > > 99999 99999 > > 99999999 99999999 > > 9999999999999 9999999999999 > > 9999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999 > > > now you see why i don't feel like messing with it... > > > > > yes, i swiped the circle from somebody in ascii art, > > > > but i forgot who it was so i can't cite them. > > > > > oh, no, here; > > > > >http://incredibleart.org/links/ascii/new_faq.html > > > > > i made the ellipes myself > > > > > they're fibonachi sets... > > > > > > > > 3333333333 > > > > > > > 333 333 > > > > > > > 33 33 > > > > > > > 3 3 > > > > > > > 3 3 > > > > > > > 33 33 > > > > > > > 333 333 > > > > > > > 3333333333 > > Hi Tim, thanks for that ascii art, it is very helpful and useful to > newcomers for ideas. > > Since yesterday, I have an improvement. What I am heading for is a > relationship of charge to spin. In Old Physics, charge and spin had no > relationship whatsoever, but totally independent. > > And, in Old Physics, one can immediately see that their spin was > incorrect because they had more than three types of spin whereas they > had only three types of charge in total. If you know anything about > quantum mechanics, you should be at least smart enough to realize that > charge cannot be smaller of a system type than that of the last > quantum number m_s of spin. If the world of physics has but only three > types of charge, then the world of physics has but only three types of > spin. A smart physicist would eventually know this, but there were few > smart physicists in the past 112 years. > > I have overcome this problem of the two protons and two electrons > where one forms a hemisphere and the other a sphere. By hemisphere, I > mean semi-sphere, or half a sphere. The electron is a Hyperbolic > geometry and forms a hemisphere with the pole deleted and the equator > deleted. > > The problem yesterday was that the proton was a full sphere, the > electron a hemisphere with pole deleted and equator deleted. And I > thought that the two electrons in helium become the undersphere of 1 > single proton. So the two electrons fit inside 1 sphere that was 1 > proton. > So I had to overcome that problem. And what I thought was a solution > is that the electron and electron neutrino fit inside the sphere that > was the proton. > > But that causes there still to be a huge problem, because the proton > has spin 1/2 also and so why should the proton be a full sphere if the > electron is but a semisphere? Well it has to be a full sphere because > it is Elliptic geometry whereas the electron is Hyperbolic geometry. > > Now we can still have the electron be a full sphere with parts deleted > and still by Hyperbolic geometry. > > And that is the solution to this vexing problem, where the full > electron is a sphere with poles and equator deleted resting inside a > proton sphere. For the highest probability of finding an electron in > an atom is smack in the center of the nucleus-- inside a proton. > > But it causes another problem in how, how, two electrons can form a > spin up and spin down pair in a suborbital. Almost as if a electron > resides inside a proton as a pair of charges of -1 with +1. So, having > removed one problem I find myself challenged by another problem. How > do electrons pair in suborbitals such as the s orbital or the 3 > suborbitals of the p orbital? > > I am guided by a fact of Chemistry that is very obvious to anyone who > has studied chemistry but which is rather hidden from perception until > someone needs this sort of fact. One can take a poll of all chemistry > teachers and find that all of them knew this hidden fact but was never > able to draw upon it. The fact I speak of is the fact that helium is > one of the inert gases and helium is oddball to the inert gases > because helium is a s orbital while the other inert gases are a p > orbital. Helium is the most stable element but the inert gases are the > most stable configuration. This fact gives us the clue as to how two > electrons can form a pair, much like what a electron and proton form a > pair by having the electron inside a proton. > > I am millimetering closer to the goal of establishing a relationship > between charge and spin.
Well I tampered too much with the one ascii art of the electron by deleting the poles and deleting the equator.
But I think any reader can understand those words with a mental picture thereof.
So let me get to this chemistry and physics of the spin 1/2 for electron and proton and how the helium atom can be an inert gas while the remaining inert gases are p orbitals instead of s orbitals. The P orbitals are distended or elongated ellipses not spheres as the s orbital is a sphere.
So we have to find out why the electrons are no longer spherical in form but are distended ellipsoids in form from S orbital to P orbital.
The charge of Physics is well known to be only -1, 0 and +1.
So the spin of particles of physics can only come in three types also. Whether those three types are -1/2, 0, +1/2
or possible this combination, 0, 1/2, 1.
Charge is fully that of geometry and there are three and only three types of geometry, Euclidean, Elliptic and Hyperbolic. So the issue and questions of charge are settled. That leaves me with the issues and questions of spin.
If I had my guesses, they would be that spin is -1/2, 0, +1/2 and that the spin of the photon and neutrino is that of spin 0. The spin of a proton or electron can be either -1/2 or +1/2.
In the Double Transverse Wave theory the photon looks like this:
E- M+ M- E+
while the electron and proton have an E missing.
The neutrinos look like this:
M- M+ M- M+
and like this:
Since they are symmetrical, they have spin 0.
So that if two electrons share a suborbital in the P orbital, with one electron spin up and another spin down would that cause the transformation of the spheres into being distended ellipsis?
This is tough stuff, for I have to millimeter my way to the end goal.
Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper archiving of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does ?not and my posts in archive form is seen here: