“‘A new scientific theory advances one death at a time'” —–Max Planck

Well,  I decided to put this part of my effort to explain the Sternglass-Simhony model, { as I’ve modified it }, near the end of this series of essays, rather than at the start,  because I reckon that one needs to be familiar with the model to be able to understand this part.  I’ll assume that, if you’re reading these words, then you already know the meaning of most of the many technical terms in this essay (or you can look in the WORD-LIST), and are also familiar with the basics of the models of Sternglass and Simhony, as well as with my modifications to their models.  Please continue reading, if any of this interests you.

BTW:  the Max Planck paraphrase, above, was his way to say, essentially, that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”.  Because, what often happens is that the older, more respected, scientists just simply don’t “GET” a new theory when it comes along, and so the theory does not get accepted until enough of the old guys die !!

{Quoting Sternglass [Ref.#1, p.139]:  Planck sadly remarked that “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”}

Re gravitation:  anybody who actually “gets” Dr. Simhony’s model should realize that gravity is not a fundamental force, but (to quote  Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde) gravity is “emergent”.   {At the internet-site   one can read that  “In a paper published in December 2009 on, Verlinde laid out his argument that gravity is not a ‘fundamental force,’ and is instead an ’emergent phenomenon’ “}

BTW: I think that the statement “gravity doesn’t exist” (above, in the URL) is ridiculously misleading, and so do others, as it generated a robust discussion on the internet.  Of course gravity exists:  what Verlinde means is that there is no such thing as a gravitational “force”,  but that what we experience as “gravity” is due to other, more fundamental “forces”.  This is essentially the meaning of the word “emergent”.  It’s also the meaning of Dr. Simhony’s model:  the same forces which hold the lattice together also make gravity happen.

If gravity does in fact emerge from electromagnetic forces, as Simhony says, then this makes it possible to “unify” all of the physical forces which scientists study, which was Einstein’s fond hope.  My understanding is that researchers have already “unified” all of the other known forces, and that gravity is the stubborn holdout in this context, and has until now refused to join the party.


One can visualize the epo-lattice in Dr. Simhony’s model as consisting of zillions and zillions and zillions of very very very long lines of magnetic force, each one stretching from one end of our universe to the other, in which the lines of magnetic force lie along three mutually-perpendicular orientations, which forms the lattice which Simhony describes in his books and internet-sites [Refs.#2 and #2a].

Plus, one can easily visualize that there are random “grain boundaries” throughout the lattice, analogous to defects in crystals:  places where the lattice is damaged, and slightly weaker than at other places.  So one can account statistically for the actual life-time of a single unstable object (perhaps a lambda baryon ??), as opposed to the average lifetime of an average lambda baryon, by saying that perhaps it is more probable that an object will “decay” when it crosses a “grain boundary”.

QUESTION:  WHAT KEEPs THE EPO-LATTICE FROM COLLAPSING ??  This is an important question, because, in physics, “Earnshaw’s theorem” (1842) predicts that a lattice held together only by magnetic forces might not be stable, and might collapse.  One can reckon that a collapsed epo-lattice might exist at a lower energy level, and therefore might be more stable, than a structure of bound epola-elements in a cubic lattice.  So one can wonder:  WHY DOESN’T THE LATTICE COLLAPSE ??

Well,  one can imagine, and hypothesize, that there might be a large “energy hump” between the two energy-levels, similar to the “energy humps” which one reads about in chemistry textbooks.

The transformation of water to ice is a simple example of the confusing concept of binding energy.  When water freezes, it releases binding energy, the same amount needed to melt the resulting ice.  Likewise, burning gasoline is a chemical process which releases enough binding energy to power a car or truck), and the two main by-products of burning gasoline, carbon dioxide and water, exist at a lower energy level than the gasoline and free oxygen which existed before the stuff burned.  But one needs a spark to over come the energy hump between the two energy levels, to persuade the stuff to burn, or to explode;   i.e.,  to initiate the tranformation.  Likewise, with an H-bomb:  the helium atoms which result from the fusion of hydrogen atoms contain less energy than the hydrogen atoms, and the immense energy which the explosion releases represents this energy difference.  But a hydrogen fusion event happens “naturally” only inside a star, or in some other kind of high energy environment, never “naturally” on planet earth,  because of the huge energy hump between the two energy levels.

{One more example:  starting a campfire:  as a scientist, one knows that the by-products of burning wood, mainly water vapor and carbon dioxide, have a lower energy content than the unburned firewood, because burning it releases some of the energy:  but anybody who has ever started a campfire knows that some times it’s extremely difficult to make that firewood burn !!}

Perhaps its even more difficult to initiate a portion of the epo-lattice (epola) to collapse than it is to start a campfire ??

My idea for a possible way to explain why the epo-lattice does not collapse, in spite of Earnshaw’s theorem (1842), is this:  perhaps the epo-lattice’s present structure of interlocking, mutually-perpendicular, mag’ic-[magnetic]-field lines is so stable that there is a large energy hump which one would need to overcome to persuade even a small portion of the epo-lattice to collapse,   i.e.,  to initiate the collapse.

In fact, {hahaha and lol — I thought of this as I was writing the essay}, one can visualize a tiny bit of the lattice actually collapsing, and releasing a tiny bit of “binding energy” as it collapses.  Where would this binding energy go ??  Well, it might travel away from the point where the collapse occurred, at the speed of light, as an energy pulse:  i.e., as a photon.  And the fact that the energy travels away so quickly might effectively prevent the build-up of enough energy to initiate a wholesale collapse of the lattice.  Like the heat from the fires on 11 Sept 2001 flowed thru structural steel, away from the fires, so that the temperature did never get high enough to melt enough structural steel to collapse the buildings.  In spite of the NIST-report (they should be ashamed of themselves for preparing such a bad report), which neglected to include the coefficient of heat-transfer in the calculation, not because they are stupid, but because they wanted to try to mislead the public !!

In fact, if a high school student wrote a physics term paper re this, and neglected to include the COEFFICIENT OF HEAT-TRANSFER in the calculation, then he or she would surely receive an “F”.  So I give to NIST [National Institute of Standards and Testing of the USA] a big fat “F” for their seriously flawed report !!  Kin U sayn “false-flagg” ??

One can carry this thoughtful analysis regarding the epo-lattice a bit farther:  perhaps, because of the large amount of energy needed to initiate even a small collapse, some of this energy might actually repair the collapse, as soon as it happens:  as if one were to design a bullet, with some superglue inside it:  if one were to then shoot some of these bullets at a brick wall, trying to make a hole in it, then one might find that, though one is able to knock off some pieces of brick, the superglue might immediately replace the missing pieces of brick, and so prevent a hole from forming.  There is hint of this possibility in Dr. Sternglass’s descriptions re what protons can do:

“the proton … can absorb energy from its environment, and turn this energy into other forms, such as massive electron[-positron] pairs emerging as mesons, returning to its normal state in the process.  And when given enough internal excitation energy, it can reproduce itself, giving birth to a proton / anti-proton pair” [p.253, REF.1]. 

Perhaps, similarly, an epola-element [which is an ep-pair, if my modification of Simhony’s model is correct], if hit by a large jolt of photon energy, can “reproduce itself” — by converting this energy into a new ep-pair [“PAIR PRODUCTION” —see APPENDIX4], which will quickly attach itself to a “hole” in the lattice, and so keep the lattice in good repair.  Perhaps, amazingly, the structure of the lattice has built into it some kind of self-repair capability ??

Does this seem to make sense ??   Why or why not ??   Please send feed-back to …

Alternatively, one might hypothesize a simpler explanation.  Perhaps there might be some kind of natural, inherent, outwardly directed “energy-pressure gradient” associated with the elements which compose the lattice,  which balances the inwardly-directed magnetic attractions which hold the lattice together.  One might call this outwardly-directed energy-pressure a “scalar field” —– which is an actual, accepted, term in the “standard model”:  one might propose that some kind of “scalar field” exists in the region around every bit of “stuff” in our universe, including the “stuff” which composes the epo-lattice.  This hypothesized energy pressure throughout the lattice might effectively prevent the lattice from collapsing.

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  amateur physics enthusiast,  Newark, Delaware, USA,  26 December 2014;

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF AFTER-WORDs >> $$$$$$$$$$$




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on December 26, 2014 by .
%d bloggers like this: