markcreekwater

I WRITE ESSAYs

THE ENTIRE BOOK — Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY

book-title:  VISUALIZE-ING “QUARKs” ??   sub-title:  Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS and DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY

by  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast)

Email:  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

anti-copyright  2016,  San Francisco,  CA,  USA

PREFACE:  This series of essays represents the work of two PhD-holders, Dr. Ernest Sternglass and Dr. Menahem Simhony,  plus the work of a talented amateur (myself) … Their work involved developing two theories, (i.e., two “models”), in two different areas of physics … Mine involved studying their two models, plus many other science-writers, and putting their two models together to create a third model, which incorporates most of their ideas, plus a few of my own … I hope that you will agree that this model makes sense, whether you are a PhD-holder, or just simply interested in science … Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, 31-December-2016, San Francisco

INTRODUCTIONs

book-title:  WHAT ARE “QUARKs” ??  

sub-title:  Essays re the Work of Dr. ERNEST STERNGLASS and Dr. MENAHEM SIMHONY

##### << TABLE OF CONTENTs >> #####

INTRODUCTIONs

FORE-WORDs #1:  IN-SIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH-LOVER

FORE-WORDs #2:  COMETs:  DIRTY SNOW-BALLs  OR  STRONG-LY-CHARGED ELECTRICAL-OBJECTs ??

FORE-WORDs #3:  DID EINSTEIN BELIEVE IN “ETHER” ??

WORD-LIST

CHAPTER 1:  WHAT IS “DARK-MATTER” ??

CHAPTER 2:  WHAT DO PROTONs LOOK LIKE ??

CHAPTER 3:  A NEW PROTON-MODEL ??

CHAPTER 4:  A SEMI-CLASSICAL CALCULATION REGARD-ING PROTON-RADIUS

CHAPTER 5:  A SEMI-CLASSICAL CALCULATION REGARD-ING THE MASS-DENSITY OF SO-CALL’D “NEUTRON-STARs”

CHAPTER 6:  LATTICE-LENGTH OF EPOLA-CELL

CHAPTER 7:  STAY-ING GROUNDED

CHAPTER 8:  WHY DO PROTONs WEIGH approximate-ly 1836x WHAT ELECTRONs WEIGH ??

CHAPTER 9:  A BOOK-REVIEW

CHAPTER 10:  HOW + WHY DOES THE CONCEPT OF “LOCAL-GRAVITY” WORK ??

CHAPTER 11:  WHAT IS THE “PIONEER-ANOMALY” ??

CHAPTER 12:  WHAT IS “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING” ??

CHAPTER 13:  PhD-HOLDERs SLAM THE STANDARD-MODEL 

CHAPTER 14:  RICHARD FEYNMAN + JULIAN SCHWINGER 

CHAPTER 15:  WHAT ARE “GRAVITY-WAVEs” ?? 

CHAPTER 16:  TECHNICAL-SUPPORT FOR STERNGLASS’s MODEL 

AFTER-WORDs:  WHY DOESN’T THE EPO-LATTICE (“EPOLA”) COLLAPSE ??

REFERENCEs

APPENDIX 1:  re A FINE-DETAIL

APPENDIX 2:  re A CAPACITOR-MODEL

APPENDIX 3:  re DIRAC’s “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS”

APPENDIX 4:  re “PAIR-PRODUCTION”

APPENDIX 5:  PLEASE IGNORE THIS, AS IT’s TOO-SPECULATIVE

APPENDIX 6:  Dr.STERNGLASS: AN OBITUARY

APPENDIX 7:  “TYPOs” IN Dr.STERNGLASS’s BOOK [REF.#1]

APPENDIX 8:  RE “QUARKs” — WHAT DID THEIR “INVENTOR” SAY ??

APPENDIX 9:  re SIZE OF EPOLA-ELEMENTs

APPENDIX 10:  re A “RADICAL” SPECULATION 

###########################

GENERAL-INTRODUCTION

{ A NOTE REGARD-ING PUNCTUATION:  the symbol  “‘ … ‘”  (as with the EINSTEIN-reference, below) indicates that I’m PARAPHRASE-ING some-body … the symbol  ” … “  indicates a QUOTE } …

“‘ I’m not really much smarter than some of my colleagues — I just stay with a problem longer than they do ‘” —–EINSTEIN

“His tenacity in sticking to a problem for years, in returning to the problem again and again —– this is the characteristic feature of Einstein’s genius” —–LEOPOLD INFELD, quoted by WALTER ISAACSON in the foreword to the 2008-reprint of the book THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS (1938) by Einstein and Infeld …

Tho they never collaborated, Dr.Sternglass + Dr.Simhony, (the main “characters” in this series of essays), develop’d two [2] theorys (i.e., “models”) in 2 different areas of physics, which fit together like 2 gloved-hands:  as a serious truth-seeker, I was lucky enough to learn of their work, tho they’r un-known to many (possibly MOST) PhD-holders in physics … they have provided to me a KEY to understand-ing some of the out-stand-ing CURRENT MYSTERYs in this tough subject-of-study, tho I hold no degree in physics … I hope that you will agree that the model which I have built, by COMBINE-ING + BLEND-ING their 2 models, with a few slight MODIFICATIONs, provides a realistic visualization regard-ing HOW-NATURE-WORKs …

PLEASE NOTE that in CHAPTERs 4 and 5 are two [2] actual, (“test-able”), PREDICTIONs, based-on the NEW MODEL which I offer:  one is re the size of the PROTON, and one is re the mass-density of so-call’d “NEUTRON-STARs” … PREDICTIONs are important for a new theory or model:  if observations and/or experiments can verify the PREDICTIONs of a new theory or model, then it’s more-probable that others will accept the new theory or model !!

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT I wrote these essays over a time-period of several years, and that there is some repetition in them … This is because I want each essay to stand on its own, so to speak, as much as possible … So one can jump in-to the middle of the book, if one wants to, and read an essay which looks to be interest-ing, without necessary-ly need-ing to read the previous essays …

PLEASE ALSO NOTE that there is an immense, but partial-ly-hidden, DRAMA in these essays, some of it hide-ing “between the lines”, so to speak:  the DRAMA is regard-ing the fact that, (as I describe in the FORE-WORDs #1 section of these essays), there is a REVOLUTION —(i.e., a “PARADIGM-CHANGE”)— brew-ing in this complex + competitive field-of-study, and the fact that the paradigm-change might happen at any time:  like some-thing “go-ing viral” on the INTERNET:  one never knows exact-ly WHEN that might happen …

BAD-NEWs + GOOD-NEWs

The bad news is this:  some of the most-respected “authoritys” in physics are active-ly resist-ing this come-ing “paradigm-change” —(perhaps un-conscious-ly)— because, among other reasons, it MIGHT AFFECT THEIR FUNDING … sad, but true …

The good news is this:  the DRAMA of the come-ing paradigm-change, (which can get very-PERSONAL, given that human-nature is what-it-is), makes the subject of physics much-more interest-ing than one might think:  I remember that several years before start-ing the study-project which en-abled me to write this book, I was already live-ing in BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, and yet I HAD NO CLUE that Berkeley is a WORLD-CLASS CENTER-FOR-PHYSICS — PART-LY, THO NOT ENTIRE-LY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE SCIENTISTs WHO DESIGN’D + BUILT THE FIRST NUCLEAR-BOMBs WERE FROM BERKELEY …

I remember that, at that time, I met a guy there who was major-ing in physics at the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, and that I was NOT VERY-MUCH IMPRESS’D:  to me, at that time, physics just-simply seem’d like a BORE-ING subject to major in … During the past 7 years, since start-ing my physics-study-project, I’v learn’d that physics is DEFINITE-LY NOT-BORE-ING !!

HISTORICAL-PERSPECTIVE

During the 1930s, a young-er generation of physicists {(BOHR, HEISENBERG, PAULI, DIRAC,  … etc.)}  made many brilliant + important discoverys, which led to the development of what folks now call “the standard model” … they insisted that the model’s non-ability to visualize what tiny-things look like was NOT IMPORTANT, because the model provided so many ADVANCEs to our understanding of our universe … Of course, other physicists {(EINSTEIN, DeBROGLIE, SCHROEDINGER, DIRAC [who, with his long legs, “straddled the fence”, so to speak],  … etc.)}  beg’d to differ, and continued to search for a way to actual-ly visualize what-protons-look-like …

IN HIS BOOK [Ref.#1], Sternglass tells about his 1959-meeting with NIELS BOHR, in DENMARK, a few years before the great man died … plus, he talks about meet-ing with EINSTEIN in 1947, at E’s little house in PRINCETON, NJ, where they talk’d re physics + philosophy in their first-language, GERMAN … Einstein + Bohr, for many years, famous-ly debated the merits + non-merits of what we now call “the standard-model”:  Einstein always insisted that it was “incomplete” and needed some major insights to make it believe-able, while Bohr defended it very-valiant-ly …

{[ ALSO IN HIS BOOK, Sternglass describes how strong-ly-divided the physics-community was at that time (late 1950s), re this important issue:  “I asked De Broglie whether he would help me arrange a visit to Bohr in Copenhagen … at first, de Broglie was hesitant, saying that Bohr would not be happy about talking to someone who had spent so much time in the opposite camp … who shared Einstein’s ideas on the incompleteness of the Copenhagen School’s [i.e., the standard-model’s] view of quantum theory” [p.119, Ref.#1] ]} …

TODAY MANY PHYSICISTs are realize-ing that the standard-model has several disturb-ing defects: this is what one current book-writer says re this:  “The standard model is a bit like an aging movie star  whose best work is decades old  and whose flaws once seemed slight  but are now becoming glaring … it gives no explanation for why there are three levels of quarks and light particles … it can’t predict the masses of all the particles”[p.298, Ref.#12] …

—{NOTE:  “quarks” have NEVER been observed in a physics-lab [Ref.#17,pp.323+324]}—

STERNGLASS is a follower of EINSTEIN, and of others who question some of the details of the standard-model:  his “electron-positron pair model of matter” offers a clear + realistic way to visualize what-protons-look-like, which the standard-model does-not do … one will not find his proton-model [p.250, Ref.#1] in any other book:  Sternglass’s ideas are original, based-on his life as a truth-seeker …

ON THE OTHER HAND, books which “parrot” the standard-model are “a dime a dozen”, so to speak … this is how I “discover’d” Sternglass’s book:  after read-ing parts of many different books-which-parrot-the-standard-model, I realized at some point in each book that I didn’t understand what the author was talk-ing about;  then I found Sternglass’s book:  like a breath-of-fresh-air, it made sense to me all the way to its end, where he describes his visualization of the structure of the proton, in the LAST CHAPTER … since then I’v never look’d back …

IN THESE ESSAYs, my HOPE is to convince folks of the value of Sternglass’s work … to do this,  I’v included also some of the work of DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Ref.#2], which I “discover’d” on the INTERNET approx. 1.5 years after I “discover’d” Sternglass’s book … In combine-ing the models of these two elders in the physics-community, I’v made a few slight modifications to each;  the result is, I think, a clear + realistic way to visualize what-protons-look-like … and I’v try’d to follow EINSTEIN’s advice:  he say’d, many times, that one’s theory or model should-be simple-enough for a bright 10-year-old to understand !!

PLEASE READ MORE if any of this interests you …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  NewYorkCity,  23-MARCH-2015,  MARK.CREEKWATER@GMAIL.com

>>>>>>>>>> END OF GENERAL-INTRODUCTION <<<<<<<<<<<

#########################################

INTRODUCTION1:  DR.STERNGLASS’s PROTON-MODEL

=====>>>{[ NOTE:  for a biography, see APPENDIX6 ]}<<<=====

” TO EVERY MAN [+WOMAN] IS GIVEN THE KEY TO THE GATEs OF HEAVEN;  THE SAME KEY OPENs THE GATEs OF HELL ” —–Richard Feynman, quote-ing a Buddhist tour-guide in Hawaii;  from p.142 of the book THE PLEASURE OF FINDING THINGS OUT (1999);  {please note that the author added the EMPHASIS to the quote}

ALMOST EVERY-BODY has hear’d of “quarks”:  they are a part of the so-call’d “standard-model of particle-physics”, which some VERY-SMART GUYs (such as RICHARD FEYNMAN and MURRAY GELL-MANN and OTHERs) have work’d-on during the past 50 years:  accord-ing to the “standard-model”, three [3] “quarks” compose each PROTON (2 “up-quarks” + 1 “down-quark”) … BUT:  accord-ing to Dr. HELGE KRAGH, a Danish physicist, “quarks” have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN A PHYSICS-LAB [pp. 323+324, Ref.#17]:  in his book, he says that a research-team at STANFORD UNIVERSITY in CALIFORNIA once claim’d to have observed some “quarks”, but that other physicists disputed the claim, and, “after much discussion”, it was rejected:  need-less-to-say, if any-body had succeeded in actual-ly observe-ing any “quarks”, then Dr.Kragh would have mention’d it in his book !!

PLUS:  Dr. KENNETH W. FORD, whose long career included research re the theory of the structure of the atomic-nucleus, as well as work help-ing to design H-bombs, agrees: “quarks … to this day [2004], no one has seem them directly” [p.5, Ref.#27] …

IN HIS BOOK [Ref.#1], DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS SHOWs THAT “QUARKs” ARE COMPOSED OF HI-SPEED ELECTRONs + HI-SPEED POSITRONs;  i.e., OF PURE ENERGY …

Dr. Sternglass + an other theorist, Dr. Menahem Simhony, are the 2 main “characters” in this series of essays:  in them, I hope to promote awareness of the work of Sternglass + Simhony, which helps explain some of the CURRENT MYSTERYs in physics, which the current-ly-accepted “STANDARD-MODEL” is not able to do …

Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe Before the Big Bang: The Origins of the Universe Buy from Amazon
BELOW is a book-review, which I found on the INTERNET:
“In Before the Big Bang, Sternglass conducts a brief tour of modern particle physics and cosmology. He describes how the theories of Kant, Godel, Einstein and others led to the idea of an expanding but ultimately stable, rotating universe. And he recounts his firsthand exchanges with scientific greats such as Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Niels Bohr, and Richard Feynman. Drawing on decades of experimentation and theorizing, Sternglass discusses his idea for the nature of the ‘primeval atom’ [of the model of GEORGES LeMAITRE] and the fundamental entities in the universe: the electron and its oppositely charged ‘twin’ — the positron. From these two particles, everything else evolved. The universe began with a single such pair, rotating [so that the outer-edge of its humongous-ly-large electromagnetic-field moved at] close to the speed of light — [and] containing the entire mass of the cosmos … long before the explosive formation of ordinary matter in the Big Bang” … {[ from the web-site at: http://books.google.com/books/about/Before_the_Big_Bang.html?id=VmebQgAACAAJ ]}
=========================================

IT SEEMs THAT, IN OUR UNIVERSE, there is real-ly only one physical entity, ENERGY … as a recent book-writer express’d this idea,  “everything … anything you hold … no matter how dense, how heavy, how large, on its most fundamental level boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with a background sea of electromagnetic and other energy fields — a kind of electromagnetic drag force … mass [is] not equivalent to energy;  mass [IS] energy … more fundamentally, there is no mass … there is only charge” [p.33, Ref.#7] …

DR. MILO WOLFF [Ref.#8] believes that, in our universe, there are no “particles” — only waves, and has develop’d some easy maths to describe this idea:  here’s a LINK to a video where he talks about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRv6WYWyOYA … “space, once regarded as empty, is promoted to center stage as the medium of the waves and the raw material of the matter of the universe” [p.24, Ref.#8]  Dr.Wolff is a follower of Erwin Schroedinger … for a review of his book, go to CHAPTER 9 … 

STERNGLASS HAS NO PROBLEM WITH QUARK-THEORY:  he mentions it in his BOOK [Ref.#1], to show that his model accounts for the structure of PROTONs and NEUTRONs more-realistic-ly and more-visualize-ably than the “quark”-model … And he was familiar with many of the DETAILs of quark-theory, as is evident in his publish’d papers:

This is from the Proceedings of the 2nd Resonant Particles Conference in 1965:

file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF

… PLUS:  the Proceedings of the American Physical Society’s annual meeting (1964):   http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112

… PLUS:  here is a LINK to a BOOK, publish’d in 1964, in which Sternglass’s contribution is a chapter titled:  “Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964nust.conf..340S

And here’s an other Sternglass-paper, from IL NUOVO CIMENTO 35(1): 227-260 (December 1964): 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226502314_Electron-positron_model_for_the_charged_mesons_and_pion_resonances

{[ PLEASE NOTE that you might need to “COPY” + “PASTE” the above LINKs to get them to work ]} …

BASIC-LY, Sternglass says that the proton is composed of 4 [four] electron-positron PAIRs,  plus an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center of the proton … He says that each of the 4 ep-pairs carrys a strong magnetic-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field … IN FACT, THE SCHEMATIC-DIAGRAM ON p.250 in his book clear-ly shows that each PROTON (and the NEUTRON, too) has three [3] parts:  THE LEFT-SIDE + THE CENTER + THE RIGHT-SIDE … This is analogous to the 3 [three] “quarks” which are supposed to compose each proton or neutron, accord-ing to the “STANDARD-MODEL”

IN MY OPINION, this is ***WHY*** the “quark”-model seems to work:  there real-ly ARE three things in there, and one can call them “quarks”, and develop maths to describe them … RICHARD FEYNMAN + MURRAY GELL-MANN, + OTHERs, have done exact-ly that, during the past 50 years, and received NOBEL PRIZEs for this work !!  But the fact that the “quark”-model provides no real capability to VISUALIZE what the little-rascals actual-ly look like is a clue that “quarks” might-be mere MATHEMATICAL-ABSTRACTIONs, not real objects:  i.e., “quarks” might-be mere-ly mathematical-tools, which one can use to calculate how sub-atomic “particles” behave …

IN FACT, MURRAY GELL-MANN, who first proposed the “quark”-model during the early-1960s, suggested exact-ly that !!  Details in APPENDIX8 …

STERNGLASS, BY CONTRAST, FIRST DEVELOP’D the ability to VISUALIZE what PROTONs + NEUTRONs actual-ly look like, part-ly thru his collaboration with ROBERT HOFSTADTER, who was in charge of one of the first power-full PARTICLE-ACCELERATORs, the 150-feet-long LINEAR-[particle]-ACCELERATOR at STANFORD U., way back in the 1950s … from this, he used “SEMI-CLASSICAL” maths (MOST-LY HIGH-SCHOOL ALGEBRA + GEOMETRY) to develop his PROTON-MODEL …

Dr. MENAHEM SIMHONY, also Jewish (as was EINSTEIN, and some of the smart-est scientists of the 20th-century), has also, like Sternglass, develop’d a theory (i.e., a “MODEL”, as all the koool-dudes say) which is very-different from the so-call’d “standard model” … His model involves a kind of substance which most physicists in the 19th-century believed in, which they call’d “aether” or “ether” … Because there was, at that time, no way to “prove” or demonstrate that it actual-ly existed, theorys which involve “ether”, or “aether”, or any-thing like it, have been out-of-style since the early 20th-century … THO STERNGLASS and SIMHONY NEVER COLLABORATED, their two models support and affirm each other, and BOTH affirm that some kind of “aether” or aether-like “stuff” exists in our universe …

To develop his model, Simhony used KNOWLEDGE + TECHNOLOGY which was not-available to 19th-century scientists … He says that this amaze-ing substance [he calls it “EPOLA” — short for “electron-positron lattice”] permeates our universe, like a very-very-large 3-dimensional fish-net, inter-penetrate-ing all of the “ordinary” matter in our universe, and en-able-ing both GRAVITATION and RADIATION to happen [!!] … and he gives some persuasive-ly-convince-ing arguments re why and how this might-be true …

BY DENY-ING THAT ANY KIND OF “AETHER” or AETHER-LIKE STUFF EXISTs IN OUR UNIVERSE, STANDARD-MODEL PHYSICISTs ARE, IN EFFECT, “SHOOT-ING THEM-SELVES IN THE FOOT” [!!] so to speak …

STERNGLASS SAYs, several times in his book, that he believes that “ETHER” exists, and describes it in a general way, reminiscent of how MAXWELL + FARADAY (during the 1800s) described their “aether” … tho I feel that Sternglass’s description of “ether” is weak, I feel that Dr.Simhony’s “ether” model is EXCELLENT … he calls it “The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” [Refs. #2 + #2a] and prefers that we call this stuff, not “ether” or “aether”, but “EPOLA” — short for “ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE”:  one can call it also the “EPO-LATTICE” — which is how I refer to it in these essays …

DR.SIMHONY’s WORK IS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET:  http://www.EPOLA.co.uk or http://www.EPOLA.org … or google “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” …

PERSONAL-LY, after intense study of the models of both SIMHONY and STERNGLASS, I’ll say this:  what seem to be “quarks” are the result of inter-actions between (1) the ===>>FREE<<=== electrons + positrons in STERNGLASS’s model, which compose PROTONs + NEUTRONs,   and  (2)  the ===>>BOUND<<=== electrons + positrons in SIMHONY’s model, which compose the “EPO-LATTICE” — which Dr.Simhony calls the “EPOLA” … IN THS SENSE, one can say that “QUARKs” are real:  but only because THE AETHER-LIKE SUBSTANCE which DR.SIMHONY calls “THE EPOLA” is also real !!  I.E., ONE CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYs:  IF one wants one’s “quark”-model to make sense, THEN one just-simply needs to admit that SOME KIND OF “AETHER” or AETHER-LIKE “STUFF” also exists !!

SINCERE-LY, MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO —–AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST, PHOENIX, ARIZONA,USA;  2013 …

$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF INTRODUCTION1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

############################################

INTRODUCTION2:  DR.SIMHONY’s “EPOLA”

“‘Many very-intelligent and highly-educated scientists just don’t have the capability to recognize the difference between a good theory and a bad theory'” —–ALBERT EINSTEIN

DOES EVERY-BODY KNOW WHAT “JELLO” is ??  JELLO is a COLLOIDAL substance:  tho one can’t POUR it, it’s like water, in that it’s able to transmit waves thru it-self … but it’s more FIRM than water:  because, in a bowl of JELLO, the tiny globs of jello are BOUND to specific locations in the bowl:  i.e., they’r not free to SWIRL …

The tiny globs of SOY-MILK in my morning-coffee can SWIRL when I insert a spoon, but the tiny globs of jello in a bowl can not SWIRL …

The tiny elements which are BOUND to the EPO-LATTICE [electron-positron-lattice] in DR.SIMHONY’s model are, like-wise, NOT ABLE TO SWIRL … The lattice it-self is able to transmit energy-pulses (photons) thru it-self, because it’s ELASTIC, because each EPOLA-ELEMENT is STRONG-LY-BOUND to a specific location in the lattice, and can vibrate harmonic-ly around that location, as DR.SIMHONY details [Refs. #2 + #2a] …

PLUS, info on the “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” web-site says that the LARGE BINDING-ENERGY which binds each epola-element to the lattice makes the lattice “STIFFER THAN A DIAMOND”:  this large binding-energy also helps en-able photons to travel thru the epola at a very-high rate of speed, the fabled speed-of-light …

MANY YEARs AGO Simhony had an (!!! AHA !!!)-moment when he realized that one can turn EINSTEIN’s famous-ly-simple E = M.c^2 up-side-down to say v = sq.rt. [E/M], where “E” is “binding-energy” and “M” is “mass” and “v” is velocity …

I.E.:  Work-ing in a physics-lab to measure the speed of SOUND thru SALT-crystals, which have a perfect-ly-cubical structure, he sudden-ly realized that the simple speed-equation which works for the speed-of-SOUND thru a salt-crystal also works for the speed of LIGHT, if LIGHT it-self is a harmonic vibration of elements which compose the epo-lattice:  because the BINDING-ENERGY of each EPOLA-ELEMENT to the LATTICE is very-LARGE, and the mass of each is very-SMALL:  inspection of the simple speed-equation (above) reveals that a LARGE binding-energy and a SMALL mass implys a high speed …

Specific-ly, for the epo-lattice:  v  =  sq.rt. [(8.2 x 10^(-7) gram.(cm/sec).(cm/sec) / (9.1 x 10^(-28) gram)]  =   sq.rt. [(9 x 10^(20) (cm/sec).(cm/sec)]  =  3 x 10^(10) cm/sec, which is the speed of light …

IN OTHER WORDs:  the large binding-energy of the epola-element to the lattice (much-larger-than that of a sodium-atom to a salt-crystal), and its tiny mass (much-small-er-than that of a chlorine-atom in a salt-crystal), DETERMINE the speed of LIGHT thru the epo-lattice, accord-ing to that simple MATH-formula:  in the same way, the binding-energy of sodium and chlorine atoms in a SALT-crystal, and the mass of an individual atom, DETERMINE the speed of SOUND thru the crystal-lattice structure of the SALT …

From the follow-ing youtube-video:  “Professor Simhony is convinced … that space resembles a gigantic lattice that is made out of electron-positron pairs that form a cubic lattice”, and that, as ordinary-stuff (atoms, molecules, etc.) moves thru the lattice, “the deformation of an epola cube unit affects also its neighbors;  hence, the bigger the deformation of an epola cube unit … the bigger the overall deformation in the epola-lattice becomes” … and “the bigger the matter-particle the bigger the inertia [because] the more epola sructures are involved in the passage [of the matter-particle thru the lattice]” …

BASIC-LY, Simhony says that the epo-lattice is like a very-large 3-dimensional FISH-NET, which permeates our universe,  and inter-penetrates all the “ordinary” matter:  a lattice of electrons + positrons with a cubic structure, exact-ly like the “FACE-CENTERED CUBIC” structure of salt, but much tight-er:  so tight that there are > 10,000 of the elements-which-compose-the-lattice between every sodium-atom nucleus and the next-neighbor chlorine-atom nucleus in a SALT-crystal …

HERE’s AN OTHER WAY to visualize how dense this stuff is:  the elements-which-compose-the-epo-lattice are so near to each other that there are > a TRILLION of the little-rascals in the space which a single hydrogen-atom also occupys … How can they occupy the same space ??  EASY !!  because ATOMs ARE MOST-LY EMPTY-SPACE !!  The ONLY part of an atom which would have any problem share-ing space with the epo-lattice is the NUCLEUS of the atom, and THAT little-rascal is JUST THE RIGHT SIZE to easy-ly go BETWEEN the elements-which-compose-the-lattice:  like very-tiny fishes go-ing thru very-tiny holes in a very-very-large 3-dimensional fish-net …

IN FACT, as Dr.Simhony explains:  one of the reasons WHY large nuclei (uranium, plutonium, etc.) tend to split in-to two pieces [“FISSION”] is BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO-BIG TO EASY-LY GO BETWEEN THE ELEMENTs WHICH COMPOSE THE EPO-LATTICE … {this is just-simply COMMON-SENSE, if one has the correct VISUALIZATION of what the “space” in our universe real-ly looks like, which Dr.Simhony’s model provides !!} … THE MAIN IDEA HERE is that EVERY atomic-nucleus of the “ordinary” matter in our universe is continuous-ly and continual-ly enter-ing + exit-ing the cube-shaped “cells” (tiny “boxes”) in the epo-lattice, and inter-act-ing with them all the while;  but because atoms are most-ly empty-space, these inter-actions affect only a VERY-TINY PERCENTAGE of the epola-cells within each atom, while the vast majority of epola-cells at any instant-in-time are almost-total-ly un-affected by the passage of atoms thru the epo-lattice …

HERE IS A QUOTE from one of the web-sites re Dr.Simhony’s model:  it describes the epo-lattice as have-ing “real substance and much higher mass density than atomic matter … the epo-lattice is open and not at all solid (it’s like a vacuum) … atomic particles filter through the epola like a shoal of fish through a coarse net … in this way, and by the vibrations of its electrons and positrons, the structure of the local epo-lattice defines and controls the motion of all atomic matter and particles, and is responsible for the phenomena of inertia and gravity… the epola is not an aether as originally defined, and far from being aethereal … but a dense aggregation of [real electrons and positrons]” … Simhony does say that the epola would have satisfied Faraday’s search for a dielectric aether and the mechanistic basis for the Maxwell-equations {please google it or them, if u need to} …

TO SAY THAT the epo-lattice is “stiffer than a diamond” is a reflection of how the large binding-energy might make it “FEEL” — if one could some-how imagine a way to “FEEL” it … A good analogy is to imagine put-ing one’s HAND in-to a TIGHT-GLOVE:  the presence of the hand in-side-of the glove causes the glove to expand slight-ly, so it pushes back, in-ward-ly, on the hand … Similar-ly, a PROTON (or an atom’s NUCLEUS, which is a collection of protons + neutrons) in-side-of an EPOLA-CELL causes the cell to expand slight-ly, so epola-stuff pushes-back, in-ward-ly, on the “VISITOR” …

THIS “PUSH-BACK” is an example of what J.A.Wheeler [Ref.#24] mean’d when he say’d that “matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move” … The proton is a bit of “matter” in-side-of an epola-cell, which is a bit of “space” … The “space” expands a bit, due-to the presence of a bit of “matter” — the proton … The firm “push-back” from the epo-lattice tells the proton to “stay together, you little-rascal !!!” … i.e., the epola-cell, which is a bit of “space”, tells the bit of “matter” —(the proton)— “how to move” … i.e., to “STAY TOGETHER !!” … Perhaps this “push-back” from epola-stuff is what holds protons together ??

?? WHAT DID EINSTEIN THINK ??

EVEN EINSTEIN was not-able to visualize very-well what was happen-ing with tiny-objects … I once read that he say’d that his general theory of relativity was built on a solid rock + brick foundation re inter-actions between large objects like galaxys + stars, but was “built on a foundation of straw” re tiny-objects, such as protons … I am deep-ly thank-full to DR.SIMHONY for help-ing me to visualize this in a way which Einstein never could, tho he would have wanted to, I reckon !!

SOME PHYSICS-WRITERs say that EINSTEIN did not believe that any kind of “ether” {“aether”} or ether-like substance exists in our universe, but that is just-simply not-correct … Follow-ing are two [2] QUOTEs from the great man, one from 1894 or 1895, (when he was only 15 or 16 years old !!), and the other from 1920 —–when he was super-famous:  evident-ly, he initial-ly believed that “aether” exists, because most 19th-century scientists accepted and/or believed that “aether” exists;  then for a while he evident-ly doubted the existence of “aether” — but, evident-ly, by 1920 had come back to believe-ing in its existence …

NOTE:  both of the Einstein-quotes are appropriate for modern-folks, today, who want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth re these mysterys:  because some of the smart-est and most-respected “authoritys” in physics have —(for several GENERATIONs, since the 1930s)— been say-ing (and teach-ing grad-students, world-wide) that there is no “aether” [“ether”] or aether-like stuff in our universe …

QUOTE from 1894 or 1895:  “When the electric current comes into being, it immediately sets the surrounding aether in some kind of instantaneous motion, the nature of which has still not been exactly determined.  In spite of the continuation of the cause of this motion, namely the electric current, the motion ceases, but the aether remains in a potential state and produces a magnetic field … the magnetic field is a potential state [of the aether] —–EINSTEIN, age 15 or 16  { from the web-site at: http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf } …

NOTE:  the clear + articulate style of the QUOTE (above) indicates one reason why EINSTEIN became so famous:  because, in science, COMMUNICATION is very-important, and he was a good communicator …

QUOTE from 1920:  in 1920, Einstein gave a speech at the University of Leiden, in HOLLAND:  here’s what he say’d, in the LAST PARAGRAPH of that speech:“Recapitulating … According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there … would be no propagation of light“  —–EINSTEIN, 1920 …   { from the web-site at:  http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm } …

RECAPITULATE-ING:  any-body who quotes EINSTEIN to try to “prove” that there is no “aether” {“ether”} or aether-like substance in our universe just-simply HASN’T DONE HIS OR HER HOME-WORK !!

MORE DETAILs RE DR.SIMHONY’s “EPOLA”:  19th-CENTURY SCIENTISTs (MAXWELL, FARADAY, HERTZ, HELMHOLTZ, LORENTZ, HEAVYSIDE, etc. — these were VERY-SMART GUYs) intuitive-ly reason’d [“reckon’d”] that there must be some-thing in the “outer-space” between our EARTH and our SUN to conduct the sun’s light + other energys to us … Like-wise for star-light:  they reckon’d that a substance which they call’d “aether” probably permeates (but does-not fill) the vast-ly-large inter-stellar spaces in our universe:  they reckon’d that this stuff might be like ocean-water conduct-ing ocean-waves:  the water doesn’t GO any-where, but mere-ly OSCILLATEs, back + forth, and/or around + around:  at this point one can INSERT two [2] NOTEs in-to the discussion:
NOTE1:  Physicists know that ocean-water, which consists of zillions + zillions of UN-BOUND tiny-objects (i.e., water-molecules), transmits waves thru it-self by a physical-process call’d COMPRESSION or LONGITUDINAL-OSCILLATION:  a water-molecule gets HIT by one toward its LEFT, and then HITs the next one, toward its right, assume-ing that the waves are move-ing LEFT to RIGHT … How-ever, a substance whose tiny-objects are BOUND in-to some kind of STRUCTURE, such as SALT-CRYSTALs, or the STEEL in a RAIL-ROAD-TRACK, can transmit waves by the physical-phenomenon of LATERAL-OSCILLATION or TRANSVERSE-OSCILLATION, in which the tiny-objects vibrate or oscillate in a direction which is perpendicular to the direction in which the waves move … { I want the guys + gals who hold PhDs to know that I know this } …
NOTE2:  Some of the guys + gals who hold PhDs MIGHT have a problem with the idea that energy moves thru “outer-space” as waves, because this idea was official-ly “dis-continued” approximate-ly 1930, and is present-ly NOT PART OF THE “ACCEPTED” and “STANDARD” model … Before I “discover’d” the work of Dr.Simhony, I explain’d to people that “photons” are not waves, but more like little bullets, as I think EINSTEIN visualized them … After I “discover’d” Simhony, I went back to visualize-ing them as waves — of a very-special kind,  too-difficult to detail here … {more details in APPENDIX10} …
OCEAN-WAVEs CARRY ENERGY — NOT WATER 
I.E.:  the water doesn’t GO any-where, but the waves DO go places, very-far, and carry large-amounts of energy, which is obvious to any-body who has ever seen ocean-waves break-ing on a beach …

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE between 19th-century science’s “aether” and Dr.Simhony’s “epola” —(“electron-positron lattice”)— is this:  19th-century scientists visualized their “aether” as be-ing thin + wispy, and therefore able-to-SWIRL, like wind-currents:  the very word, (aethereal or ethereal), should inform one of this important fact:  even some of the folks who are AWARE of Simhony’s model just-simply don’t GET the important idea that the stuff just-simply DOES NOT SWIRL;  and also —{[ in GERMAN, “also” means “therefore” ]}— the stuff does not get drag’d along behind a move-ing moon or planet, as some 19th-century scientists speculated:  because (again: this is IMPORTANT) each of the zillions + zillions of elements-which-compose-the-epo-lattice is STRONG-LY-BOUND to its position in the lattice …

THO “STIFFER THAN A DIAMOND”, the epo-lattice is able to transmit energy-vibrations, (ie, “photons”), thru it-self at the fabulous fabled “speed-of-light”, because it’s BOTH “stiff” AND “elastic” … And these vibrations, (call’d “photons”), carry energy, similar to how ocean-waves carry energy … And there is no contradiction between the words “stiff” and “elastic” …

For example:  when 2 billiard-balls collide, they deform slight-ly, and then bounce-apart:  if they were not “elastic”, then they would not deform and bounce-back like they do … For one more example:  throw a rock at a barn-door:  it bounces-back, because the door deforms slight-ly when the rock hits it, then bounces-back, so that the rock also bounces-back:  because the barn-door is “elastic” … In both cases, an object which seems “stiff” turns out to be also “elastic” … One needs to understand that the EPOLA in DR.SIMHONY’s model is both “STIFF” and “ELASTIC” …

ONLY IF ONE UNDERSTANDs THAT can one understand how the epo-lattice might-be responsible for the existence of GRAVITY … But THAT, as one can say, is “BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS BOOK” …

BUT:  here is an easy way to describe Dr.Simhony’s explanation for gravity, simply + quick-ly:  GRAVITY DOESN’T PULL — IT PUSHES:
What happens is that each atomic-nucleus of “ordinary” matter in our universe causes the electron-positron lattice [epo-lattice] in its immediate neighborhood to EXPAND a tiny bit;  so a LARGE collection of atomic-nuclei (such as a moon or planet or star) causes the epo-lattice in the space which it occupys to expand, by an amount proportional-to the number of atomic-nuclei present;  i.e., by an amount proportional-to the MASS of the object … Because the lattice it-self is “stiffer than a diamond”, this means that, in the region BETWEEN a moon + a planet, the lattice also expands, slight-ly, so that it is slight-ly less-dense in that in-between region … So the epo-lattice which surrounds BOTH objects, be-ing slight-ly more-dense, pushes in-ward-ly on the 2 objects, so they “GRAVITATE” toward each other …
That’s all there is to it:  no fancy maths:  only common-sense:  to me, this explanation is SO SIMPLE that it feels like it’s PROBABLY CORRECT …
FOR MORE DETAILs, go to Dr.Simhony’s publish’d books and papers [Refs. #2 + #2a] …  PLUS: in CHAPTER 11 there’s some evidence from NASA [National Aeronautics & Space Administration] that Simhony’s model might be correct …..
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF INTRODUCTION2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$
 ###########################################

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

“one needs to keep a sense of awe + wonder in one’s heart + mind re these mysterys:  other-wise, one might feel like a one-legged man (or woman) in a butt-kick-ing contest”  —–THE AUTHOR

I ONCE READ that EINSTEIN say’d that he work’d-on his Special Theory of Relativity for 10 years, start-ing at age 16, and finish-ing at age 26, in 1905 … IN FACT EINSTEIN WROTE ONE OF HIS FIRST PAPERs, (i.e., “essays”), when he was only 15 or 16 years old,  regard-ing the “aether” … it’s still appropriate today, due, in part, to the fact that, for SEVERAL GENERATIONs, the powers-that-be in the physics-community have taught grad-students at universitys, world-wide, that “aether” does not exist …

THERE’s MORE RE THIS in the INTRODUCTION2 and FORE-WORDs #3 sections of these essays … right now, I’ll tell u a little-bit re me-self:

AMAZE-ING-LY, and HAPPY-LY, and THANK-FULLY, due-to my strong desire to know the TRUTH regard-ing how “MOTHER-NATURE” works, [or, if yr religious, re how “GOD” works], I’v discover’d the work of two physicists who work’d many years develop-ing two theorys [i.e., “models” — as all the koool-dudes say] to explain some of the mysterys of our universe which the so-call’d “standard-model” just-simply can-not explain … sad-ly, they are almost un-known:  not only to the general-public, but also to their colleagues in the physics-community …

THO THEY NEVER COLLABORATED, their 2 MODELs support + affirm each other:  DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS’s model explains how-protons-work, and the origin of “quasars”, (some times call’d “gamma-ray bursters”), which are among THE MOST-POWER-FULL energy-sources in our entire known universe … DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY has discover’d a good-way to explain details regard-ing a kind of “stuff” in our universe, in which most of the heavy-hitters of 19th-century physics believed, but which some-how, FOR HISTORICAL REASONs, went out of style during the first-half of the 20th century … of course I’m talk’n re the “AETHER” or “ETHER” — tho SIMHONY would prefer that we call this stuff “EPOLA” — short for “electron-positron lattice” … he says that this amaze-ing stuff, this “epola”, en-ables BOTH radiation AND gravitation to happen !!

TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT-ER:  due-to my “discovery” of these two almost-un-known retired physicists, I now know some of the TRUTHs regard-ing how-our-universe-works, while many guys + gals who hold PhDs are, [( like )], total-ly clue-less … because the so-call’d “standard-model” just-simply does not cover some of the amaze-ing discoverys which STERNGLASS + SIMHONY have made …

AND, tho I KNOW that some readers will be quite-skeptical re this claim, STERNGLASS + SIMHONY are NOT “crack-pots” … far from it:  during the past 7 years, since I started study-ing physics, I’v develop’d the ability to DISCERN crack-pottery from, {[ like ]}, a mile away … real-ly … in the FORE-WORDs I give one obvious example re true crack-pottery:  i.e., the claim that INTER-STELLAR ELECTRIC-CURRENTs power our sun:  this is NON-SENSE:  tho strong inter-stellar electric-currents DO exist in OTHER parts of our universe, [google “BIRKELAND CURRENTs”], they definite-ly do NOT power our sun !!

MORE RE ME:

DURING 2006, astronomers observed a SUPER-NOVA explosion [SN2006gy] which was, evident-ly, one of the most-power-full SN-explosions ever observed … a super-DUPER-nova explosion … so the story appear’d in many NEWsPAPERs, world-wide … all the NP-storys agreed that a very-massive star, ( > 100x the mass of our sun), and very-far-away, ( > 100-million light-years away), had collapsed + exploded, so far away from us that when the event happen’d, DINOSAURs still roam’d around on planet-earth, and humans had not-yet evolved … that’s how long the light needed to travel from there to here !!

{[ One needs to keep a sense of AWE + WONDER … re these mysterys … ]}

What real-ly attracted my attention were reports that this explosion had produced massive-quantitys of ELECTRONs + POSITRONs, IN EQUAL NUMBERs … along with massive-quantitys of power-full GAMMA-RAYs …

EVEN THEN, I knew that gamma-rays + electrons + positrons are, {( like )}, the equivalent of “smithereens” in physics:  it seem’d that much of the mass of this large star had been converted to “smithereens” — blasted and/or crush’d in-to the small-est possible pieces of it-self … and the fact that there were equal numbers of electrons + positrons made me want to learn more … electrons were familiar to me, after study-ing CHEMISTRY at the UNIVERSITY of DELAWARE …

BUT, like many non-scientists, I was NOT QUITE SURE what positrons are … so I re-activated my childhood-interest in astronomy, and started read-ing books re ASTRO-PHYSICS … this quick-ly led me to NUCLEAR-PHYSICS, and all the physics in between …

DURING MAY of 2009 I discover’d Dr.Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1] … this fortunate discovery has made Dr.Sternglass my main physics-mentor … approx. 1.5 years later I discover’d the work of Dr.Simhony, [(also Jewish, as was EINSTEIN)], on the world-famous INTERNET [Ref.#2] … since then I’v been work-ing to BLEND the models which these two elders created …

Sternglass and Simhony retired many years ago, and Sternglass died very-recent-ly, on 12-FEB-2015, at age 91 … several months later, Simhony, too, pass’d away, aged 93 … I feel like i’v pick’d up their models and run with them … I had several phone-conversations w/ Sternglass, in which he urged me to continue study-ing physics;  plus, he express’d his pleasure at know-ing that others are pursue-ing his line-of-inquiry in-to these mysterys …

SINCE I DISCOVER’D HIS BOOK [Ref.#1] almost 6 years ago, in the main-library, down-town, in BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, this study-project has become the main passion of my life:  if I’d had this kind of passion for my studys at the UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE (B.S., computer-science, 1971), then my life-after-university would (no doubt) have been some-what different … as a result of my intense study of the two models which Sternglass + Simhony created, and many other sources, I can now hold a physics-conversation with any-body, regard-less-of how many PhDs they have, tho I’m a mere amateur …

AT FIRST, I treated Sternglass’s book like some christians treat the BIBLE:  i.e., as REVEAL’D-WISDOM, regard-ing which I had no way to say for sure if any of it might-be not-correct … since then, during the past almost-6 years, I’v learn’d much more-than I ever knew re this challenge-ing + complex subject-of-study, so that I can now say which parts of Sternglass’s model might-be wrong …

SPECIFIC-LY:  regard-ing his “MINIMUM-APPROACH-DISTANCE” for the rapid-ly-rotate-ing [i.e.: “orbit-ing” or “oscillate-ing”] little-rascals (electron + positron) in an electron-positron pair in his model:  he says that the CENTERs of the electric-charges (one positive, one negative) can-not approach near-er to each other than approx 0.7 x 10^(-13) cm;  [i.e., 0.7 x 10^(-15) meter] … in my modification of his model, I propose that, in fact, they might-be as near-to-each-other as approx. 17x less-than-that:  i.e.: approx 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm;  [approx. 4.1 x 10^(-17) meter] …

NOTE1:  re the (approx. 17)-factor above:  17.13 = [ 137.036 / 8 ] … of course, 137.036 is the very-famous “INVERSE OF THE [ARNOLD-SOMMERFELD] FINE-STRUCTURE CONSTANT” …

NOTE2:  Sternglass applys his “minimum approach distance” to ep-pairs whose mass is approx. that of a PI-MESON, while the much-short-er one in my model applys to ep-pairs whose mass is (follow-ing Simhony) the “rest-mass” of a single electron (or positron), which is much-less-than that of a pi-meson …

SINCE I “DISCOVER’D” THE MODELs OF STERNGLASS + SIMHONY, I’v been work-ing to BLEND them, to create a 3rd model, by make-ing a few slight modifications to each of their two models:  CHAPTERs 4 and 5 contain two [2] “test-able” PREDICTIONs of this new model, which represents the ideas of 2 PhD-holders (Sternglass + Simhony) plus those of a talented amateur (my-self):  I feel like this [ !!NEW!! ] model explains, clear-ly and logic-ly, some of the difficult mysterys of this challenge-ing + competitive subject-of-study, and sincere-ly hope that you will agree !!

SINCERE-LY,  MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast),  PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY and LITTLE FALLS, NEW JERSEY, USA,  2015;  MARK.CREEKWATER@GMAIL.com

$$$$$ << END OF AUTHOR-INTRODUCTION >> $$$$$

######################################

FORE-WORDs #1:  IN-SIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH-LOVER

“‘Congratulations:  you just discovered a classical model for the neutral pi-meson'” —–Richard Feynman, to Ernest Sternglass, 1960

DEAR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIASTs:  warm greetings + many blessings !!

YOU MIGHT WONDER WHY I invite you to read my new physics-book, a collection of essays re the work of 2 almost-un-known scientists:  elders-in-the-physics-community, (ages 91 and 92 in 2014) … You might ask your-self “What’s in it for me ??” …

WELL:  ONE REASON IS THAT I FEEL THAT future scientists might consider these 2 gentlemen to be modern GALILEOs:  tho they never collaborated, they develop’d 2 models-of-our-universe which support and affirm each other, and are more-clear + more-realistic than the so-call’d “standard-model” … in fact, some who are aware of Sternglass’s work have already call’d him a “modern Galileo” — and posted it at the Amazon web-site, where there are > a dozen reviews of his book, most-ly positive …

STERNGLASS calls his model “The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter”,  while SIMHONY calls his “The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” …

ESSENTIAL-LY, Sternglass’s PROTON-MODEL is more-clear and more-visualize-able than the standard-model’s proton-model, which relys on the hypothesized existence of “QUARKs” —– which have never been observed in a physics-lab [Ref.#17, pp.323+324] … in fact, MURRAY GELL-MANN, who introduced quark-theory during the mid-1960s, say’d that {to para-phrase him}:  “‘it is interest-ing to speculate whether ‘quarks’ are real, or just-simply mathematical-abstractions'”  … MORE DETAILs in APPENDIX8 …

While the standard-model relys on the proposed existence of “quarks” to explain the structure of protons + neutrons, Sternglass’s model relys on electrons + positrons only, say-ing that these are the only FUNDAMENTAL “particles” in our universe …

Sternglass says that speedy-electrons + speedy-positrons compose protons and neutrons, which are the only other “particles” in our universe which last for more-than a fraction of a second:  all the other so-call’d “particles” “decay” — usual-ly after < a millionth-of-a-second … [now u see it  << !! POOF !! >>  now u don’t] …

{please note that there is a big-difference between the words “STABLE” and “FUNDAMENTAL”:  protons and neutrons are STABLE, but not FUNDAMENTAL:  they are composed of electrons + positrons, which are both FUNDAMENTAL and STABLE} …

{[ in fact, NEUTRONs are not total-ly “stable” — because they “decay” << POOF >> after an average of between 12 and 20 minutes ]} …

HOW SPEEDY are the positrons + electrons which compose protons + neutrons ??  WELL, the little-rascals orbit (i.e., “rotate”) around each other at ALMOST THE SPEED OF LIGHT !!  { if THAT seems too-weird, then one can visualize what’s happen-ing as a very-rapid electrical-oscillation } …

{ SURPRISE-ING-LY, some guys + gals who hold PhDs have a problem with this idea, because it’s not part of the so-call’d “standard-model” … there are more details re this in Ref.#1a, a paper which Sternglass publish’d in the journal Physical Review in 1961 (1-JULY-1961)} … in his book [Ref.#1] he describes how RICHARD FEYNMAN, one of his professors at CORNELL UNIVERSITY, help’d him to develop the IDEA which led him to publish THAT paper, and which was also the FIRST-STEP (he compares it to a “baby-step”) which en-abled him to develop his PROTON-MODEL:

“That weekend … our son took his first steps … Under Feynman’s prodding, I too had taken the first steps towards an explanation of the evolution of matter before the creation of neutrons and protons at the moment of the big bang” [p.135, Ref.#1] …

Feynman was famous as one of only perhaps a half-dozen 20th-century physicists whom one can describe, truth-fully, as a “GENIUS” … His ability to inspire others in this complex + competitive field-of-study is LEGENDARY:  for me, one of the main pleasures of my physics-study-project has been learn-ing about the many interest-ing CHARACTERs, all very-human, who did physics in the 20th-century:  almost all the book-writers agree that Feynman was, by far, one of the most-interest-ing …

Start-ing with an idea which he + Feynman work’d-out on the black-board in Feynman’s CalTech office, in 1960, (I was 12 years old), Sternglass devoted much of the rest of his life work-ing to develop a realistic PROTON-MODEL … This model identifys SPEEDY-ELECTRONs + SPEEDY-POSITRONs, (not “QUARKs” — which no-body has ever observed in a physics-lab, tho they spent many dollar$$$$$, + many man-hours, + some woman-hours, too, try-ing to observe “quarks”), as the main constituent of the proton, and the neutron, too …

Along the way, Sternglass needed to look at + study almost every aspect of how-mother-nature-works, include-ing, particular-ly, astronomy + cosmology:  his COSMOLOGY success-fully explains “QUASARs” —(often call’d “GAMMA-RAY BURSTERs” — the most-power-full sources of electro-magnetic radiation in our universe)— as the “delayed mini-Bangs” which his model predicts to be happen-ing during all the time since the “BIG BANG” …

During the 1940s, scientists discover’d the PI-MESON, but nobody could figure out what pi-mesons look’d like …

The specific idea which Sternglass + Feynman came up with in 1960 is this:  an ELECTRON + a POSITRON, when they ORBIT or ROTATE around each other, at almost the speed of light, form a tiny system which we call the PI-MESON:  please note that this is just about the MOST-SIMPLE system imagine-able:  when one considers the multitude of very-complicated systems which “particle-physicists” have discover’d in the past 55 years, systems which are so numerous that one can get a HEAD-ACHE just try-ing to remember their names, and which are so complicated that no-body real-ly understands how they behave, and which live for less-than a trillionth of a second, one wonders why others in the physics-community have not follow’d-up on this very-simple, and very-simplify-ing, idea:  the idea that a SPEEDY-ELECTRON + a SPEEDY-POSITRON form a PI-MESON, as Sternglass details in his 1961-paper [Ref.#1a] which appear’d in the Physical Review, one of the most respected physics-journals …

And yet they have not, and guys-who-hold-PhDs think that it’s a “crack-pot” idea, claim-ing instead that two “quarks” (which no-body has ever seen in a physics-lab) compose the pi-meson …

THIS IS THE MAIN MESSAGE IN MY BOOK:  THAT BY “DISCOVER-ING” Dr.STERNGLASS’s WORK, AND THAT OF Dr.SIMHONY, I NOW KNOW THE TRUTH RE SOME OF THE CURRENT “MYSTERYs” IN PHYSICS, REGARD-ING WHICH MOST PhD-HOLDERs ARE CLUE-LESS …

THIS IS A TRIBUTE, NOT TO MY-SELF, BUT TO THE WORK OF THESE TWO ALMOST-UN-KNOWN ELDERs …

Like Sternglass’s model, Simhony’s model is very-different from the standard-model, because he hypothesizes the existence of an aether-like substance which permeates our universe without fill-ing it, like a very-very-large 3-dimensional fish-net, while the standard-model specific-ly denys the existence of any such aether-like substance …

A REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS ??

BELIEVE IT OR NOT,  there is a “revolution” come-ing, perhaps very-soon, in the complex + competitive field-of-study known as PHYSICS … some are call-ing this a “KUHNIAN” revolution, because a gentleman named THOMAS KUHN, in 1962, publish’d a book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [Ref.#26], in which he detail’d some previous scientific revolutions, such as the ones which COPERNICUS and GALILEO help’d inspire … {Sternglass mentions Dr.Kuhn in has book} … in HIS book, Kuhn mention’d the phrase “paradigm shift”, which has, since then, “gone viral”, so to speak:  if one googles it, as I just-now did, then one gets:   ” About 13,300,000 results (0.38 seconds) “ … if ever a phrase “went viral”, that one sure-ly did …

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Other physicists are aware of Kuhn’s book, and its message:  for example, re the mysterious “Pioneer-anomaly” [details in Chapter 11] Dr. Michael Brooks says that “Kuhn might call [the anomaly] a sign of impending crisis … our current picture of the cosmos might have to change in the near future” [p.45, Ref.#37]

Kuhn observed that the reasons for scientific-revolutions are similar to the reasons for political-revolutions, and also for social and economic revolutions:  human-nature be-ing what-it-is, some of our so-call’d “leaders” (whether scientific or political or social or economic leaders) tend to be “control-freaks” —– i.e., they tend to exert + enforce pressure-to-conform on-to the common-people …

IRONIC-LY, scientists do this to other scientists, {( like )}, quite-often:  if one is a scientist, and if one’s research-findings and/or theoretical-speculations contradict the so-call’d “standard-model”, then the current “peer-review” system might make it difficult for one to get his or her paper publish’d in a “reputable” science-journal, as Sternglass details (from personal-experience) in his book [Ref.#1] —– you might even lose yr job, as happen’d to Dr. Halton Arp [to google him, include the name  “CHANDRASEKHAR” (the guy who got him fired) in yr search] …

CONVERSE-LY, folks who “parrot” the so-call’d “standard-model” are able to get seem-ing-ly-end-less NON-SENSE publish’d:  real-ly:  please read this, re the recent “discovery” of the so-call’d “HIGGS-BOSON”:  it’s in chapter 12 of DR. ALEXANDER UNZICKER’s 2013-book, titled The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel[-prize] Committee:  http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/40/40216/1.html …

IT’s LIKE SOME-THING “GO-ING VIRAL” ON THE INTERNET !!

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, this come-ing “revolution” in physics might come at any time:  like when a story “GOES VIRAL” on the INTERNET:  one never knows WHAT story will go viral, or WHEN it will go viral … the come-ing revolution-in-physics might happen tomorrow, or next-week, or next-year, or after 10 years from now — one just-simply can’t say for sure …

?? WTF ???

WHAT GIVEs TO ME, a mere A-P-E [Amateur-Physics-Enthusiast], the credentials + the credibility to make this bold prediction ??  Because, tho I hold no PhD in the subject, I’v study’d physics, very-intense-ly, for approx. 7 years, and I’v read from some guys + gals who DO hold PhDs  that there are some serious ERRORs in the so-call’d “standard-model” of physics, and also that some of the guys + gals who support + believe in the standard-model are effective-ly “in denial” re these alleged errors …

{[ IN MY OPINION, their most-serious error is their denial of the existence of any kind of “aether” or “ether” or ether-like substance in our universe ]} …

SO:  STAY TUNED, and don’t believe every-thing you read in books + news-papers re this complex + competitive field-of-study … because some of the writers are, to say it polite-ly, not be-ing fully-honest in their assessments …

TO ***LEARN*** THE TRUTH, ONE NEEDs TO ***LOVE*** THE TRUTH:

Dr.STERNGLASS is a follower of EINSTEIN, in a long line of truth-lovers, go-ing back thousands of years:  folks who wish’d to know the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and no-thing but the TRUTH, re how-nature-works … as a truth-lover my-self, I’m sure that this is why Sternglass’s work has attracted me so strong-ly …

BY USE-ING some of Sternglass’s ideas, in ways which he him-self did not visualize, I’v made some modifications to his model … e.g., I’v changed the shape and structure of his proton-model, while keep-ing his idea that 4 ep-pairs and an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center compose the proton … BUT, in my model, this positron is at the center of 4 ep-pairs which are arranged in the shape of a TETRAHEDRON, instead of in the shape of an upper-case “H”, as Sternglass indicates [p.250, Ref.#1] … PLUS, I’v reduced the un-pair’d positron’s mass, from Sternglass’s estimate of approx. 1/3 of the proton’s mass, to approx. only 1/33 of it … yet this positron (obvious-ly) carrys ALL of the NET electric-charge of the proton:  {PLEASE NOTE THAT there are OTHER electric-charges in-side-of the little-rascal, both positive and negative, but that they CANCEL} …

I’V MADE THESE CHANGEs because I now visualize the forces-which-hold-the-proton-together in a way which is QUITE-DIFFERENT from how Sternglass visualizes them … yet this different-visualization is based-on Sternglass’s concept of “LOCAL-GRAVITY” =====>>> more details in CHAPTER 10 

{ LIKE-WISE, I’v modify’d Dr.SIMHONY’s model, main-ly by visualize-ing the elements-which-compose-the-epo-lattice as ep-PAIRs, instead of as individual electrons + positrons, as he visualizes them } …

STERNGLASS’s concept of “local-gravity” is extreme-ly-relevant to my model:  I’v used it to detail inter-actions between PROTON-ELEMENTs and EPOLA-ELEMENTs {please refer to the WORD-LIST for the meaning of these terms},  and also to explain how different parts of the proton inter-act with each other … in this way I’v found some good evidence for the idea that the forces which hold protons together might be due-to the presence of the epo-lattice it-self {please refer to the WORD-LIST }, instead of to “relativistic” electro-dynamic forces associated with a speed-ing positron-at-the-center, as Sternglass says … {[ NOTE:  if THIS turns out to be true, then I might become eligible for a nomination for a NOBEL-PRIZE in physics … I wonder:  has an A-P-E (amateur-physics-enthusiast) ever received a Nobel-prize in physics ?? ]} … more details in CHAPTER 10 

PLUS:  I visualize the possibility that the proton’s four [4] proton-elements might-be what holds the positron-at-the-center in place, thru the phenomenon of “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING” —– similar to what experimental-physicists have done in physics-labs [Refs. #21 + #22 + #23] … { NOTE: each proton-element carrys a strong MAGNETIC-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field … I PROMISE that there will eventual-ly be a schematic-diagram to help illustrate this } …

BY COMBINE-ING and BLEND-ING the 2 models, Sternglass + Simhony, I’v develop’d a 3rd model, which I feel offers a clear + realistic visualization re these mysterys … I sincere-ly hope that my presentation of these ideas makes sense to some of the guys + gals who hold PhDs in the subject …

I INVITE YOU to continue read-ing, if any of this interests you …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast),  2014

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF FORE-WORDs #1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

############################################

FORE-WORDs #2:  COMETs:  DIRTY SNOW-BALLs  OR  STRONG-LY-CHARGED ELECTRICAL-OBJECTs ??

“LET’s LOOK AT IT like a MARTIAN would look at it … it has to do with CURIOSITY” —–RICHARD FEYNMAN

I LOVE THE SO-CALL’D “ELECTRIC-UNIVERSE” MODEL …  obvious-ly there’s LOTs + LOTs of electric + magnetic stuff happen’n in SOME parts of our universe, ‘special-ly where inter-stellar PLASMAs are present, and/or where new stars are in the process of form-ing …

DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS [Ref.#1] identifys the ELECTRON and the POSITRON as the ONLY true-ly FUNDAMENTAL “particles” in our universe, from which all other “particles” are made … and DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Ref.#2] identifys “SPACE” as nothing but a lattice of ELECTRONs + POSITRONs … if one regards both ELECTRONs and POSITRONs as PURE ELECTRIC ENERGY, then the two [2] models, together, describe the ultimate “ELECTRIC-UNIVERSE” model …

ONE CAN LEARN about the “electric-universe” model by view-ing some of the many YOUTUBE-videos which its proponents have posted on the world-famous world-wide-web,  i.e., the INTERNET … and I reckon that SOME of the ideas presented in these videos are actual-ly TRUE … BUT THERE ARE 2 PROBLEMs:  (1) SOME of the folks who believe in the “electric-universe” model, and have posted videos re this on YOUTUBE, are a little-bit too-dogmatic in their presentations of these ideas: details below … (2) SOME of the videos re this model present non-sense, such as those which say that inter-stellar electric-currents power OUR SUN:  tho such currents DO exist in OTHER parts of our universe (google “BIRKLAND CURRENT”), usual-ly where very-young stars are in the process of form-ing, they definite-ly do NOT power old-er stars like our sun:  videos like these are quite-bad, and subtract from the credibility of the entire “electric-universe” concept ]} …

By contrast, DR. WALLACE THORNHILL’s “Deep Impact” video is quite-good:  no crack-pottery there !!

During 2005, NASA-engineers CRASH’D an 800-pound copper projectile in-to a comet, and the results were almost-exact-ly as “electric-universe” folks had predicted, while the same results perplex’d + mystify’d many of the NASA-folks:

“It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the energetic outburst … These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT … That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred” —–WALTER THORNHILL, electric-universe proponent …

HERE IS THE VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

“Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet”  is the TITLE of this YOUTUBE-VIDEO (above):  it’s approx. 25.5 minutes long … please enjoy …

BELOW:  some text, re the same “Deep Impact” experiment, from the web-site at:   http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse17.htm

Advanced Predictions on “DeepImpact”   On July 4, 2005, the Deep Impact spacecraft fired an 820 pound copper projectile at Comet Tempel 1.

Just prior to this occasion, we registered a series of predictions at Thunderbolts.info, including but not limited to the following*:

• Considerably greater energies will be released than expected because of the electrical contributions of the comet.
• An electric discharge in advance of impact is likely. We also expect an interruption of impactor transmission before it reaches the surface.

• Scientists will find considerably less water ice and other volatiles than expected, both on the surface and beneath the surface of Tempel 1. A completely “dry” nucleus should not be surprising.
• The discharge and/or impact may initiate a new jet on the nucleus (which will be collimated – filamentary – not sprayed out) and could even abruptly change the positions and intensities of other jets due to the sudden change in charge distribution on the comet nucleus.
• The cameras will reveal sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges – the opposite of the softened relief expected of a sublimating “dirty snowball”. (A chunk of ice melting in the Sun loses its sharp relief, just like a scoop of melting ice cream.)
• Electrostatic cleaning will have cleared the surface of dust and debris.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm

“Deep Impact” – The Smoking Guns
These close-up images of Comet Tempel 1, taken by the camera on the impactor that struck the comet nucleus, reveal white patches that have continued to puzzle NASA scientists.

Electrical theorists suggest that these are the predicted whiteouts from electric arcs at the surface.

The following is a partial summary of correct predictions for “Deep Impact” based on the electric comet model:

  • ENERGY OF EXPLOSION
    It is now well documented that every scientist associated with the project was stunned by the scale of the energetic outburst. These scientists understood the kinetics of impact, and they all agreed that the explosion would be equivalent to 4.8 tons of TNT. That’s a good-sized bomb, but not even close to what occurred.

  • ADVANCED FLASH
    Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill predicted at least one flash from electric discharge prior to impact. From the standard viewpoint, that is an absurd prediction when considering an impactor being hit by a body at 23,000 miles per hour in “empty” space. But here is NASA investigator Peter Schultz’s description of the event:

    • “What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there’s a delay, then there’s a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose.”

  • MISSING WATER

    • “It’s pretty clear that this event did not produce a gusher,” said SWAS principal investigator Gary Melnick of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). “The more optimistic predictions for water output from the impact haven’t materialized…”

    • “The model predicts a sculpted surface, distinguished by sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges.”

       SHARP SURFACE RELIEF

      We not only predicted the sharply defined relief, but the specific features.  All of the expected features are present, and astronomers cannot agree on the cause, though all agree that Tempel 1 does not look like a melting “snowball.”

  • SURFACE ARCING
    The highest resolution photographs of Tempel 1, taken by the impactor, show numerous featureless patches of whiteout, most located where the electrical hypothesis would put them – on the rims of craters and on the wall of cliffs rising above flat valley floors. Electrical etching continually expands valley floors by eating away at the sharp edges of surrounding cliffs.

  • NEW JETS
    Electrical theorist Wallace Thornhill was the only one to have anticipated a shift in the arrangement, number, and the intensities of the jets away from the impact site. The 2.5 meter NOT telescope of the El Roque de los Muchachos observatory at La Palma, Spain, released images just before impact and 15 hours after impact. The observatory report states, “New jets appeared after the impact.” No explanation has ever been given.

  • ELECTRICAL DISRUPTION
    In the final seconds before impact, the video transmissions from the impactor showed considerable interference, then stopped moments before it struck the nucleus of Tempel 1. The interference pattern appeared to be electrical.

  • ELECTROSTATIC CLEANING
    The surface of Tempel 1 contrasts with the surface of the asteroid Itokawa (right). The asteroid appears to have attracted considerable surface debris electrostatically. We suggested an active comet will do the reverse.

Deep Impact – Where’s the Water?
By the time of “Deep Impact” (July 4, 2005), comet theory had fragmented into contradictory hypotheses, due in part to the absence of detectible water on cometary surfaces – a prerequisite of standard theory.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Re other aspects of the “Electric Universe” model, DR. DAVID LaPOINT has posted a series of youtube-videos, titled “The Primer Fields” which are quite-good:

LIKE Sternglass + Simhony, the work of these young-er men (Thornhill + LaPoint) support + affirm each other;  and both support + affirm the work of Sternglass + Simhony —– which, as already mention’d, represents the ULTIMATE “ELECTRIC UNIVERSE” MODEL …

REGARD-ING “RED-SHIFTs”  {please google the term “red-shift” —(often spell’d “redshift”)— if u need to}:

AS I SEE IT, one of the major problems with “electric-universe” ideas + concepts, (as their proponents present them), is the fact that many of them deny that there ever was a “BIG-BANG” — and say that our universe is NOT expand-ing … as “proof”, they usual-ly say that the OBSERVED RED-SHIFTs of objects-in-space are due-to relativistic effects of large gravity-forces associated with these objects, not the expansion of our universe … but this explanation is only PART-LY correct:  this RELATIVISTIC phenomenon, known as “INTRINSIC” or “GRAVITATIONAL” red-shift, real-ly ***IS*** responsible for SOME of the large red-shifts which astronomers observe …

SOME,  BUT  NOT  ALL  …

THE PROBLEM IS THIS:  some of the guys + gals who are AWARE of the phenomenon of “intrinsic” or “gravitational” red-shifts think that it’s the ONLY reason for the observed red-shifts of objects-in-space, and that it there-fore “proves” that our universe is not expand-ing … this is just-simply wrong:  there are AT LEAST two [2], and possibly MORE, reasons why red-shifts are associated with the light which we observe from objects-in-space:  some of the folks who are try-ing to offer a better model to replace errors of the flaw’d “STANDARD-MODEL” are now try-ing to “throw out the baby with the bath-water” … the “bath-water” here is the errors in the current-ly-accepted standard-model, which one SHOULD throw away … but one should KEEP the “baby”, because there is a lot of evidence that our universe real-ly IS expand-ing …

DR. HALTON ARP [Ref.#11] work’d many years study-ing the phenomenon of “intrinsic” red-shift, and collected lots of photographic + other kinds of evidence for it … he calls it “intrinsic red-shift”, because it’s due-to the large surface-gravity which is “INTRINSIC” to some of the objects-in-space, not to their speed-ing away from us … EINSTEIN knew about it, during a time when most of his colleagues were, [like], clue-less … but Dr.EINSTEIN was true-ly a GENIUS, in the TRUE sense of this much-ly-over-ly-used word …

I first learn’d of Dr.Arp’s important work by read-ing about it in Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1];  in it, Dr.Sternglass provides some power-fully-excellent evidence that our universe is, in fact, EXPAND-ing, and gives a correct explanation for the “intrinsic” red-shift phenomenon … “The abnormally high redshifts measured for the symmetrically-located quasars compared with the nearby galaxy are … not understandable within the framework of the standard Big Bang model.  However, they can be explained by the high local values of the gravitational constant of the massive electron[-positron] pairs in the center of a quasar, as required by the LeMaitre model and Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.  Such gravitational redshifts of quasars near active galaxies always add to the normal redshifts, due to the … expansion [of our universe]” [p.258, Ref.#1] …

PLUS:  in the SECOND-EDITION of Ref.#1, publish’d in 2001, on p.294 Sternglass says that:  “the high redshifts of quasistellar objects [quasars] located near some galaxies with much lower redshifts are not indicative of a much larger distance … but have some other origin.  As discussed above, in the electron[-positron]-pair theory, there are very high values of the local gravitational constant associated w/ the residual massive seed-pairs at the centers of newly evolving cosmological objects such as recently ejected quasistellar objects [quasars] … The high local curvature of space produces a gravitational redshift, well known from both astronomical observations and laboratory experiments, so that recently ejected quasars or dwarf galaxies from the centers of active galaxies can have higher redshifts than the galaxies from which they were ejected, as observed by Arp and others” …

INSTEAD OF DOGMATIC-LY ARGUE-ING that ALL of the observed red-shift of an object-in-space is due-to its “intrinsic” or “gravitational” red-shift, one can look at the possibility that SOME of the observed red-shift might-be due-to the fact that OUR UNIVERSE REAL-LY IS EXPAND-ING … NOTE: this kind of red-shift is known as “COSMOLOGICAL” red-shift, because it affects ALL the objects in the “cosmos” — i.e., all the objects-in-space …

IN OTHER WORDs, it’s possible, and very-probable, that at least two [2] factors are responsible for the observed red-shifts of SOME objects:  (1) a “cosmological” factor, because our universe very-probably IS expand-ing;  and  (2) an “intrinsic” [“gravitational”] factor, because it’s very-probable that SOME objects exhibit, in addition to a “cosmological” red-shift, an “intrinsic” red-shift, due-to the previous-ly-mention’d “relativistic” effects of their LARGE SURFACE-GRAVITY forces …

{ NOTE: an object which is dense and compact will have a strong SURFACE-GRAVITY, because its SURFACE is near-er to its CENTER, which is the FOCUS of its gravitational-strength … this strong SURFACE-GRAVITY will actual-ly red-shift the frequency of any radiation which comes from the object } …

CAN ONE PLEASE ACCEPT that BOTH of these RED-SHIFT EXPLANATIONs [“cosmological” and “intrinsic”] might-be, in fact, CORRECT ??

BECAUSE MANY OF THE CURRENT ARGUEMENTs re this phenomenon are like LITTLE CHILDREN IN A SAND-BOX, throw-ing sand at each other, each insist-ing that he or she is correct … one reckons that grown men + women might-be able to do better than this !!

IF ONE IS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND Dr.Sternglass’s cosmology, which he presents in his book [BEFORE THE BIG BANG, Ref.#1], then one should have no problem accept-ing that there might be more-than one explanation for the red-shift phenomenon … and there might-be a third valid explanation for observed red-shifts:  the “TIRED LIGHT HYPOTHESIS” of FRITZ ZWICKY [google it], who was many years “ahead of his time” as they say … I think that Dr.Simhony [Ref.#2] believes in Zwicky’s explanation for the red-shift phenomenon …

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF FORE-WORDs #2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

###########################################

FORE-WORDs #3:  DID EINSTEIN BELIEVE IN “ETHER” ??

“EINSTEIN was one of the most-mis-understood people in the world” —–Dr. Milo Wolff

I REMEMBER read-ing a quote from EINSTEIN where he say’d some-thing to the effect that, even if some-body found “evidence” to contradict his theory (I think that he was refer-ing to his GENERAL theory of relativity, publish’d in 1915), he would STILL believe in its correct-ness … and evident-ly there actual-ly WERE some cases where experiments or observations seem’d to prove the theory wrong, but were later them-selves proved wrong …

IT’s EASY to understand how this might have happen’d:  because, after 1919, Einstein became so-famous, so-quick-ly, that (no doubt) MANY scientists try’d to prove him wrong, and natural-ly SOME of them publish’d results which them-selves were not-correct … e.g., the astronomer ERWIN FREUNDLICH publish’d observational “evidence” which contradicted the results of the 1919 solar-eclipse “bending-of-light” observations which EDDINGTON had done — but Freundlich was proved wrong;  and also, as a consequence, ruin’d his former-ly-excellent friendship-with-Einstein !!

So it seems that Einstein was actual-ly justify’d in make-ing that bold and seem-ing-ly ARROGANT statement, which shows that he believed, not in his own infallibility, but in his confidence that not all experimentalists were very-good at do-ing experiments, and that not all observationalists were very-good at do-ing observations !!

Of course there have always been serious-scientists who have doubted the correct-ness of the General Relativity Theory, even if one total-ly-neglects the anti-Semitic propaganda which the Nazis perpetrated against it … and recent-ly there has been an INCREASE in these kinds of missiles-of-doubt thrown at Einstein’s model, from a number of different directions … And SOME of these missiles are come-ing from ignorant-directions, such as this one from the July-August 2001 issue of the magazine Infinite Energy:

“What is very new in Einstein criticism, however, is a body of emerging experimental evidence for an energetic aether, which could be tapped to run electrical machines and generate anomalous heat” … as if Einstein did-not believe in aether … 

PLEASE DON’T MIS-UNDERSTAND WHAT I’M SAY-ING HERE:  In fact, I DO BELIEVE that there IS an ether-like substance pervade-ing our universe, which explains, among other things, how PHOTONs travel from here to there to where-ever, and also how tiny “particles” (such as individual protons + atomic nuclei) behave … In fact, I believe that one can-not proper-ly understand how-protons-work unless one also understands that there is in our universe an ether-like substance, which permeates our universe without fill-ing it, like a very-very-large 3-dimensional fish-net …

{[ SOME OF WHAT FOLLOWs is in the INTRODUCTION2 section of these essays, but I repeat it here, because I feel that it’s important to know that EINSTEIN accepted the existence of a substance which he call’d “ether” or “aether” ]}:

SOME PHYSICS-WRITERs say that EINSTEIN did not believe that any kind of “ether” {“aether”} or ether-like substance exists in our universe, but that is not-correct … follow-ing are two [2] QUOTEs from the great man, one from 1894 or 1895, (when he was only 15 or 16 years old !!), and the other from 1920 … evident-ly, he initial-ly believed that “aether” exists, because most 19th-century scientists accepted and/or believed that “aether” exists … then for a while he doubted the existence of “aether” — but, evident-ly, by 1920 he had come back to believe-ing in its existence …

NOTE:  both of the Einstein-quotes (below) are appropriate for modern-folks, today, who want to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth re these mysterys:  because some of the smart-est and most-respected “authoritys” in physics have —(for several GENERATIONs, since the 1930s)— been say-ing (and teach-ing grad-students, world-wide) that there is no “aether” [“ether”] or aether-like stuff in our universe …

QUOTE from 1894 or 1895:  “When the electric current comes into being, it immediately sets the surrounding aether in some kind of instantaneous motion, the nature of which has still not been exactly determined.  In spite of the continuation of the cause of this motion, namely the electric current, the motion ceases, but the aether remains in a potential state and produces a magnetic field … the magnetic field is a potential state [of the aether]”  —–EINSTEIN, age 15 or 16  { from the web-site at:  http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf } …

{[ PLEASE NOTE that the 15-or-16-year-old Einstein did-not actual-ly figure any of this out by him-self, but was mere-ly describe-ing the prevail-ing view at that time, which he had learn’d from his studys ]} …

QUOTE from 1920:  in 1920, Einstein gave a speech at the University of Leiden, in HOLLAND:  here’s what he say’d, in the LAST PARAGRAPH of that speech:  “Recapitulating … According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there … would be no propagation of light  —–EINSTEIN, 1920 …   { from the web-site at:   http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Leiden-1920.htm }” …

SO:  the writer of the article in Infinite Energy magazine, quoted above, did-not do his or her home-work re Einstein’s belief-in-“ether” … This is not-surprise-ing, because, as Dr. Milo Wolff says in a youtube-video:

“Einstein was one of the most-mis-understood people in the world” …

{[ TO VIEW THIS VIDEO, go to http://www.YOUTUBE.com and in-put “Milo Wolff — Wave Structure of Matter” in-to the “search-box” ]} …

People LOVE to take “pot-shots” at famous-people in their field-of-study;  but, (in MOST cases), a modern physicist criticize-ing Einstein is like an English-major criticize-ing Shakespeare … Of course, Einstein made mis-takes, and he admitted it:  but (in my opinion) the vast majority of average physicists-who-criticize-him do so from a place of ignorance and incomprehension, and usual-ly for the wrong reasons …

LIKE-WISE for those who criticize Dr. Ernest Sternglass or Dr. Menahem Simhony, who have become my two [2] main PHYSICS-MENTORs, ever since I “discover’d” Sternglass’s book in the main-library, down-town, in BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, in MAY-2009 … Of course, NOT VERY-MANY PHYSICISTs HAVE EVER CRITICIZED EITHER OF THE ELDER-LY GENTLEMEN, for the very-simple reason that not very-many physicists have ever hear’d of either of them:  sad-ly, but true-ly, they are ALMOST-TOTAL-LY-UN-KNOWN:  not, as one might suspect, because they are “crack-pots” —– but because of how difficult it is to get one’s paper publish’d in a “reputable” journal if one’s theory or model contradicts the so-call’d “standard-model” …

{[ BTW:  Sternglass is definite-ly a follow-er of Einstein, while Simhony is definite-ly not, and actual-ly MOCKs some of Einstein’s ideas … probably, I might add, from a much-better perspective than MOST of the physicists who criticize the great man ]} … and yet their two models [Sternglass + Simhony] support + affirm each other, THO THEY NEVER COLLABORATED …

THIS-HERE is a video of Dr.Sternglass, film’d in BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA during 2006, when he was on his way to JAPAN to speak before the Japanese Parliament:  please enjoy …..

$$$$$$$$ << END OF FORE-WORDs #3 >> $$$$$$$$

##################################

WORD-LIST

“Word-up” —–anonymous:  a slang-phrase, indicate-ing agreement …

NOTE1:  THIS WORD-LIST IS ABOUT THE SEVERAL TECHNICAL-WORDs AND TECHNICAL-TERMs WHICH ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PRESENTATION OF THE STERNGLASS-SIMHONY MODEL, AS I HAVE MODIFY’D IT … TECHNICAL-TERMs WHICH ARE COMMON TO “ORDINARY” PHYSICS —(e.g., “pi-meson” “angular-momentum” “torus” “big bang” etc.)— ARE NOT HERE … http://www.WIKIPEDIA.com IS A GOOD-PLACE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THEM … OF COURSE, ONE CAN FIND THEM ALSO IN PHYSICS-BOOKs …

NOTE2:  words and terms in bold letters are in the WORD-LIST …

cosmological-system [cosmo.syst]:  pieces of the primeval-atom … sternglass details these in his “TABLE 1 [p.234, Ref.#1] … he says that, for each cosmological-system, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius, regard-less of its size, which can be as large as a star or galaxy, or as small as a pi-meson …

cosmo.syst:  (see “cosmological-system”) …

count-down to the big-bang:  this is my way to describe the long process which STERNGLASS details in his book [Ref.#1] … he says that the primeval-atom divided-in-half, and each piece divided-in-half, and so on, many-many times, until there was a phase-transition, in which many-many tiny pieces of the primeval-atom re-configured, in a way which led to the production of protons, PLUS the release of LARGE-AMOUNTs of energy …

dark-matter:  tho this term appears in standard physics-books, it usual-ly appears with the statement that physicists don’t know exact-ly what it is … by contrast, STERNGLASS offers a very-good explanation re what dark-matter is [p.211, Ref.#1] …

delayed mini-Bang:  STERNGLASS says that these are almost-identical to the BIG-BANG, except that small-er amounts-of-energy are involved … he says that his model predicts that mini-Bangs should be happen-ing during all the time since the BIG-BANG … PLUS: he says that the “gamma-ray bursters” which astronomers observe, (also-call’d “quasars”), are in fact the delayed mini-Bangs which his model predicts …

ELASTIC-DISPLACEMENT of epola-elements:  this is the amount of out-ward movement of the eight [8] epola-elements due-to the presence of a proton (or any other kind of atomic-nucleus) at the center of a cube-shaped epola-cell … {[obvious-ly, 8 [eight] epola-elements define a cube]} …

electron-positron pair:  tho this term appears in many standard physics-books, I include it here in the WORD-LIST because, in the model which I present here, the electron + positron in a pair move around+around+around each other, at almost the speed of light [Ref.#1, Ref. #1a] … surprise-ing-ly, some guys + gals who hold PhDs have a problem with this idea, because it’s not in the standard-model of particle physics …

electron-positron lattice model of space:  this is DR.SIMHONY’s name for his model [Ref.#2] …

electron-positron pair model of matter:  this is DR.STERNGLASS’s name for his model [Ref.#1] …

ep-pair:  (see “electron-positron pair”) …

epo-lattice:  short for “electron-positron lattice” in DR.SIMHONY’s model … like the “aether” of MAXWELL and FARADAY, it permeates our universe, and carrys electromagnetic-radiation … un-like “aether”, it’s not thin or wispy or aetheric or aethereal, but “stiffer than a diamond” [Ref.#2], and it’s responsible for the existence of GRAVITY … SIMHONY says that individual electrons + positrons comprise the epola, while in my model it’s ep-PAIRs … in both models the epola-elements are arranged in a cubic-lattice, exact-ly like the structure of ordinary TABLE-SALT, but with epola-elements much-much near-er to each other than sodium-atom-nuclei + chlorine-atom-nuclei in a salt-crystal …

epola:  (see “epo-lattice”) …

epola-cell:  the tiny cube, with sides less-than 10^(-12) cm long, [ie, < 10^(-14) meter long] … eight [8] next-neighbor epola-elements in the lattice DEFINE a single epola-cell 

epola-element:  one of the un-imagine-ably large number of elements which comprise the epo-lattice;  each is the mass of an electron, or positron, but has ZERO weight, because the epo-lattice is what gifts weight to all the other stuff in our universe, because it’s responsible for the existence of GRAVITY, and also INERTIA …

epola’s ELASTIC-CONSTANT:  analogous to the “k” in “HOOKE’s LAW”:  the epo-lattice is an elastic substance, like JELLO, and epola-cells expand + contract due-to inter-actions with “particles” — such as protons …

epola’s ELASTIC-FORCE:  this is the in-ward-ly-directed “push-back” force which the expanded epola-cell exerts on the proton (or atomic-nucleus) in-side-of it …

ep-pair:  (see “electron-positron pair”) …

expanded lattice-length (EXPANDED-LL):  this is the length of one side of an epola-cell which has expanded due-to the presence of a proton, or other tiny-object, in-side-of it … one can also visualize an expanded epola-cell as a sphere …

G-local:  (see “local-gravity”) …

inner-space:  the volume in-side-of a cosmological-system, where the electron and positron which comprise the system “see” only each other, and experience a local-gravity, which is great-er-than NEWTON’s gravity by a factor which is inverse-ly proportional to the system’s radius … one can also identify a similar inner-space for a tiny-object such as a PROTON … for such a tiny system, local-gravity is very-large:  i.e., > 10^(40)x great-er-than NEWTON’s gravity …

lattice-length (LL) the distance between 2 next-neighbor epola-elements … i.e., the length of one side of an epola-cell … in my modification of Dr.Simhony’s model, it’s approx. 7.62 x 10^(-13) cm,  i.e., 7.62 x 10^(-15) meter …

local-gravity:  a concept in STERNGLASS’s model:  the local-gravity in-side-of the inner-space of a cosmological-system is larger for small-er systems, proportional-to the inverse of the system’s radius …

mini-Bang:  (see “delayed mini-Bang”) …

primeval-atom:  (one can google this term for more info);  DR. GEORGES LeMAITRE first proposed this theoretical entity, during the first-half of the 20th-century … STERNGLASS adopted it from LeMAITRE …

proton-element:  one of the four [4] ep-pairs which, (along with an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center), compose THE PROTON in STERNGLASS’s model;  CHAPTER 3 details how proton-elements inter-act with epola-elements in my model … proton-elements are FREE to move thru the epola, while epola-elements are BOUND to specific locations, and not-free to travel or SWIRL, tho each can VIBRATE [“oscillate”] around its location in the lattice …

seeds [of galaxys + stars]:  in STERNGLASS’s model, every cosmological-system, (whether it’s the size of a galaxy, or a star, or a small-er system), starts as a “seed”, which might explode, in a “delayed mini-Bang” … this process forms (one wants to say “creates”) zillions of protons + neutrons which eventual-ly form the galaxy or star or small-er system … he says that each seed consists of an electron-positron pair, whose e and p rotate or orbit around each other (or “oscillate”) at almost the speed of light … one can also visualize this as a very-rapid SWIRL-ING of PURE ENERGY, or as a very-rapid ELECTRICAL-OSCILLATION …

Sternglass.cosmo.syst:  (see “cosmological-system”) …

white-hole:  in STERNGLASS’s model, the seeds [of galaxys + stars] eventual-ly spit out large-amounts of energy, much of it in the form of gamma-rays, and also lots of matter, in the form of new-ly-form’d (one wants to say “new-ly-created”) PROTONs + NEUTRONs … nothing gets suck’d in, so these are more like “white-holes” than “black-holes” …

$$$$$$$$$$$  <<  END  OF  WORD-LIST >>  $$$$$$$$$$$

###################################

INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTER 1:

by  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  NEWARK, DELAWARE, USA   mark.creekwater@gmail.com  21-DECEMBER-2014

“these results convinced me that there would be no need to postulate some as-yet-unknown form of dark matter particles producing new types of forces that were being widely discussed in the literature [early 1980s] as perhaps constituting the invisible or ‘missing’ matter in the universe” [Dr. Ernest Sternglass, p.211, Ref.#1] …

Almost every physics-book presents “dark-matter” as one of the out-stand-ing mysterys of physics … What folks call “dark matter” is a kind of “stuff” which Dr.Sternglass describes, very-specific-ly, but which other theorists ONLY HINT AT, very speculative-ly, and with no real theory or model to offer to solve the “mystery” … For example, J.A.WHEELER once hypothesized the existence of what he call’d “MATTER WITHOUT MATTER” [p.237, Ref.#24], which had mass and energy-content, but no protons or neutrons …

The “cosmological-systems” [cosmo.systs] [p.234, Ref.#1] in Sternglass’s model are like that:  each cosmo.syst has a strong magnetic-field, and mass, and energy-content, but no protons or neutrons … In Sternglass’s model, these “cosmological-systems” are the “seeds” [Sternglass’s word] of protons + neutrons:  a LARGE cosmo.syst produces —(one wants to say “creates” !!)— a LARGE collection of protons + neutrons, + other stuff, which then condenses, form-ing a LARGE system of “ordinary” stuff, such as a star or galaxy … like-wise, a SMALL cosmo.syst produces (“creates” or “births”) a SMALL system, perhaps a planet or a moon … thus the model explains the origin of all the PROTONs + NEUTRONs which now exist;  PLUS, it explains the DISTRIBUTION-PATTERNs of the many-many different-ly-sized “systems” in our universe — (planets + stars + star-clusters + “globular-clusters” + small-galaxys + large-galaxys + galaxy-clusters, etc.) … Sternglass details this in his book [p.234, Ref.#1] 

STERNGLASS’s COSMOLOGY

FOLLOW-ING GEORGES LeMAITRE’s MODEL [google it],  STERNGLASS shows the PHYSICAL POSSIBILITY that our universe once consisted of only ONE entity, the “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” of LeMAITRE’s model … {LeMAITRE calls this massive-ly-massive entity an “EGG”,  while Sternglass calls it a “SEED” — the “seed of our universe”} … he says that its electro-magnetic-field [em-field] was huge, essential-ly the size of our universe …

{FOR ME, it’s easy-er to visualize the immense em-field than the “atom” — so I visualize the “primeval-atom” as only that:  a humongous-ly-large electro-magnetic-field} …

ACCORD-ING TO this STERNGLASS-LeMAITRE MODEL, the primeval-atom initial-ly contain’d all the energy which eventual-ly produced our entire universe … [but there were NO PROTONs or NEUTRONs, yet —– only PURE ENERGY] … this primeval-atom —(and its em-field)— divided in half, and each piece divided in half, and each of THEM divided in half, and so on and so forth … after many zillions of divide-in-half events, there were zillions of small-er systems, with small-er em-fields … I call this divide-in-half scenario “the count-down to the big-bang” … Sternglass calls these small-er systems “cosmological-systems” [cosmo.systs], regard-less of their mass, which might-be that of a star or galaxy, or that of a sub-atomic “particle” … he says that, for each cosmo.syst, regard-less of its size or mass, “the mass is proportional to the square of the radius, as if the mass were a plane disk of constant density, exactly the kind of system into which old spiral galaxies collapse … [which] is also the relation between mass and size of large vortices such as hurricanes and tornados” [p.225, Ref.#1] …

He says that each cosmo.syst consists of an electron-positron pair, hence the name of his model:  “THE ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIR MODEL OF MATTER” … he says that the e and p in a cosmo.syst “rotate” or “orbit” around each other so that the edge of their electromagnetic-field moves at almost the speed of light, and that there is “no upper limit” to the amount-of-energy (and therefore mass) which such a rotate-ing “relativistic electron-positron pair system” [p.175, Ref.#1] can contain  …

A full-reading of Sternglass’s book reveals his DISDAIN for much of what particle-theorists have done during the past 40 years, as the follow-ing quote shows:

“By 1994, I had worked out the details of the embryonic structure of the universe [without propose-ing any new particles] … [mean-while] many as-yet-undetected new kinds of particles have been proposed by [standard-model] particle theorists in the last two decades.  But despite many searches in high-energy experiments and among cosmic rays, none have been found” [pp.245+246, Ref.#1] …..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

################################

CHAPTER 1:  WHAT IS “DARK-MATTER”

“Do not add new things without necessity” —–WILLIAM of OCCAM, 14th-century English Franciscan monk, and scientist, excommunicated by the pope …

To understand Sternglass’s work, one should also understand the work of DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY, (age 92, in 2015), which supports + affirms that of Sternglass:  sad-ly, Dr.Simhony, too, is almost-un-known, for some of the same reasons why Sternglass is … ALMOST ALL of SIMHONY’s work is on the internet:  go to http://www.EPOLA.org … OR, GOOGLE “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” …

AT http://www.AMAZON.com, MOST OF THE REVIEWs of Sternglass’s book are POSITIVE … PERSONAL-LY,  I’v found Sternglass’s model, which he details in his book [Ref.#1], to be very-help-full to answer some of the questions which other books and web-sites raise, and for which they have no answers … FOR EXAMPLE,  HERE’s A QUOTE FROM DR. DOUGLAS PINNOW’s WEB-SITE, http://www.DARKMATTERPHYSICS.INFO [Ref.#10]:

“It’s a truly amazing fact that most of the matter in the universe has not yet been seen nor identified” … of course, Dr.Pinnow is here refer-ing to so-call’d “DARK-MATTER” …

DR.STERNGLASS EXPLAINs THAT MUCH OF THE “DARK MATTER” IN OUR UNIVERSE IS IN THE “fragments of the original primeval atom [of GEORGES LeMAITRE’s model: GOOGLE it] ejected to large distances in the explosive ‘mini-Bang’ that had to accompany the formation of every cosmological structure [ie, every moon, planet, star, galaxy,  etc.] in a Lemaitre-type model … the existence of quasars and active cores of galaxies over a wide range of distances indicated that there were apparently delayed mini-Bangs in which new galaxies were created, as Maarten Schmidt had conjectured, together with vast amounts of dust and gas ejected into space” [p.211, Ref.#1] …

ACCORD-ING TO STERNGLASS’s MODEL, these fragments of the primeval-atom are “seeds of galaxies and stars”, and are SPREAD THROUGHOUT OUR UNIVERSE, ever since the big bang … He says that a seed remains “dormant” for MILLIONs or BILLIONs of years, LURK-ING in space, and then, after a long “count-down” process, during which the system divides-in-half, again + again + again,  it SUDDEN-LY EXPLODEs, violent-ly out-ward-ly … he calls this explosion a “mini-Bang”, and says that the “gamma-ray bursters” —(also call’d “quasars”)— which astronomers have observed since the 1970s, are in fact the “delayed mini-Bangs” which his model predicts:

“That the evolution of the universe is continuing seems to be borne out by astronomical observations over the last three decades, which show matter being ejected from compact, massive, active [centers] of galaxies, originally called quasi-stellar objects or “quasars” … These extremely powerful objects could arise from as-yet-incompletely-divided seed-pairs remaining after the Big Bang” [p.6, Ref.#1] …

PLUS:  “because there was no upper limit to the energy contained in the relativistic electron-positron system … I realized that a higher energy version of this microscopic structure could in principle form the seed of stars, galaxies, and the entire universe, as difficult as this was to contemplate” [p.175, Ref.#1] …

Sternglass mentions in his book that the ideas of astronomer VICTOR AMBARTSUMIAN help’d him come to this conclusion … Ambartsumian “was the first to suggest that nuclei of galaxies were able to eject matter on such a scale as to give birth … to whole [small-er] galaxies — a view completely different from the classical one [which says that] galaxies condensed [slow-ly] from the primeval gas filling the universe” [Ref.#9, p.134]

… “Ambartsumian had found many examples where smaller galaxies seemed to have been ejected from larger ones in chain-like arrangements” [p.170, Ref.#1] …

MORE DETAILs:  “In the early 1970s … radio astronomy had already led to the discovery of galaxies emitting powerful fluxes of of radio waves … from the … central parts of galaxies, or from two galaxy-size plasma blobs symmetrically disposed with respect to the parent galaxy … These observations indicated that nuclei of galaxies were able to eject beams of matter and energy, from a region with quite small dimensions, in an unexpectedly efficient way [MY EMPHASIS] … culminat[ing] in the discovery of quasars, objects still more powerful and compact” [Ref.#9, p.134] … NOTE:Dr. HALTON ARP[Ref.#11] spent many years, almost until his death in 2012, study-ing this phenomenon, and collected some very-large amounts of photographic and other kinds of evidence for it …

{ The youtube-videos (above) feature Dr. Arp, along with Drs. MARGARET and GEOFFREY BURBIDGE, and also SIR FRED HOYLE, a famous genius or near-genius in his field … The videos explain many details re this amaze-ing phenomenon, which involves a high-energy “ENGINE” at the center of a galaxy “eject-ing” the “seed” [Sternglass’s word] of a small-er galaxy, some-thing which the standard-model just-simply does-not consider possible !!  Sternglass mentions Dr. Arp in his book, which is how I first learn’d about Arp’s important work } …

THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY which a “quasar” or a “gamma-ray burster” radiates is exact-ly in accord with the STERNGLASS-LeMAITRE MODEL … The large “cosmological-systems” in Sternglass’s model are, in effect, GIGANTIC ELECTRICAL CAPACITORs (details in APPENDIX2) — able to temporary-ly store enough energy to produce a star or galaxy … { This “temporary” storage-time might-be for millions or billions of years } … These are the “SEEDs” which get ejected from larger-systems and then form smaller-systems:  in his book [Ref.#1] Sternglass details how this happens …

THE COSMOLOGICAL-SYSTEMs [cosmo.systs] in Sternglass’s model were/are PURE ENERGY,  in the form of ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELDs … Each had/has a “shelf-life” of a specific number of years, perhaps > a billion years [TABLE 1, p.234, Ref.#1];  then —{shift-ing to the present-tense}— it EXPLODEs VIOLENT-LY OUT-WARD-LY, produce-ing a “mini-Bang” —as Sternglass calls them … He says that the SOURCE of this violent energy, (pound-for-pound MORE POWER-FULL THAN AN H-BOMB), is in a “phase-transition” [pp.11-12, Ref.1] in which the ep-pairs, (whose EM-fields had constituted PURE ENERGY), re-configure in a way which LEADs TO THE PRODUCTION OF PROTONs … In other words, the PURE ENERGY which existed BEFORE THE BIG BANG sudden-ly CONDENSEs, form-ing zillions of NEUTRONs, most of which quick-ly DECAY, produce-ing PROTONs … Thus the model explains the ORIGIN of ALL THE PROTONs + NEUTRONs WHICH NOW EXIST !!  “the explosive creation of protons accompanied by other particles in the final stage of division may explain the mysterious gamma-ray bursts detected by satellites for decades and recently found to come from the centers of newly evolving distant galaxies, exactly as LeMaitre had predicted” [p.5, Ref.#1] …

{ NOTE:  one can visualize this energy-release-ing proton+neutron-produce-ing phase-transition as the collapse of the ELECTRICAL-POTENTIAL [ie, VOLTAGE] of a very-very-very-large CAPACITOR … This collapse is SO-VIOLENT that it creates tiny whirl-pools [vortexes] of swirl-ing pure-energy, which one can also visualize as rotate-ing ep-pairs, as Sternglass does … Because there’s no friction to slow the little-rascals down, they’r still swirl-ing, or rotate-ing, or orbit-ing, or oscillate-ing, with essential-ly the same amount-of-energy —(and angular-momentum)— which they had BILLIONs-of-YEARs AGO, at the START of the big-bang } …

{USE-ING STARDARD MATH-FORMULAs FOR CAPACITANCE, given in some ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING text-books, one can derive a formula for the amount of WORK (= ENERGY) needed, theoretic-ly, to charge-up a capacitor the size of our universe … MORE DETAILs in APPENDIX2} 

STERNGLASS SAYs THAT not all of the “seeds of galaxies and stars” explode at the same time, as each is on its own cosmic time-schedule, due-to the  “time-dilating relativistic effects”  of its own huge GRAVITY … So there might be un-exploded “seeds” at the center of our galaxy, and other galaxys … These “seeds” can be of any size, from that of a pi-meson, to that of a star, or larger … These are possibly the sources for the POWER-FULL GAMMA-RAYs (each contain-ing 5 to 11 billion electron-volts) which Dr.Pinnow talks about [Ref.#10] 

THE BIG-EST SEEDs, (i.e., seeds of “supercomplexes of galaxies” [p.234, Ref.#1]), are main-ly at the far-edges of our universe … seeds of large galaxys are around the edges of complexes, while seeds of small galaxys are around the edges of large galaxys, and so on … (NOTE: our home-galaxy, the “Milky Way”, is a large galaxy) … STERNGLASS’s MODEL predicts that the objects-in-space which astronomers observe are arranged in these kinds of “hierarchical”, patterns … He says that RENE DESCARTES (1596 – 1650) also believed this …

PLUS: SEEDs OF SMALL-ER SYSTEMs might-be located at the CENTERs of larger systems:  this is why astronomers observe large galaxys which have spit-out seeds of small-er galaxys, (mention’d above), which are then identify’d as “QUASARs” … The 2 videos re Dr. Halton Arp’s work, (above), are ALL ABOUT this phenomenon …

Regard-ing this phenomenon —{[ which has, by the way, generated some robust denials from standard-model believers (because the standard-model has no explanation for such power-full ejections) ]}— Sternglass says that “entire stellar associations and larger systems such as galaxies that contain by now many burned out white dwarf stars, neutron stars, or black holes would also have been ejected from the central clusters in the largest systems … This would explain the recent discovery of stars far from any galaxy, as well as a surprising number of very large, dim spiral galaxies containing only very old stars apparently ejected from the centers of superclusters at the time of the Big Bang” [p.245, Ref.#1] …

STERNGLASS’s MODEL EXPLAINs WHAT “DARK-MATTER” IS

AS ALREADY MENTION’D:  in Sternglass’s model, the “seeds of galaxies and stars” are remnants of the original “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” —–from the theory of GEORGES LeMAITRE {GOOGLE IT} … Sternglass says that the “phase-transition”  which caused the “BIG-BANG” explosion, tho very-very power-full, involved “only a per cent of so of all the matter in the universe … As a result, when the initial formation of helium and other low-mass elements such as lithium occurred a few seconds or minutes into the Big Bang, the process of element formation involved only a few per cent of all the mass in the universe” [p.246, Ref.#1] … The remainder is still OUT THERE, LURK-ING, in an un-exploded form, not like ***ANY*** of the “KNOWN” forms of matter, and not-able to emit light, so one can-not see it … THIS IS WHAT “DARK-MATTER” IS:  bits of tiny-but-massive “STUFF”, each on its own cosmic time-schedule, present-ly “dormant”, but possibly to explode, at any time, in a “delayed mini-Bang” [STERNGLASS’s PHRASE], which future astronomers might observe, and which they might call a “GAMMA-RAY BURSTER” or a “QUASAR” … Sternglass says that his model predicts these “delayed mini-Bangs” to be happen-ing, regular-ly, during all the time since the “BIG-BANG” [p.258, Ref.#1] … I HOPE THAT THIS MAKEs SENSE TO YOU AS I’V EXPLAIN’D IT … I URGE YOU TO READ STERNGLASS’s BOOK [Ref.#1], FOR MORE DETAILs !!

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

#################################

CHAPTER 2:  WHAT DO PROTONs LOOK LIKE ??

“TO UNDERSTAND HOW PROTONs WORK, one needs to keep a sense-of-wonder in one’s heart + mind … other-wise, one might feel like a one-legged man (or woman) in a butt-kick-ing contest”   —–MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO, ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast)

BASIC-LY, DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS says that the proton is composed of 4 [four] electron-positron PAIRs,  plus an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center of the proton … he says that each of the 4 ep-pairs carrys a strong magnetic-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field …

AS YOU READ THIS ESSAY,  PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT it now seems that, in our universe, there is real-ly only one physical entity, ENERGY … as a recent book-writer express’d this idea,  “everything … anything you hold … no matter how dense, how heavy, how large, on its most fundamental level boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with a background sea of electromagnetic and other energy fields — a kind of electromagnetic drag force … mass [is] not equivalent to energy;  mass [IS] energy … more fundamentally, there is no mass … there is only charge” [from the book THE FIELD (2002), by LYNNE McTAGGART, p.33] [Ref.#7] 

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT what McTaggart calls “a background sea of electromagnetic and other fields” is, no doubt, due entire-ly to the existence of the EPOLA [electron-positron lattice] of DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY’s “epola model of space” [Ref.#2],  if it exists;  or to some OTHER kind of aether-like substance …

SO:  what DO protons look like ??  THIS IS an important question, because, by weight, protons + neutrons comprise most of the “ordinary” stuff in our universe … BY WEIGHT, moons + planets + stars + galaxys are most-ly composed of various combinations of protons + neutrons … one would think that physicists would have a good idea re what-protons-look-like;  in fact they do not:  it is a HISTORICAL-FACT that, since the 1930s, the folks who develop’d the “standard model” have taught grad-students in physics-departments, world-wide, that the standard-model provides no capability to visualize what tiny-things actual-ly LOOK-like, tho it does provide some power-full MATH-tools to describe their behavior …

THE STANDARD MODEL ??

THIS IS THE COMMON NAME for the physics-theorys which are common-ly accepted by the physics-community … in addition to lack-ing a good way to visualize the proton, and other tiny-objects, standard-model believers believe in so-call’d “quarks”, which have NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN A PHYSICS-LAB [pp. 323-324, Ref.#17] … when it became evident that they were not-able to find any “quarks” in-side-of protons or neutrons, or any other tiny-objects, particle-physicists modify’d quark-theory in a vain + desperate attempt to explain why … even tho MURRAY GELL-MANN, who introduced “quark-theory” during the 1960s, say’d at that time that he was not total-ly sure that “quarks” actual-ly exist … details in APPENDIX8 …

Here is how a current book-writer describes the standard-model:  “a bit like an aging actor  whose best work is decades old  and whose faults once seemed minor  but are now glaring” [p.298, Ref. #12] …

In addition to not be-ing able to VISUALIZE what protons look like, the standard-model also DENYs the existence of “aether” or “ether” or ANY KIND OF ETHER-LIKE SUBSTANCE in our universe …

DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Ref.#2] BEGs TO DIFFER:  his “Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” provides a clear + realistic description of a substance which is similar to the ether or aether in which many of the heavy-hitters of 19th-century physics believed —– include-ing MAXWELL + FARADAY, back in the days when physics was call’d “natural philosophy” …

SIMHONY PREFERs that we call this stuff EPOLA, not ether or aether, because it’s substantial-ly-different from the “aether” of 19th-century science … “EPOLA” is short for “electron-positron lattice”:  Simhony says that an ocean of electrons + positrons permeates our universe without fill-ing it, inter-penetrate-ing all the “ordinary” matter in our universe, like a very-very-large 3-dimensional fish-net … he says that the elements which compose this EPO-LATTICE, (as I refer to it in these essays), are arranged in a cubic-lattice structure, [“face-centered cubic”], and so small that more-than a TRILLION of them occupy the space which a single hydrogen-atom also occupys … how is this possible ??  easy !!  it’s because ATOMs ARE MOST-LY EMPTY-SPACE !!  the only part of a hydrogen-atom —(or any other kind of atom)— which has a problem share-ing space with the elements which compose the epo-lattice is the NUCLEUS, and most of THOSE little-rascals are so small that they easy-ly go between two of the epola-elements …

{[ A LARGE nucleus, like uranium or plutonium, is more at-risk to SPLIT IN-TO 2 PIECEs —(i.e., to experience “FISSION”)— because, as Dr.Simhony notes, it’s just-simply too-large to easy-ly go between 2 epola-elements ]} 

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE between the EPOLA of SIMHONY’s model and the AETHER of MAXWELL + FARADAY is this:  M. and F. believed that their “aether” was thin and wispy (ie, “aetheric” or “aethereal”), while info on the “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” web-site says that his “epola” is “STIFFER THAN A DIAMOND” … the reason why we feel almost no resistance from it is because the spaces between the elements which compose it are JUST THE RIGHT SIZE for the nucleus of an atom to pass between them …

IN OTHER WORDs:  the nuclei of all the atoms in our physical-bodys are always passing between the elements which compose the EPO-LATTICE … Simhony says that this is why accelerate-ing-bodys feel INERTIA:  there’s always a small amount of “drag” — because the nuclei in an accelerate-ing body are always inter-act-ing with epola-elements …

{ PLEASE  NOTE  that a substance can be BOTH “stiff” AND “elastic” … ie, there is no contradiction between these 2 words … FOR EXAMPLE: a billiard-ball is “stiff” — but will deform to a slight-ly non-spherical shape, when an other billiard-ball hits it, so that they bounce apart, rather than shatter … a barn-door is “stiff” — but if one throws a rock at it, it will deform slight-ly, then bounce back, so that the rock, too, bounces back … in EACH case, the fact that the object deforms AND then bounces back is evidence that it is “ELASTIC” } …

Simhony says that, in addition to transmit-ing all the ELECTROMAGNETIC-SIGNALs which travel thru SPACE, the epola is also responsible for GRAVITY … but that, as one can say, is “beyond the scope of this book” … for details, go to simhony’s publish’d books + web-sites [Refs. #2, #2a] … HINT:  gravity doesn’t PULL — it PUSHES !!

BY AFFIRM-ING THE EXISTENCE OF THE EPOLA, (“electron-positron lattice”), Dr.Simhony’s “electron-positron lattice model of space” provides a near-perfect complement to Dr.Sternglass’s “electron-positron pair model of matter” …

THO THE 2 GENTLEMEN NEVER COLLABORATED, they produced 2 models of our universe which support + affirm each other … [it seems that, as an old SAYING states:  “GREAT MINDs THINK ALIKE” !!] … in the next section, I will describe Sternglass’s PROTON-MODEL, and my modification of it … plus, i’ll describe Simhony’s EPOLA-MODEL and my modification of it …

PLEASE READ MORE if any of this interests you !!

DR. STERNGLASS’s PROTON-MODEL ??

BY THE MID-1950s  —(approx. 10 years before MURRAY GELL-MANN publish’d quark-theory)—  Sternglass was aware that the proton  “had a complex structure, unlike the electron” [p.114, Ref.#1] … At that time he was work-ing with ROBERT HOFSTADTER, who was in charge of the 150-foot-long LINEAR-[particle]-ACCELERATOR at STANFORD UNIVERSITY … {Hofstadter actual-ly won a NOBEL PRIZE for this research, in 1961, several years before the “quark”-model appear’d} … SETH NEDDERMEYER, who help’d CARL ANDERSON “discover” the MU-MESON (muon) in 1936, was also there …

Sternglass says that their accelerator (at Stanford University) was one of the first machines with enough power “to begin to disclose the size and structure of the proton” [p.113, Ref.#1] … they found in-side-of the proton several distinct sources of electric-charges, and MAGNETIC-FIELDs, too, which convinced them that the proton (and the neutron, too) is a “complex” object —– most-likely composed of simpler, more-fundamental, objects, such as electrons + positrons:  “An electron-positron structure for the proton is … strongly suggested by the fact that, whenever protons are seen to annihilate with oppositely charged anti-protons in the laboratory, the short-lived mesons that are produced always decay into electrons and positrons, together with various forms of radiation, but never into fractional charges” [p.7, Ref.#1]

SINCE THE 1950s, Sternglass devoted many years, main-ly during his free-time, to develop a clear + realistic PROTON-MODEL … it’s on p.250 in his book [Ref.#1] …

BASIC-LY, he says that the proton is composed of 4 [four] electron-positron PAIRs,  plus an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center of the proton … he says that each of the 4 ep-pairs carrys a strong magnetic-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field … I call the 4 ep-pairs “PROTON-ELEMENTs” — to distinguish them from “EPOLA-ELEMENTs”, which are an important-part of Simhony’s model [Ref.#2] …

ON p.250, Ref.#1,  Sternglass’s proton model appears as a schematic-diagram … it looks-like an upper-case letter “H” … the 4 ep-pairs are on the out-side corners of the “H”,  while the horizontal cross-piece at the center of the “H” is the positron-at-the-proton’s-center …

IN MY MODIFICATION of Sternglass’s proton-model, the proton’s “H” shape is slight-ly TWISTED, form-ing a slight-ly-more-3-dimensional object — more like a TETRAHEDRON …

I  VISUALIZE THE PROTON as a TETRAHEDRON-SHAPED object, in-side-of one of the CUBE-SHAPED epola-cells in SIMHONY’s model [Ref.#2] … I visualize a PROTON cause-ing the epola-cell to expand, by interfere-ing with the magnetic-forces which hold the lattice together … so each of the eight [8] elements which define the epola-cell move out-ward-ly, away from the proton’s center … One can visualize the proton as always “plucking at the corners” of the epola-cell in which it’s located [Ref.#3], due to MAGNETIC-forces between proton-elements and epola-elements …

{ NOTE:  in my model, the four [4] PROTON-ELEMENTs (which carry most of the mass of the proton) inter-act MAG’IC-LY —–{( MAGNETIC-LY )}—– with the eight [8] EPOLA-ELEMENTs which comprise the epola-cell in which the proton is located:  epola-elements are much small-er + less-massive than proton-elements, but more DENSE:  [more details in APPENDIX9] … Of course, because the proton never stands still, but always moves from one epola-cell to an other to an other,  it’s always inter-act-ing with different epola-elements, as it moves from one epola-cell to the next one:  usual-ly it moves slow-ly, so that there are no complicate-ing “relativistic” effects } …

SO, geometric-ly, this is a very-simple, yet very-interest-ing, situation:  a TETRAHEDRON inscribed in-side-of a CUBE … and yes, I PROMISE that there will eventual-ly be a schematic-diagram to help illustrate this …

PLUS:  I visualize the possibility that the proton’s four [4] proton-elements might-be what holds the positron-at-the-center in place, thru the phenomenon of “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING” —– similar to what experimental-physicists have done in physics-labs [Refs. #21, #22, #23] … { NOTE: each proton-element carrys a strong MAGNETIC-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field } …

There’s an excellent illustration of this phenomenon posted on the wall of the physics-building at the University of Delaware, where I was many-years-ago a student, and I PROMISE that there will eventual-ly be an illustration here in the book, to help illustrate this …

{[ IN STERNGLASS’s MODEL, each ep-pair consists of an electron + a positron, which ROTATE or ORBIT around each other at almost-the-speed-of-light … ( ALTERNATIVE-LY,  if the idea of tiny “particles” move-ing around+around+around at almost the speed of light seems too-weird, then one can visualize these systems as very-high-frequency ELECTRICAL-OSCILLATIONs ) … each electron and positron also SPINs as it orbits:  Sternglass says that they spin in opposite directions, so that their magnetic-fields align, and in fact ADD … that’s why each ep-pair carrys a strong magnetic-field ]} …
 

{[ DR. DAVID LaPOINT has posted some good videos, at http://www.YOUTUBE.com, re these dual magnetic-[mag’ic]-fields:  almost like “magic”, they help explain some of the out-stand-ing MYSTERYs in physics, include-ing ASTRO-PHYSICS + ASTRONOMY + COSMOLOGY:  KEY-WORDs to view these youtube-videos:  “PRIMER FIELDs” ]} …

PROTON-ELEMENTs INTER-ACT MAGNETIC-LY [MAG’IC-LY] WITH EPOLA-ELEMENTs

IN MY MODIFICATION + BLENDING OF SIMHONY’s and STERNGLASS’s MODELs, each of the proton’s four ep-pairs carrys a strong magnetic-field, (as does each of the eight epola-elements which define an epola-cell) … so the little-rascals inter-act thru their magnetic-fields:  like toy-magnets hang-ing on strings, epola-elements “automatic-ly” SWIVEL toward the near-est proton-element, to maximize their magnetic-attraction …

This swivel-ing of epola-elements is what constitutes a magnetic-field, as Einstein explains:  “the magnetic field is a potential state [of the ether]” —–from the web-site at: http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf …

Dr. Simhony says that the epola [“epo-lattice”] consists of individual electrons + positrons,  but that is not the model which I present here … in my modification of Simhony’s model, I visualize each epola-element as an electron-positron PAIR, instead of as an individual electron or positron …

Simhony says that electric-forces between + among epola-elements keep the lattice stable:  in my modification of his model, it’s main-ly MAGNETIC forces which stabilize the epo-lattice … MAG’IC-LY — almost like “MAGIC”:  if one wants to “GET” how-protons-work, then it’s important to keep a sense-of-awe+wonder in one’s heart + mind … for example: perhaps magnetic-forces are the FUNDAMENTAL forces in our universe, which cause all this to happen ??

BECAUSE THE EPO-LATTICE PERMEATEs OUR UNIVERSE, EPOLA-elements are EVERY-WHERE in our universe, while PROTON-elements are, by comparison, few and far-between … tho proton-elements are larger + more-massive than epola-elements, both are composed of nothing but electron-positron pairs, if my modification of Simhony’s model is correct … More details in CHAPTER 5 + APPENDIX 9 …

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT it now seems that, in our universe, there is real-ly only one physical entity, ENERGY … as a recent book-writer express’d this idea,  “everything … anything you hold … no matter how dense, how heavy,how large, on its most fundamental level boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with a background sea of electromagnetic and other energy fields — a kind of electromagnetic drag force … mass [is] not equivalent to energy;  mass [IS] energy … more fundamentally, there is no mass … there is only charge” [from the book THE FIELD (2002), by LYNNE McTAGGART, p.33] [Ref.#7] …

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT what the book-writer calls “a background sea of electromagnetic and other fields” is due entire-ly to the existence of the EPO-LATTICE of SIMHONY’s “epola model of space”, if it exists;  or to some OTHER kind of “aether” or aether-like stuff …

IN THE NEXT CHAPTER,  i present a VERBAL description of the PROTON-MODEL which i offer:  hope-fully it’s simple-enough + clear-enough for a bright 10-year-old to understand, as EINSTEIN recommended that a theory or model should be …..

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

#################################

CHAPTER 3:  A NEW PROTON-MODEL

“space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there … would be no propagation of light“  —–EINSTEIN, 1920 …

FOR MANY MONTHs I’V WORK’D ON A NEW PROTON-MODEL, based-on the work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS [Refs. #1 + #1a] and DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Refs. #2 + #2a], with some of my own ideas [Refs. #4, #5, #6], to explain clear-ly and realistic-ly how-protons-work, and what-protons-look-like … In this new proton-model, the proton (i.e., every proton in our universe) inter-acts intimate-ly with the stuff which composes the EPO-LATTICE (“EPOLA”) in Dr.Simhony’s model, which is quite different from the “aether” or “ether” which 19th-century scientists believed in …

THE MAIN DIFFERENCE is this:  each of the zillions + zillions + zillions + zillions of EPOLA-ELEMENTs in the epo-lattice, which permeates our universe, is STRONG-LY-BOUND to its position in the lattice, and NOT-FREE to SWIRL, or to TRAIL ALONG BEHIND move-ing objects, such as moons + planets, as some 19th-century scientists speculated … instead, each + every proton and neutron in the nucleus of each+every atom of “ordinary” matter, (moons, planets, stars, comets, etc.), is always inter-act-ing with the epola-elements near-est to it, in a way which allows one to explain both INERTIA and GRAVITY !!

WITH A SLIGHT MODIFICATION  TO STERNGLASS’s PROTON-MODEL [p.250, Ref.#1], ONE CAN VISUALIZE the proton as a TETRAHEDRON-shaped object, consist-ing of 4 [FOUR] ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIRs [ep-pairs], which contain MOST of the proton’s MASS,  plus an un-pair’d POSITRON-AT-THE-CENTER, which carrys ALL of the proton’s net ELECTRIC-CHARGE, but only approx. 1/33 of its mass … Dr.Sternglass never says that he visualizes the proton as a tetrahedron-shaped object:  this is my idea, which I arrived at after several years of intense study of STERNGLASS [Refs. #1 + #1a] and SIMHONY [Refs. #2 + #2a] … Sternglass DOES SAY that there are four [4] ep-pairs in every proton, PLUS an un-pair’d POSITRON-AT-THE-PROTON’s-CENTER …

And he says that each of the 4 ep-pairs carrys a strong magnetic-field, analogous to planet-earth’s magnetic-field …

IN THIS ESSAY, I call these electric-ly-neutral, magnetic-field carry-ing, ep-pairs “PROTON-ELEMENTs” —– to distinguish them from “EPOLA-ELEMENTs”, which figure prominent-ly in SIMHONY’s model [Refs. #2 + #2a] … {NOTE: if my visualization is correct, each of these “epola-elements” also carrys a magnetic-field, which is how they inter-act with “proton-elements” … i.e., the little-rascals inter-act thru their MAGNETIC-fields} … I VISUALIZE these proton-elements, four [4] per proton, arranged in the shape of a TETRAHEDRON, with a positron at their common center …

As I DETAIL in CHAPTER 12I now visualize MAGNETIC-FORCEs associated with the 4 proton-elements as hold-ing the positron in place at the center, similar to how researchers in physics-labs use magnetic-forces to hold charged-particles in place, a little trick known as “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING” [Refs. #21 + #22 + #23] … { more details in CHAPTER 12 } …

PERHAPs OUR MOTHER-NATURE HAS BEEN USE-ING THIS LITTLE TRICK ALL THE WHILE DURING THE PAST 5 BILLION YEARs ?     8 BILLION ??        13 BILLION ???

I VISUALIZE the proton as be-ing always in-side-of an EPOLA-CELL, move-ing from one to an other to an other, as Dr.Simhony [Ref.#2] describes in his “Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” … I visualize the proton as always “plucking at the corners” of the epola-cell in-side-of which it’s located, as one of Dr.Simhony’s most-passionate promoters [Ref.#3] suggested to me several years ago, by E-mail … as already mention’d, I visualize this “pluck-ing” as be-ing due to the magnetic-attractions between proton-elements and epola-elements …

ONE CAN USE Sternglass’s model, + some ANGULAR-MOMENTUM considerations, to calculate the mass + size of EACH of the four [4] electron-positron pairs [ie, PROTON-ELEMENTs] which contain most of the proton’s mass [Ref.#4] … by these methods I calculate a mass of approx.  4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram  and a radius of approx.  8.677 x 10^(-14) cm  for each of the little-rascals … details re this calculation are in CHAPTER 4 …

NOTE1:  the above MASS is almost-exact-ly one quarter [1/4] of the known mass-of-the-proton … NOTE2:  the above RADIUS is almost exact-ly that of the experimental-ly-measured “proton-radius”,  and was calculated from Sternglass’s theory, with no reference to any of the fiend-ish-ly-difficult maths associated with quantum-field-theory …

==========================================

EINSTEIN say’d, many times, that one’s theory (i.e., “model”, as all the koool-dudes say) should be simple enough to explain to a bright 10-year-old, and I’v made a strong effort to do this … I’m work-ing on a MATHEMATICAL description of my proton-model, but it’s not-yet ready … follow-ing is a VERBAL description, which I HOPE is simple-enough for a non-scientist to follow … if not, then please send feed-back, with any questions and/or comments and/or suggestions:  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com …

THE TETRAHEDRON IS A VERY-SPECIAL SHAPE

Because i visualize the proton (and the neutron, too) as be-ing shaped like a TETRAHEDRON, I want to say some kind-words re this particular (pun-intended) geometrical-shape:

THE TETRAHEDRON is the most-simple of the five so-call’d “REGULAR SOLIDs” — and, no doubt, also the STRONG-est … 4 [four] POINTs total-ly define a tetrahedron … these 4 points define 4 FACEs, and 6 [six] EDGEs … each face is an equilateral triangle:  3 of these 4 triangles merge at each of the 4 points … 2 of the 4 points define each of the tetrahedrons 6 [six] edges, an edge be-ing the STRAIGHT-LINE between 2 points … of course, each edge is of equal length, because each of the 4 points is equal-ly-distant from each of the other 3:  and four [4] is the largest number of points in 3-dimensional space for which this is possible:  one just-simply can-not insert a 5th point which is the same distance from each of the other four points as they are from each other …

Sternglass uses the concept of “local-gravity” in his model [pp.222+223+249, Ref.#1] … he says that there are gravitational-forces in-side-of tiny-objects, which are much-strong-er-than the gravity between moons + planets + stars … Simhony [pp.??, Ref.#2a] says that the epo-lattice it-self is responsible for the existence of gravity in the first place:  i.e., in physics-jargon, gravity is “emergent” from the forces which hold the epo-lattice together … to make a long-story short-er, ordinary matter causes the epo-lattice to expand, and the “PUSH-BACK” from the expanded epo-lattice is what we feel as “gravity” … so GRAVITY DOESN’T PULL — IT PUSHES !!

Apply-ing this concept to a tiny-object like a proton, one can hypothesize that this “PUSH-BACK” force (“local-gravity” — much-strong-er-than “Newton’s-gravity”) might be what holds the 4 proton-elements together … mathematic-ly, one can treat this force as an ELASTIC force, because, as already mention’d, the epo-lattice is an elastic substance … the maths are analogous to the maths which describe the “harmonic-motion” of a spring with a weight on it;  i.e., “HOOKE’s LAW”, which appears in every PHYSICS-101 text-book in the entire known universe …

{ALTERNATIVE-LY, as already mention’d, one can hypothesize that the 4 proton-elements hold the positron-at-the-center in place, by a little trick call’d MAGNETIC-TRAPPING [Refs. #21 + #22 + #23] … Neutrons are of almost-exact-ly the same shape + structure as protons, and, no doubt, subject to the same forces} …

Visualize-ing the 4 proton-elements as form-ing approximate-ly a TETRAHEDRON, and USE-ING STERNGLASS’s CONCEPT of “LOCAL-GRAVITY” [pp.222+223+249, Ref.#1], one can calculate forces between the 4 [FOUR] PROTON-ELEMENTs in each proton … in do-ing so, one observes that there are 6 [six] distinct “local-gravity” forces to deal with, each of approximate-ly equal strength, correspond-ing to each of the tetrahedron’s 6 EDGEs …

I KNOW THAT some might think it NAIVE to try to model the proton in this way, but it seems to “work” … preliminary-results seem to indicate that the elastic “local-gravity” PUSH-BACK force from the surround-ing epo-lattice, plus the magnetic-attractions between proton-elements and epola-elements, team-up to make the proton-elements and epola-elements play with each other like “quarks” are say’d, (by standard-model theorists), to play with each other:  SPECIFIC-LY:  due-to attractive MAGNETIC-forces between them, a proton-element and an epola-element seem to INTER-ACT WEAK-LY if they are less-than approx. 10^(-13)cm apart from each other, and almost-total-ly ignore each other if they are > 10^(-13) cm apart … BUT, if one trys to pull the 4 proton-elements apart, the epola-stuff —{( be-ing “stiffer than a diamond” )}— pushes back with a strength which might-be great-enough to explain why protons are so stable …

Alternative-ly, one might reckon that it’s MAGNETIC-TRAPPING forces, already mention’d, which hold the proton together … ie, that magnetic-forces associated with the 4 proton-elements hold the un-pair’d positron at the center, while the same forces pull the 4 proton-elements toward the center, explain-ing why protons are so stable …

PLEASE, if any of this is un-clear, or seems un-believe-able to you, send feed-back:  I GUARANTEE that I can DEFEND this model:   mark.creekwater@gmail.com …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  NEWARK, DELAWARE, USA,  16-DECEMBER-2014

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 3 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

###############################

CHAPTER 4:  A SEMI-CLASSICAL CALCULATION REGARDING PROTON-RADIUS

BY MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast);

MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

“It seems obvious to me … that having two incompatible theories of nature is intellectually intolerable”  —–LEONARD SUSSKIND [book: The Blackhole War (2008)]

FOLLOWING  DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS [Ref.#1],  one can visualize the PROTON as composed of four ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIRs [ep-pairs]  and  an UNPAIRED POSITRON-AT-THE-CENTER … using this model, and Sternglass’s “semi-classical” math approach, one can calculate a THEORETICAL numeric value which agrees closely with the results of EXPERIMENTs which have been done to determine the proton’s radius … [approx. 8.7 x 10^(-14) cm] …

ADDITIONALLY,  one can propose that this numericvalue is NOT a measure of the entire proton’s radius, but of the radius of each of the four [4] ep-pairs which help compose the proton in Sternglass’s proton-model …

STERNGLASS HAS DEVELOPED A MODEL which accounts for the origin of PROTONs + NEUTRONs in our universe, and describes their structure …

USING THE “PRIMEVAL ATOM” HYPOTHESIS OF GEORGES LeMAITRE [Refs. #18 + #19] he describes a scenario in which the electromagnetic field of this hypothetical “primeval atom” —(WHOSE EM-FIELD INITIALLY CONTAINED ALL THE MASS/ENERGY IN OUR UNIVERSE !!)— divides in half, and each of the pieces divides in half, and so on and so forth …

AFTER ONLY 270 GENERATIONs of such a process, there would be 2^270 tiny pieces, each with the mass of APPROX. 5 NEUTRONs …  NOTE:  2^(270) is a very very large number:  more than a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion !!

Shifting to the present tense:  at the end of the divide-in-half scenario (which I call “the  count-down to the Big Bang”), there is now a “PHASE TRANSITION” [Sternglass’s words, P.11, Ref.#1] in which many zillions of trillions of the tiny pieces of the primeval atom re-configure, in a way which leads to the production of many zillions of trillions of NEUTRONs, SOME of which quickly “DECAY” —producing PROTONs … many zillions + zillions of protons + neutrons emerge from this process, during the last “stage” [Sternglass’s word] of the long divide-in-half scenario, with the release of very large amounts of ENERGY, in the form of hi-energy PHOTONs [“gamma-rays”];  enough energy to power a “BIG BANG” …

… THUS STERNGLASS EXPLAINs both the “Big Bang” and the formation of all the protons + neutrons which now exist …

NOTE:  regarding the above mentioned “phase transition”:  Sternglass mentions this phrase ({“phase transition”}) several times in his book [Ref.#1]:  he observes that when water freezes and forms ice, this, too, is regarded as a “phase transition”:  because the molecules of water rearrange [i.e., “re-configure”] themselves in a way which enables them to lose energy without getting any colder:  because water and ice co-exist at exactly the same temperature:  32 degrees Fahrenheit, equivalent to zero degrees Centigrade …
{[ PERSONALLY, I remember in my high school physics class doing a simple physics experiment, which thousands, perhaps millions, of high school students have also done:  in this experiment, one chills some water, while using a thermometer to measure its temperature, until it freezes, and then continues to chill it:  one observes that the temperature decreases to 32 F, then stops decreasing while water and ice are both present, then continues to decrease after all the water has changed to ice … the point of this simple experiment is to show that, while the water + ice are co-existing together, in contact with each other, their ENERGY-CONTENT continues to decrease, while their TEMPERATURE stays the same:  this is to show that the stuff is losing ENERGY, tho it’s not getting any COLDER … of course, the energy which it loses is BINDING ENERGY:  when the little rascals (i.e., the “molecules”) form the BONDs which enable them to change from a LIQUID to a SOLID, they “automatically” give up this binding energy ]} …
LIKEWISE, the phase transition which happened at the start of the so called “Big Bang”, as the little rascals formed the bonds which enabled them to “create” neutrons + protons, released a HUMONGOUS amount of “BINDING ENERGY” —– enough to power a “Big Bang” …
STERNGLASS’s “TABLE 1”
USING DATA FROM STERNGLASS’s “TABLE 1[p.234, Ref.#1], one can derive a MATH FORMULA (below) for the radius of each of the many differently-sized “COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEMs” [“cosmo.systs”] which participate in the divide-in-half scenario:  { Sternglass calls these objects “cosmological systems”, regardless of their size:  he says that “For every system, the mass is proportional to the square of the radius” [p.225, Ref.#1] } …

HERE IS THE MATH FORMULA, derived from Sternglass’s “Table 1”:  

(Rs) = [ 2G / c^2 ] x [ ( Mu Ms )^(1/2) ] x [1/137.036]   [EQN.#1];

where “Rs” is the radius of the system’s torus-[donut]-shaped electromagnetic field, which I will call the “SYSTEM RADIUS”;  “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant;  “c” is speed of light;  “Mu” is mass of our universe;  “Ms” is the mass of the system;  and [1/137.036] is the so-call’d “fine-structure constant”…

NOTE1:  ( Mu x Ms )^(1/2)  means  “the square-root of ( Mu x Ms )” …

NOTE2:  this is a modified “Schwarzschild equation” (google it if you need to), in which the “local gravity” inside a system is much stronger than “Newton’s gravity” … more re “local gravity” in CHAPTER 10 …

NOTE3:  STERNGLASS SAYs THAT the tiny systems near the last stage of the long divide-in-half scenario experience a RELATIVISTIC SHRINKAGE by a factor of approx. (137.036), which explains the presence of that number in the formula …

RE THE MASS OF OUR UNIVERSE, Sternglass uses PAUL DIRAC’s so called “LARGE NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS” [p.224, Ref.#18; pp.73-76, Ref.#19] to derive an ingenious way to calcuate, theoretically, the mass of our universe, and details how he did it in his book [Ref.#1] … more regarding this, below …

COMPTON WAVELENGTH AND COMPTON RADIUS
THE PHYSICIST ARTHUR COMPTON, during the first half of the 20th century, popularized the idea that there is a so called “COMPTON WAVELENGTH” associated with every object which a physicist might want to study;  defined as the wavelength of a PHOTON whose ENERGY CONTENT is equivalent to that of the object, and given by a simple math formula:
(WL-COMPTON) = (h) / ( ),
where “h” is Planck’s constant, “c” is speed of light, and “M” is the object’s mass …
LIKEWISE, the COMPTON RADIUS is just simply the Compton wavelength divided by (2x(pi)):
(Rc) = ( h-BAR ) / ( x M ),
where “Rc” is Compton radius and “h-BAR” is (Planck’s constant) / (2x(pi)) …

IN STERNGLASS’s MODEL there is initially only ONE “cosmological system” — the “PRIMEVAL ATOM” … because its mass/energy content so large —(BEING THAT OF OUR ENTIRE UNIVERSE !!)— its  Rc  is ridiculously small:  because smaller photons contain more energy … as the divide-in-half scenario proceeds, the masses of the systems, and the sizes of their EM-fields, [Rs], DECREASE, while their Compton radii INCREASE: after 270 divide-in-half generations, there are many zillions of tiny systems, and the SYSTEM radius  [Rs]  of each tiny system is almost the same length as its COMPTON radius  [Rc]  …

AT SOME POINT, the size of the Compton radius must equal that of the system radius — the Rs in equation #1 … one can use easy maths to calculate both the mass (Ms) and radius (Rs) of the system whose system radius Rs = Rc:  by definition, one has:
Rc = ( h-BAR ) / ( c x Ms ),   [EQN.#2],
where “Rc” is Compton radius and “Ms” is mass of system …
equating this (Rc) to the (Rs) in EQN.#1, one has:
(h-BAR) / c x Ms ) = [ 2c^2 ] x [ ( Mu Ms ]^(1/2) ] x [1/137.036];
solving this equation for (Ms):
(Ms) = { [ (c) x (h-BAR) / 2] x [ (137.036) / (Mu)^(1/2) ] }^(2/3) … [EQN.#3];  as above, Mu” is mass of our universe …

MASS OF OUR UNIVERSE ??
STERNGLASS’s FORMULA for mass of universe appears on p.265 {careful:  there’s a TYPO (typographical error) in the book} in [Ref.#1] as:

(Mu) = [ [ K x Qe x Qe ]^2 ] / [ G^2 x (Me)^3 ],     where “Me” is the mass of an electron;  “Qe” is the electric charge of an electron;  “K” is Coulomb’s electrictrostatic constant;  and “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant …

REARRANGING THIS, to make it look MORE ELEGANT:

(Mu) = [ { ( K x Qe x Qe ) / ( G x Me x Me  ) }^2 ] x [Me] … [EQN.#4];
{NOTE: this gives a numeric value of (Mu) = approx. 1.581 x 10^58 grams, which is approx. 100x greater than the mass of our universe which one usually sees in books + papers:  this is “consistent with the evidence that only about one percent of the mass of the universe is in visible form” [p.210, Ref.1]} …

USING this expression for (Mu) in EQN.#3, one has:
 (Ms)  =  { [ c x (h-BAR)  / 2G ] x [ (137.036) / (Me)^(1/2) ] x [ ( G x Me x Me ) / ( K x Qe x Qe ) ] }^(2/3);

NOTE:  the “^(2/3)” at the end means that one squares the whole thing, then calculates the cube-root of that …

USING NUMERIC VALUEs  c = 2.9979 x 10^(10) cm/sec,  h-BAR = 1.0546 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm,  G = 6.673 x 10^(-8) cm^3 / gram.sec^2,  (Me) = 9.1094 x 10^(-28) gram,  AND (K x Qe x Qe) = 2.3071 x 10^(-19) (gram.cm^3)/sec^2 ;
one calculates that (Ms) = 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram …
NOTE:  this mass is somewhere between that of two pi-mesons and one pi-meson: it’s the theoretical mass of the “COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM” in Sternglass’s model whose SYSTEM RADIUS [Rs] is equal to the radius of a photon which contains the same amount of energy;   i.e., equal to its so called “COMPTON-RADIUS” [Rc] …
ONE CAN NOW USE EQN.#2 to calculate this radius:
(Rc) = (Rs) =  (h-BAR) / ( (c)x(Ms) )  =
[1.0546 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm] / [ (2.9979 x 10^(10) cm/sec) x (4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram) ] = 8.677 x 10^(-14) cm …
NOTE #1:  this is very close to the MEASURED “radius of the proton”, which experiments have determined, by a variety of methods, to be somewhere in the neighborhood of between approx.  8.42 x 10^(-14) cm  and  8.97 x 10^(-14) cm …
NOTE #2:  the numeric value  (8.677 x 10^(-14) cm)  was calculated theoretically, in a “SEMI-CLASSICAL” way, FROM STERNGLASS’s MODEL, using none of the fiendishly difficult maths for which quantum mechanics is famous …

======================================

AS FOR THE CALCULATED MASS, (Ms) = 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram:  WHAT MIGHT THIS BE ??
WELL, in Sternglass’s model, THE PROTON consists of four [4] electron-positron pairs, and an unpaired positron-at-the-center [p.250, Ref.#1] …
PERHAPs each of these 4 [FOUR] ep-pairs has a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram, and a radius of approx. 8.677 x 10^(-14) cm ??
CONSIDER:  4 x [4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram] = 16.217 x 10^(-25) gram = 1.6217 x 10^(-24) gram, WHICH IS ALMOST THE KNOWN MASS OF THE PROTON !!   perhaps the positron-at-the-center provides the remaining mass ??
PERHAPs the “PROTON-RADIUS” which experiments determine to be approx. 8.7 x 10^(-14) cm  { CODATA VALUE IS GIVEN AS APPROX. 8.768 x 10^(-14) cm [REF.#20] }  might actually be measurements of the radius of this particular {[pun-intended]} STERNGLASS COSMOLOGICAL SYSTEM, whose COMPTON radius [Rc] just happens to be equal to its SYSTEM radius [Rs] ??

PERHAPs THIS IS WHY PROTONs ARE SO STABLE ???

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 4 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

######################################

CHAPTER 5:   A SEMI-CLASSICAL CALCULATION REGARDING THE MASS DENSITY OF SO CALLED “NEUTRON STARs”  by  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO, ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast),  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com

“Accepting the universe as rational … we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it … if we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models” —–Dr. LLOYD MOTZ, astrophysicist, Columbia University [Ref.#29] …

ZWICKY and BAADE in 1933, soon after the discovery of neutrons, predicted the existence of “NEUTRON STARs” [Ref.#14] … KIP THORNE [Ref.#13] calls their paper “one of the most prescient” in all of 20th century physics, because it correctly predicted the existence of very dense, rapidly rotating, objects, which were not observed until almost 35 years later …

BASED ON the work of STERNGLASS [Ref.#1 + Ref.#1a] and SIMHONY [Ref.#2 + Ref.#2a] one can propose that there might be a MAXIMUM MASS-DENSITY for a collapsed star, and for collapsed stars in general, which might prevent it/them from collapsing down to a zero-volume “SINGULARITY” which would produce a so called “black hole” …

SPECIFICALLY, for reasons which I explain below, one can propose that the mass-density of “NEUTRON STARs” might be nearer to 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc than to the commonly accepted numeric value of approx. 3 x 10^14 grams/cc …
USING EASY MATHs, (high school algebra + geometry), one can calculate that one might expect that a “neutron star” [i.e., a SUPERNOVA REMNANT] whose mass-density [M-D] is approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc would have a MASS of approx. 1.9x that of our sun, and a RADIUS of approx. 5.6 km … this helps explain why most “NEUTRON STARs” have masses between 1.4 x that of our sun and 1.9 x that of our sun, until now a mystery [p.192, Ref.#13] …

{NOTE: IN THIS ESSAY, THE WORDs “NEUTRON STAR” AND “BLACK HOLE” APPEAR IN QUOTATON MARKs, DUE TO THE AUTHOR’s SINCERE BELIEF THAT THERE MIGHT BE SERIOUS ERRORs INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE COMMON IDEAs + ASSUMPTIONs REGARDING THESE OBJECTs} …

IRONICALLY, and in spite of what some of us have been taught to believe, re the nature of “BLACK HOLEs” and “NEUTRON STARs”, it seems like the average “NEUTRON STAR” might-be MORE dense than the average “BLACK HOLE” [!!] —– if, in fact, there is a maximum mass-density for collapsed stars in our universe …
WHEN A MASSIVE STAR collapses and goes supernova, there is a large explosion, and much of the star’s matter is lost, so its mass is greatly reduced … what remains, (a supernova “REMNANT”), is also called a “NEUTRON STAR” or a “PULSAR” …
During the past 50 years, researchers have determined that most “NEUTRON STARs” are of a mass between 1.4 x and 1.9 x that of our sun;  i.e., they’re very dense, but not very massive, given that some stars are > 100 x as massive as our sun …
ONE CAN RECKON THAT standard textbook descriptions of “black holes” might be incorrect, because they’re based on a collapse to a “SINGULARITY” of radius approaching zero:  as Dr. Lloyd Motz, a colleague of Sternglass, observes:  “Accepting the universe as rational … we should reject such irrational concepts as singularities with infinite temperatures and densities in discussing it … if we can avoid such unphysical concepts rationally, we should do so even if we must depart from current dogma and the presently accepted models” [Ref.#29] …
I.E.: ONE CAN RECKON THAT, long before a “black hole” shrinks down to a “singularity”, there might be a natural, inherent, “MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE” [Sternglass’s words, p.203, Ref.#1] for the bits of matter in the collapsed star, which gives to it a MAX M-D of approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc …
STERNGLASS SAYs that “black holes” do exist in his model of our universe, but only up to a mass-density comparable to that of ordinary protons + neutrons;  i.e., approx. 2.5 x 10^14 grams/cc [p.206, Ref.#1] … ALTERNATIVELY, I propose a MAX M-D of approximately 17 times that, (i.e., approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc) … this proposal is based on my intense study of Sternglass’s model, “The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter” [Refs. #1 + #1a], and that of Simhony, “The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of SPACE” [Refs. #2 + #2a] …

THO the 2 gentlemen, (AGEs 91 and 92 in 2014) NEVER COLLABORATED, their independently developed models support and affirm each other …

STERNGLASS’s MODEL .  .  .
. . . gives a believable scenario for what might have happened before the so called “BIG BANG” —– and before the formation (one wants to say “creation”) of protons + neutrons, which evidently did not exist until then …
NOTE: THO I KNOW THAT SOME SCIENTISTs SAY THAT A “BIG BANG” NEVER HAPPENED, I ALSO KNOW THAT STERNGLASS GIVEs SOME POWERFUL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT A “BIG BANG” REALLY DID HAPPEN …
IN “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] STERNGLASS LISTs “Masses, Sizes, and Rotational Periods of Cosmological Systems Predicted by the Electron[-Positron] Pair Model of Matter” … All the familiar kinds of physical objects are there, from galaxies + stars + planets, down to sub-atomic entities …
IF ONE EXTEND THIS “TABLE 1” a bit farther than Sternglass did in the book, “down” into the section which he would call “STAGE 28”, then one sees that there is room for a tiny “system”, WHOSE MASS IS THAT OF AN ELECTRON, and WHOSE RADIUS IS APPROX. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm; i.e., approx. 4.1 x 10^(-17) meter … THE MASS-DENSITY OF SUCH A TINY SYSTEM, IF ONE ASSUMEs THAT IT IS OF A TORUS-[DONUT]-SHAPE, WOULD BE APPROX. 5×10^15 grams / cc —– INSPIRING ME TO PROPOSE THIS NUMERIC VALUE AS A MAXIMUM MASS-DENSITY FOR THIS KIND OF “STUFF” IN OUR UNIVERSE …
IF there is, in our universe, a maximum mass-density for a collapsed star of approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams / cc, THEN this might mean that a “BLACK HOLE” can be no more dense than that … IF SO,  THEN,  because (according to the “Schwarzschild formula” for the radius of a “black hole”) smaller “black holes” are more dense, there must be a particular “black hole”, WHOSE MASS-DENSITY IS APPROX. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc, which would be the most dense “black hole” possible — and also the least massive;  because, as already mentioned, a smaller “black hole” would be more dense …
THE MATH is easy and straight-forward:  assuming that a “black hole” is sphere-shaped, and satisfies the so called “SCHWARZSCHILD CONDITION”  [(Rbh) = 2G x (Mbh) / c^2],  then one has:
(MASS-DENSITY)bh = (Mbh) / (VOL)bh = [Mbh] / [(4/3)x(pi) x (Rbh)^3] =
[Mbh] / {4.2 x [2G x (Mbh) / (c^2)]^3} = [c^6] / [4.2 x 8 x G^3 x (Mbh)^2]

where “Mbh” is “black hole” mass, “Rbh” is “black hole” radius, “G” is Newton’s gravitational constant, and “c” is the speed of light …

Equating this (MASS-DENSITY)bh to  (5 x (10)^15 grams/cc)  implies:   (Mbh) = { [c^6] / [33.6 x G^3 x (5 x 10^15 gm/cc)] }^(1/2),

USING NUMERIC VALUES G = 6.7 x 10^(-8) cc / gram.sec.sec, and c = 3 x 10^10 cm/sec, one calculates that (Mbh) = approx. 1.9 x the mass of our sun [i.e., approx. 3.8 x 10^(33) grams], as already mentioned … but in almost every real star-collapse, this reduces to approx. 1.4 x our sun’s MASS, due to the fact that there is almost always a SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION when a massive star collapses, which blows away much of its mass, even some of the potential “remnant” mass of approx. 1.9 x that of our sun, which might remain after a less energetic explosion …

{ One can visualize a star whose initial mass is approx. 1.9 x that of our sun collapsing down to “neutron star” size, BUT NOT EXPLODING … however, because more massive stars “burn” their fuel more rapidly than less massive stars, one expects that the vast majority of supernova explosions involve stars whose initial masses were >> 1.9 x that of our sun, some > 100 x that of our sun … such as, for example, the supernova known as SN2006gy, whose light needed > 100 million years to travel from there to here !! } …

OBVIOUSLY, the more massive the star, the more violent the explosion;  so most supernova remnants are nearer to 1.4 x than to 1.9 x the mass of our sun …

IN OTHER WORDs:  WHEN A MASSIVE STAR COLLAPSEs, IT USUALLY EXPLODEs;  BUT IF CONDITIONs ARE JUST RIGHT, THEN IT MIGHT COLLAPSE AND NOT EXPLODE … if it doesn’t explode, then it will retain more mass, and if it produces a “neutron star”, then that “neutron star” will also [in German, “also” means “therefore”] be more massive than one produced by a star which explodes …

IN THIS WAY, one realizes that a collapsed star whose mass is approx. 1.9 x that of our sun represents an object which is “on the border-line” between “NEUTRON STAR” and “BLACK HOLE”:  i.e., one can call it either “the most massive ‘neutron star’ possible” or “the least massive ‘black hole’ possible” …
ALSO IN THIS WAY, one realizes that such a collapsed star (SUPERNOVA REMNANT) might be composed of (NOT NEUTRONs, BUT) tiny objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons …
The description above answers the open question implied in KIP THORNE’s book BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS, where he says that:
“SINCE 1967 HUNDREDS OF NEUTRON STARS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED BY ASTRONOMERS, AND THE MASSES OF SEVERAL HAVE BEEN MEASURED WITH HIGH ACCURACY … THE MEASURED MASSES OF ALL ARE CLOSE TO 1.4 SUNS; WHY, WE DO NOT KNOW” [p.192, Ref.#13]

MORE DETAILs:
RECENTLY [Ref.#15] SOME ASTRONOMERs published results of their observations of a “neutron star” [known as  J1614-2230] whose mass they determined to be approx. 1.9 x that of our sun, evidently one of the largest masses ever observed for a “neutron star” …

QUOTE from Ref.#15:  “We measure a pulsar mass of (1.97 +/- 0.04) solar-masses, which is by far the highest precisely measured neutron star mass determined to date” …

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS OBSERVATIONAL RESULT SUPPORTs THE PROPOSAL FOR A MAXIMUM MASS-DENSITY OF APPROX. 5 x 10^15 gm/cc FOR “BLACK HOLEs” AND/OR “NEUTRON STARs” …
PLEASE ALSO NOTE the following, writ by a PhD-holder, from p.238 of Ref.#16:  “Interestingly, [assuming] that the emitting surface is spherical, one derives a photospheric radius of only ~6.4 +/- 1.4 km … small for a neutron star”
REALLY ??  In the case of a collapsed star whose mass is 1.9 x that of our sun, one calculates its radius as:
(Rbh) = [2G x (Mbh)] / (c^2) = 2 x [6.7 x 10^(-8) cc / gram x sec^2] x [3.8 x 10^33 grams] / [9 x 10^20 cm^2/sec^2]  = 5.6 x 10^5 cm = 5.6 km  … PLEASE NOTE that this is within the range (above) of “~6.4 +/- 1.4 km” …
IN FACT,  most of the books which I looked at gave approx. 10 km as the radius of the average “neutron star” … This is obviously based on the assumption, perhaps incorrect, that the mass-density of a “neutron star” should be approx. that of a neutron;  i.e., approx. 3 x 10^14 grams / cc … if it’s MORE DENSE, then it’s obviously SMALLER …
PLEASE NOTE that a recent conversation which I pursued on a popular physics internet-site produced no compelling evidence that astronomers have ever made any DIRECT measurement of the radius of a supernova remnant, as, evidently, there are none close enough to us for them to be able to do so … One suspects that the 10-km radius which the books mention might be based on incorrect theory, instead of on accurate observations and measurements …

PHYSICAL EXPLANATIONs ??
How might one offer a physical explanation for the proposal that there is a MAX M-D for the “stuff” in our universe, which prevents the formation of a “small” “black-hole” — i.e., one whose mass is less-than 1.4 x that of our sun ??
IE: WHAT PHYSICAL MECHANISM PREVENTs THE TOTAL COLLAPSE WHICH SOME OF US HAVE BEEN TAUGHT TO BELIEVE IN ??
IN STERNGLASS’S MODEL, neutrons and protons are NOT composed of “quarks” — which have never been observed in a physics lab [Ref.#17, pp.323-324] … instead, they’re composed of SPEEDY ELECTRONs + SPEEDY POSITRONs — which are DEFINITELY KNOWN TO EXIST !!

In fact, the schematic diagram on p.250, Ref.#1 clearly shows that there are, in Sternglass’s model, three [3] parts to each proton or neutron: LEFT SIDE + CENTER + RIGHT SIDE, analogous to the three “quarks” which are supposed to compose each proton or neutron, according to the Standard model … Sternglass has no problem with quark-theory — and mentions it in his book, several times: he just simply shows that “quarks” are composed of smaller “particles”:  SPEEDY ELECTRONs + SPEEDY POSITRONs …

ONE SUSPECTs THAT, when a massive star collapses, not only do most of its ordinary protons + electrons get CRUSHED TOGETHER, WHICH FORMs NEUTRONs, but that these neutrons then BREAK APART, somewhere between a mass-density of (3 x 10^14 gm/cc) and (5 x 10^15 gm/cc), into the SPEEDY ELECTRONs + SPEEDY POSITRONs which comprise them [p.250, Ref.#1]

{ One can call this stuff “degenerate neutrons” and, as already mentioned, calculate that it is composed of objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons … One can even propose to call this kind of SN-remnant a “quark star”, as some PhD-holders have done [ http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jan/15/calculations-point-to-massive-quark-stars ], and this would make sense, according to quark-theory, despite the fact that, as already mentioned many times throughout this series of essays, “quarks” have never been observed in a physics lab [pp.322-324, Ref. #17] } … 

MEANWHILE, THERE ARE LOTs OF NEUTRINOs TRAPED INSIDE THE COLLAPSING STAR:  one suspects (based on one’s reading) that it’s mainly these NEUTRINOs — (at the immense mass-density of approx. 5 x 10^15 grams/cc)— which prevent further collapse, and, in most cases, cause the star to REBOUND ===>>!!BOING!!<<=== creating A SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION …
AFTER THE EXPLOSION, there is a supernova “remnant” left behind: …one can visualize that SPEEDY ELECTRONs + SPEEDY POSITRONs have emerged, IN EQUAL NUMBERs, from the crushed and broken neutrons, and formed ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIRs, also called “DIPOLEs”:  one can visualize these tiny objects, many many tons of them, each with the mass of a single electron and a radius of approx. 4.1 x 10^(-15) cm [4.1 x 10^(-17) meter], as composing a so called “neutron-star” …
AS ALREADY MENTIONED, Dr.Sternglass’s “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] predicts the existence of these “objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons” … assuming that they are of a TORUS-[DONUT]-SHAPE, their mass-density would be approx. 5 x 10^(15) grams/cc …

CONCLUSION:  Perhaps, what we have (until now) called “neutron stars” might (in fact) be composed of these “objects which are smaller and more dense than neutrons” … Perhaps, for now, one might want to refer to “neutron stars” as just simply “supernova remnants” …

A TESTABLE PREDICTION:  Based on the ideas and the numbers presented in this essay, one can PREDICT that, when astronomers are able to make accurate DIRECT measurements of supernova remnants, then they will agree that the RADIUS of a typical supernova remnant is nearer to 6 km than to the current accepted value of approximately 10 km …..

SINCERELY, MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast),

BERKELEY, CA, USA, 20-DECEMBER-2013;  E-MAIL: MARK.CREEKWATER@GMAIL.COM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 5 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

######################################

CHAPTER 6:  LATTICE-LENGTH OF THE EPOLA-CELL

“‘SON, IF I COULD remember the names of all these particles, then I would have been a BOTANIST'” —–ENRICO FERMI, to a physics grad-student

In his “Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space” [Refs. #2, 2a], DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY SAYs that there is an aether-like substance every-where in our universe, which carrys all the different kinds of ELECTROMAGNETIC-RADIATIONs which travel thru space, and which is also responsible for the existence of GRAVITY … he would prefer that we call this stuff “EPOLA” —(short for “ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE”)— rather  than “aether” or “ether” … WHY?? because, un-like the “aether” of 19th-century scientists, SIMHONY’s “EPOLA” is not thin, and not-wispy, or “aetheric”, or “aethereal” — info on one of Dr.Simhony’s web-sites says that it’s “STIFFER THAN A DIAMOND” … more re this later …

{ PLEASE NOTE that there is no contradiction between the words “stiff” and “elastic” … ie, a substance can be both “stiff” and “elastic” } …

Simhony says that the “epola” consists of nothing but electrons + positrons, and that its structure is perfect-ly cubical, [“face-centered cubic”] like ordinary TABLE-SALT … he says that its LATTICE-LENGTH (LL),  (ie, the distance between an epola-element and its near-est neighbor),  is approximate-ly 4.42 x 10^(-13)cm [4.42 x 10^(-15)meter] … In modify-ing Simhony’s model, I’v calculated a (LL) of approx. 7.615 x 10^(-13)cm —– almost 2x simhony’s (LL) … WHY??  Because I’v borrow’d some ideas from DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS [Ref.#1], whose “ELECTRON-POSITRON PAIR [ep-pair] MODEL OF MATTER” is, in my opinion, a major break-thru in our understanding of nature, as is Dr.Simhony’s model, the “ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE [epola] MODEL OF SPACE” …

Use-ing a slight-variation of PAUL DIRAC’s LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS {one can, and SHOULD, google this, if one needs to}, Sternglass hypothesizes that the ratio of  the strength-of-electrical-attraction between an electron and a positron to the strength-of-gravitational-attraction between the same 2 little-rascals  might-be equal to  the square-root of the ratio  [(Mu) / (Me)],  where “Mu” is the-mass-of-our-universe,  and “Me” is the-mass-of-an-electron (or positron) [p.265, Ref.#1 — be care-full: there’s a TYPO in the book] …

HOW DOES HE PRESUME TO KNOW THE MASS OF OUR UNIVERSE ??   Well, in his book he explains how he derived an elegant way to calculate this huge numeric-value, theoretic-ly, based-on the slight variation of Dirac’s “LARGE NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS” mention’d above … [Refs. #18 + #19] … {[ MORE RE THIS IN APPENDIX3 ]} … IT’s WELL-KNOWN that the strength of the electrical-attractions between electric-ly-charged tiny-objects in our universe is MUCH-MUCH great-er-than the strength of their gravitational-attractions … most book-writers, when they mention this, use the ELECTRON + the PROTON to illustrate this idea, use-ing the ordinary simple math-formulas from PHYSICS-101 to calculate this ratio … but Sternglass uses the ELECTRON + the POSITRON —(not the proton)— to illustrate this idea, and to calculate the mass-of-our-universe … “I decided to see what [Dirac’s] numbers would give for the mass of the universe if the basic particles were the electron and positron rather than the proton and anti-proton” [p.210, Ref.#1] …

IN THIS WAY he calculates a ratio of 4.167 x 10^(42) as the ratio mention’d above, re the electrical-attraction  –vs–  the gravitational-attraction between an electron and a positron … follow-ing Dirac, he SQUAREs this very-large number, and gets 1.736 x 10^(85), (obvious-ly a much-much-larger number), and HYPOTHESIZEs that this might represent the ratio (mass-of-universe) / (mass-of-electron):  this allows him to calculate a theoretical-value for mass-of-universe …

Know-ing all this from my reading of Sternglass’s book [Ref.#1] inspired me to try SOME-THING SIMILAR for the epo-lattice in Simhony’s model:  “WHAT IF”, I ask’d my-self, “the EPOLA (“electron-positron lattice”) in SIMHONY’s model [Ref.#2] is real, and what if the RATIO  [(amount-of-“EPOLA”-stuff) / (amount-of-“ORDINARY”-stuff)]  in our universe is related to the ratio  [(Mu) / (Me)] ??”

EPOLA-STUFF is every-where in our universe,  while bits of “ORDINARY” stuff, (composed  most-ly of protons + neutrons), are, by comparison, few + far between … so the total-amount of EPOLA-stuff is much-much-great-er-than the total-amount of ORDINARY-stuff … Sternglass’s theoretical-calculation for mass-of-our-universe, already mention’d, gives Mu = 1.581 x 10^(58) grams [p.210, Ref.#1] … the mass-of-the-electron is well-known to be approx. 9.1094 x 10(-28) gram … the ratio of these two numbers is approx. 1.736 x 10^(85) … the square-root of this is approx. 4.167×10^(42) … if the total-mass of epola-stuff is 4.167×10^(42) x the total-mass of ordinary-stuff in our universe, then one can calculate a (NEW!!) theoretical lattice-length for the epola-stuff … and the MATHs are EASY + STRAIGHT-FORE-WARD:  no calculus needed !!   YAY!!

FIRST one calculates the hypothethcal TOTAL-MASS-OF-EPOLA-STUFF as 4.167×10^(42) x 1.581×10^(58) grams = 6.588×10^(100) grams … {recall that the MASS in this calculation is Sternglass’s theoretical MASS-OF-ORDINARY-STUFF in our universe, as mention’d above } … as already mention’d, the mass of a single electron (or positron) is approx. 9.1094 x 10^(-28) gram … if each EPOLA-CELL has exact-ly the mass of one electron (or positron), as Dr.Simhony says, then the number of epola-cells in our universe  must be approx. [6.588×10^(100)grams] / [9.1094×10(-28) gram] = 7.232×10^(127) … Use-ing Sternglass’s numbers, and my visualization of the ultimate BOUNDARY ***(see NOTE1 below) of our universe as of a torus-[donut]-shape,  one has: (total-volume-of-our-universe)  =  { [ (pi)^2 x (Ru)^3 ] / 4 }  = [ 9.870 x (2.348 x 10^30)^3 ]  /  4   =  3.194 x 10^(91) cu cm,  where “pi” = 3.1416,  and “Ru” is the-radius-of-our-universe, which Sternglass gives as approximate-ly  (2.348 x 10^30 cm)  [p.234, Ref.#1];  this means that the volume of each epola-cell is approximate-ly  [ 3.194 x 10^(91) cu cm ] / [ 7.232 x 10^(127)  =  4.417 x 10(-37) cu cm  ***(see NOTE2 below) … one notes that the cube-root of this volume gives the lattice-length of the [cube-shaped] epola-cell as   (LL)  =   ( 7.615 x 10^(-13) cm ) … THAT IS HOW I CALCULATED A NEW LATTICE-LENGTH FOR THE EPO-LATTICE IN Dr.Simhony’s MODEL …

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{ ***NOTE1:  in Sternglass’s model, our universe is the largest “cosmological-system” [p.234, Ref.#1]:  so, to be consistent, one needs to view our universe as be-ing of the same shape as the other cosmological-systems … the volume of a torus is approx. [(pi)^2 x (RADIUS)^3] / 4  (see NOTE3 below) } …

{ ***NOTE2:  interest-ing-ly, and perhaps significant-ly, 4.417 x 10^(-37) cu cm is also the volume of a TORUS-[DONUT]-SHAPED object whose radius is 5.636 x 10^(-13) cm,  a numeric-value which plays an important part in Sternglass’s model {see Figure 14.3 (b), p.215, Ref.#1}, as well as in QUANTUM FIELD THEORY:  Sternglass says that “This radius is analogous to the mean radius of the volume in which the electron’s field energy is concentrated  according to quantum field theory” [p.222, Ref.#1] } …

{ NOTE3:  the “radius” of a torus-[donut]-shaped “cosmological-system” [Sternglass’s phrase] is the distance between the centers of the electric-charges (1 positron + 1 electron) which compose it } …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast);

NEWARK, DELAWARE, USA,  17-DECEMBER-2014;   mark.creekwater@gmail.com

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 6 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

######################################

CHAPTER 7:  STAYING GROUNDED

QUOTE:  “God is very-mysterious, but not malicious”  —–EINSTEIN

IN PHYSICS, there’s a thing called the “standard model” … Actually, one can specify two [2] different “standard models” in physics, the “standard model of particle physics” (re tiny objects like protons + neutrons + electrons + positrons) and the “standard model of cosmology” (re large objects like stars + galaxies) … The very fact that there are two [2] models, instead of one [1], is part of the problem …

EINSTEIN, who was a world class GENIUS, in the TRUE sense of this word, spent the second half of his life searching for a SINGLE theory which would “unify” all of physics;  i.e., he was trying to visualize, and work out the theory, and the maths, to describe both LARGE objects {galaxies, etc.} and TINY objects {electrons, etc.}, all in a SINGLE, all-inclusive theory … He called the object of this search “THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY” … Tho he tried and tried, and then tried and tried some more, during many years, he was NEVER ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS ELUSIVE GOAL … It’s almost like, if EINSTEIN couldn’t do it, then it can’t be done …

ALMOST, BUT NOT QUITE:  today, physicists all over the world are still searching and trying, and searching and trying some more, to develop a theory, (or a “model” — as all the koool dudes say), which will “unify” physics once and for all, and enable us to understand how nature works on EVERY scale, large and small, and every scale in between … Any scientist, (or any TEAM of scientists), who achieves this is SURE to receive a NOBEL PRIZE …

Approximately 2007 I started a physics-study project:  it started after I re-activated a childhood interest in ASTRONOMY, which led me to ASTROPHYSICS, which led to NUCLEAR PHYSICS, and every kind of physics in between … I had assumed that, by now, the scientific community would have worked out all the details, and that I would be able to learn them, just by finding and reading the right books … I quickly learned that this was/is not so:  as it turns out, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of competing theories and/or models out there, and nobody knows for sure if ANY of them are true … It turns out that many scientists are now aware that the so called “standard models” —(both the one which describes TINY objects and the one which describes LARGE objects)— are, to say it politely, not quite right …

Here are two [2] YOUTUBE-VIDEOs re this:  I LOVE this guy — Dr. ALEXANDER UNZICKER wrote a book titled  THE HIGGS FAKE  and sub-titled “how particle physicists fooled the Nobel [prize] committee” … Tho lots of folks immediately jumped on him, for daring to question the claim that they finally found the fabled “HIGGs BOSON”, others have RALLIED AROUND HIM, because he DAREs to question the standard model theories on which the supposed higgs boson observation is based … And I think that he has maintained a great sense of humor thru all the CONTROVERSY which his book has generated …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNg4cCe6A74     …   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NOaYu-AxsI   …

DETAILs RE “STAYING GROUNDED”:  As already mentioned, there are several, perhaps dozens or hundreds, of competing theories or models among scientists, to try to correctly describe how nature works, and nobody knows for sure if ANY of them are correct … here’s a PARTIAL LIST of some of these competing + confusing theories/models:

One can use the analogy of a RABBIT HOLE to list some of the theories or models which are a part of the “standard model”, with the understanding that, since the early 1930s, some physicists, and their intellectual descendants, have been down in the many underground tunnels, whose only entrance is that rabbit hole …

One of these tunnels is full of PhD-holders who say that there is no “aether” or aether-like substance in our universe … An other is full of folks who say that the rate of expansion of our universe is ACCELERATING … An other is full of guys + gals who sincerely believe that the speed of light is EXACTLY the same, everywhere in our universe … Other tunnels shelter some very smart scientists who insist that “quarks” exist, despite the fact that they spent million$$$$$ doing experiments, in physics labs, world-wide, trying to observe “quarks”, but finally had to MODIFY THE STANDARD MODEL to try to explain why they have never observed any “quarks” [Ref.17, pp. 323 + 324] … And so on and so forth …

One can use the analogy of a VERY LARGE TREE, with many very large branches, to list the models or theories which are NOT parts of the standard model, but are just as wrong, or perhaps even more wrong, than the standard model … one of the branches on this very large tree is full of PhD-holders who say that there was never a “big bang” … An other is full of folks who say that interstellar electric currents (not hydrogen fusions) power our sun … An other is full of guys + gals who sincerely believe that time can run backwards … Other branches shelter some very smart scientists who insist that there are 10 or 11 dimensions, only three [3] of which we can see … And so on and so forth …

NOTE:  the rabbit hole is near the base of the very large tree … Near the rabbit hole and the tree is a 66-year-old A-P-E [amateur-physics-enthusiast], sitting cross-legged, yogi-style, in a state of BLISS;  blissfully inspired by knowing the TRUTH re some of these mysteries … This gentleman + scholar is not under the ground in a tunnel, and not above the ground on a tree branch … Instead, he is firmly GROUNDED, on terra firma;  i.e., on firm and level ground … From Dr.STERNGLASS’s model, he just simply KNOWs that there really was a “big bang” … From Dr.SIMHONY’s model he just simply KNOWs that there really IS a substance in our universe, which inter-penetrates all the ordinary stuff in our universe, and is similar to the “aether” in which most of the heavy-hitters of 19th century physics [(which was known as “NATURAL PHILOSOPHY” at that time)] believed …

The bottom line is this:  the guy who sits near the base of the big tree is GROUNDED …..  Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  PRINCETON, NJ, USA,  12-JANUARY-2015

%%%%%%%%%%%%%% << END OF CHAPTER 7 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

####################################

CHAPTER 8:  WHY DO PROTONs WEIGH APPROX. 1836x WHAT ELECTRONs WEIGH ??

QUOTE:  “Der Herr Gott ist sehr raffiniert, aber ist er nicht boshaft”   —–EINSTEIN  {translation at the start of CHAPTER 7}

DEAR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIASTs:  re the question which is the title of this essay:  i think that every-body in the entire known universe who ever study’d physics will agree that it is, [( LIKE )], 1 of the most-mysterious of the many mysterious mysterys in physics … it must be especial-ly-difficult for a physicist-who-believes-in-a-personal-GOD to understand why HE or SHE or IT would “create” this very-confuse-ing mystery, KNOW-ing that some of the humans whom he or she or it also “created” would be pull-ing their hair out try-ing to solve this very-mysterious mystery !!  {( JUST KID-ING:  in fact I reckon that “GOD” has got nuthin’ to do with this mystery !! )}

… IN FACT, i would like to think that IF i can persuade you that I know the answer, THEN you will RECOMMEND me for a NOBEL-PRIZE;  ‘cuz i sure can use a million bucks, OK ??   {( just-kid-ing:  my REAL passion for write-ing this essay is to try to help folks to learn the TRUTH !! )} 

ON A WALL IN THE PHYSICS-BUILDING at the UNIVERSITY of DELAWARE, where I was many-years-ago a STUDENT, there is a large PHOTOGRAPH, (from the HUBBLE SPACE-TELESCOPE, I think), which shows a part of our universe where there are many BIG LOTs of GALAXYs:  some of them are so far-away that (in the photo) one can’t see any individual stars:  instead, each one looks-like a tiny BACTERIUM looks, if one views it under a MICROSCOPE:  even a very-power-full microscope does-not reveal any individual ATOMs in a bacterium, tho one KNOWs that they are IN THERE …

SIMILAR-LY, in the photo, one can’t see any individual STARs in a galaxy, tho one KNOWs that they are IN THERE !!

{[ interest-ing-ly, there are approximate-ly as many STARs in an average galaxy as there are ATOMs in an average bacterium … I forget how many, but i DID do the calculation, several years ago … that’s yr HOME-WORK assignment: do the calculation … just kid-ing:  please, just-simply trust me — there are approximate-ly the same number of atoms in a single bacterium as there are stars in a galaxy ]} …

NOW:  that-there is an amaze-ing statement (above), yet it’s true … one might want to PAUSE HERE a little-bit and THINK and/or MEDITATE re that-there amaze-ing statement …

I FEEL THAT one of the great strengths of Sternglass’s model is that it treats our universe as a micro-biologist might treat a bacteria-culture in his or her biology-lab:  as if the patterns of stars and galaxys in our universe are not random, but a reflection of the idea that all the “cosmological-systems” [“cosmo.systs”] [p.234, Ref.#1] in his model initial-ly grow like bacteria, by a divide-in-half process … so their sizes and numbers and locations are determined by (1) the initial-size of the electromagnetic-field of the “primeval-atom” [p.2, Ref.#1] and (2) the total-amount of mass/energy in it …

IN OTHER WORDs, just as a biologist might expect his or her bacteria-culture to grow a while and then slow-down, and stop, when the container becomes “full”, Sternglass’s model predicts specific sizes + numbers + arrangements for “cosmo.systs”, based-on the very-large, yet finite, total-size and energy-content of the “primeval-atom” … analogous to the amount of space and nutrition available to bacteria in a biology-experiment …

IN THIS WAY, Sternglass’s visualization helps one to deal with the intimidate-ing “MENTAL-HURDLE” of try-ing to visualize how very-large systems, such as galaxys + galaxy-clusters, behave … His model, which he once described to me, by phone, as be-ing “self-consistent”, en-ables one to view our entire universe, as if it were in a little DISPLAY-CASE in a PHYSICS-LAB … TO DO THIS, he had some help from 2 of the great-est GENIUSES of 20th-century physics:  EINSTEIN, whom he visited with in 1947 at the great man’s little house in PRINCETON, NJ, talk-ing re physics + philosophy in their first-language (German);  and PAUL DIRAC, who was around for many years during Sternglass’s career, and died in 1984 …

IN HIS BOOK [Ref.#1] STERNGLASS describes how he used a slight modification of DIRAC’s so-call’d “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS” [google it] to derive a very-elegant, and theoretical, way to calculate the MASS-OF-OUR-UNIVERSE …

THE MATH-FORMULA [p.265, Ref.#1] —{be care-full: there’s a TYPO in the book}— is:  (Mu) / (Me) = (Mu) / (Mp) = [ (K x Qe x Qp) / (G x Me x Mp) ]^2   where “Mu” is mass-of-universe, “Me” is mass-of-electron, “Mp” is mass-of-positron, “K” is Coulomb’s electro-static-constant, “Qe”is electric-charge-of-electron, “Qp”is electric-charge-of-positron, and “G” is Newton’s gravitational-constant … [( NOTE: solve-ing this equation gives a mass of approx. 15,810,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams  for our universe )] … ie, approx. 1.581 x 10^(58) grams …

PLEASE PAY ATTENTION,  and read the MATH-FORMULA (above) care-fully:  the “Mp” (above) is the mass of a POSITRON,  not a PROTON, OK ??  of course, it’s slight-ly “redundant” to use both “Me” and “Mp” in the formula, because they are, {[ like ]}, EXACT-LY EQUIVALENT … and “Qe” and “Qp”, too, are equivalent … the reason WHY i write the formula this way is to EMPHASIZE that Sternglass’s model is about electron-positron PAIRs:  in fact, he calls it “The Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter” … in this model, electron-positron pairs are the main constituent of both PROTONs and NEUTRONs:  so he BUSTs the MYTH that, (as physics-book-writers love to say), “we live in a matter-dominated universe” … because we don’t !!  In fact, if i were a positron, then i would serious-ly RESENT be-ing call’d “anti” … real-ly …

Because, accord-ing to Sternglass’s Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter, there are EXACT-LY as many electrons [(“MATTER”)] in our universe as there are positrons [(“ANTI-MATTER”)]:  because the positrons [ie, so-call’d “anti-matter”] are {( ?? HIDE-ING ?? )} in-side-of the PROTONs + NEUTRONs which compose ordinary atomic-nuclei  —{( MORE-PRECISE-LY, electron-positron pairs actual-ly compose protons and neutrons )}—

{( this is why astronomers reported that the very-massive and energetic SUPER-NOVA EXPLOSION observed in 2006 [SN2006gy] produced EQUAL NUMBERs of hi-energy electrons + positrons:  because protons + neutrons contain equal numbers of electrons + positrons, if one counts the odd electron which is USUAL-LY hang’n out some-where NEAR-BY the proton )} … evident-ly this extreme-ly power-full event blasted and/or crush’d many-many protons + neutrons down in-to the small-est possible parts of them-selves — the speedy-electrons + speedy-positrons which compose them [p.250, Ref.#1] 

===>> {NOTE for guys + gals who hold PhDs:  no-body has ever observed any “quarks” in a physics-lab [pp. 323 + 324, Ref.#17]} <<===

IN STERNGLASS’s MODEL, a neutron contains five [5] electron-positron pairs, while a proton contains four [4] ep-pairs and an un-pair’d positron at its center … of course, some-where in our universe (usual-ly very-near to the un-pair’d positron) is the proton’s partner, an un-pair’d electron … MY POINT HERE is that Dr.Sternglass, in his search for the TRUTH, has “BUSTED” some of the MYTHs which many guys + gals with PhDs actual-ly believe … e.g., that we live in “a matter-dominated universe” …

{( in his book, he also “BUSTs” the so-call’d “double-slit experiment” — which appears in MANY physics text-books … please read the book to learn how he does this — BEFORE THE BIG BANG is available at http://www.AMAZON.com, where there are > a dozen REVIEWs of it, most of them POSITIVE )} …

BACK TO THE MAIN-PROBLEM:  why the odd ratio of  ( 1836 / 1 )  for  (PROTON-mass) —vs— (ELECTRON-mass) ??

WELL:  IN STERNGLASS’s book [Ref.#1], he says that our universe initial-ly consisted of ONE very-large and very-massive entity:  the “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” of the model of GEORGES LeMAITRE {google it} … he says that the electro-magnetic field of this “monster” was, essential-ly, the size of our universe … he says that its humongous em-field divided in half, and the 2 halfs divided in half, and each of those pieces divided in half, and so on, and so forth, until there were zillions of tiny pieces, each with the mass of approximate-ly five [5] protons …

AT THIS POINT (or soon after) there was a “phase-transition”:  zillions of the little-rascals re-configured, in a way which led to the formation (one wants to say “creation”) of many zillions of neutrons, most of which quick-ly “decay’d” — form-ing many zillions of protons … analogous to the phase-transition which happens when water freezes and forms ice, this phase-transition released lots of energy — enough to power a “BIG-BANG” …

NOTE:  THO I KNOW THAT SOME SCIENTISTs SAY THAT THERE NEVER WAS A “BIG-BANG”, I ALSO KNOW THAT STERNGLASS PRESENTs EXCELLENT + POWER-FULL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE REAL-LY WAS A “BIG-BANG” …

DURING THE DIVIDE-IN-HALF SCENARIO which preceded the “big-bang”, (which I call the “count-down to the big-bang”), the masses and sizes of the systems involved in it became small-er and small-er and small-er as the pieces of the “primeval-atom” divided in half, again + again + again … Sternglass calls these pieces “COSMOLOGICAL-SYSTEMs” regard-less-of their size or mass … in his “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1] he lists “Masses, sizes, and rotational periods for cosmological systems predicted by the electron[-positron] pair model of matter”… 

ANGULAR-MOMENTUM:  THIS IS A CONCEPT which every PHYSICS-101 text-book in the entire known universe explains:   one can define it as the (mass) x (velocity) x (radius) of a rotate-ing or orbit-ing system … EACH of the “cosmological-systems” in Sternglass’s model consists of an ELECTRON + a POSITRON, which “rotate” or “orbit” around each other, each move-ing at almost the speed of light … { alternative-ly, one can visualize this as a very-rapid electrical-oscillation } … the radius is the distance between the center of the electron’s electric-charge and the center of the positron’s electric-charge … the mass is that of the entire system, which is MUCH-MORE-THAN the “rest-mass” of an electron + a positron:  because the little-rascals are NOT rest-ing, but move-ing at ALMOST the speed of light … Sternglass lists both mass and radius data for many different-ly-sized systems in his “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1]

THE TRICKY PART about calculate-ing the angular-momentum [some times call’d “SPIN”] of such a system is to realize that the e and the p are move-ing at a speed of almost  2 x the speed of light  with respect to each other … so one needs to use [2 x c], not [c], for the velocity 

USE-ING the NUMBERs in Sternglass’s “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], one can calculate the angular-momentum of each of the systems involved in the “count-down to the big-bang” … for the large cosmological-systems, the angular-momentums are, [( like )], WAY TOO LARGE to represent any-thing which a physicist might consider a “particle” … how-ever: when one gets down to the size and mass of an ordinary, sub-atomic, “particle”, one finds that the angular-momentum has a “NORMAL” value:  i.e., a value which one can associate with a “normal” sub-atomic “particle” … for a “normal” “particle”, one usual-ly expects an ang.mom. of either (0) or +(1/2) or -(1/2) or +(1) or -(1) or +(3/2) or -(3/2) or +(2) or -(2) … {[ of course, when one mentions that an ang.mom. has a numeric-value of (1), one real-ly means (1) x (planck’s constant) / 2x(pi) … like-wise with all the other “SPIN” numbers above, whether they be whole or fractional numbers:  one needs to multiply by (planck’s constant) / 2x(pi) ]} … so a “SPIN-1 SYSTEM” has an angular-momentum of approx. 6.6261 x 10^(-27) erg.sec / 2x(pi), which is equivalent-to approx. 1.0546 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm …

LET’s GET “UP-CLOSE and PERSONAL” with a “SPIN-2” SYSTEM:

USE-ING STERNGLASS’s “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], one can calculate BOTH the RADIUS and the MASS of a “cosmological-system” whose angular-momentum is  2 x {(planck’s constant) / 2x(pi)},  which is equivalent to 2.1092 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm … and one can refer to this “system” as a “SPIN-2 system” …

PLEASE REFER to CHAPTER 4 for details re the actual calculation, which involves solve-ing 2 easy math-equations, “simultaneous-ly”, as they say … {[( if you know HIGH-SCHOOL ALGEBRA, then you can understand this calculation )]} … when one does this calculation, one finds that this particular —{( PUN-INTENDED )}— “STERNGLASS-COSMOLOGICAL-SYSTEM” has a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram and a radius of approx. 8.677 x 10^(-14) cm

…  to CHECK the calculation, one can multiply [4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram] x [5.9958 x 10^(10) cm/sec] x [8.677 x 10^(-14) cm], and find that it equals [2.1092 x 10^(-27) gram.(cm/sec).cm], which is equivalent-to  2 x {(plank’s constant) / 2x(pi)} … SO IT’s A “SPIN-2” SYSTEM … { NOTE: 2 x (speed-of-light) = approx. 5.9958 x 10^(10) cm/sec } …

PLEASE NOTE that the calculated radius, above, is very-close to the measured “radius of the proton” — which EXPERIMENTs have determined, by a variety of methods, to be in the range of between approx. 8.42 x 10^(-14) cm and approx. 8.97 x 10^(-14) cm … { CODATA-value is given as approx. 8.768 x 10^(-14) cm [Ref.#20] } … PLEASE ALSO NOTE that one calculated this numeric-value by use-ing easy-maths, (ie, high-school algebra), from Dr.Sternglass’s theory, with none of the fiend-ish-ly-difficult maths for which quantum-mechanics and quantum-field-theory is famous …

AS FOR THE CALCULATED MASS (above):  it’s approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram … WHAT MIGHT THIS BE ??

WELL, in DR.STERNGLASS’s proton-model [p.250, Ref.#1], each proton consists of four [4] electron-positron pairs, and an un-pair’d positron at the proton’s center … { NOTE: no-body has ever observed any “quarks” in a physics-lab [pp. 323 + 324, Ref.#17] } … As already mention’d: Sternglass says that each cosmological-system in his model consists of an electron-positron pair … NOTE that the total-mass of four [4] of the cosmological-systems {[ i.e., ep-pairs ]} in the calculation above is almost equal to THE KNOWN MASS OF THE PROTON … perhaps the positron-at-the-center provides the remainder of the proton’s mass … perhaps this is why the proton’s mass is approx. that of 1836 electrons …

TO SUMMARIZE + REVIEW:  the cosmological-system [cosmo.syst] in Sternglass’s TABLE 1 [p.234, Ref.#1] whose angular-momentum makes it a “SPIN-2” system has a mass of approx. 4.0543 x 10^(-25) gram …

{( NOTE: this number does-not appear in “TABLE 1”, as he presents it in the book, but one can extend TABLE 1 to include it … just remember to multiply the radius by the fine-structure constant, (ie, to divide it by 137.036), to account for the “RELATIVISTIC-SHRINKAGE” of the tiny cosmo.systs near the end of the table )} …

Four [4] of these particular [pun-intended] cosmo.systs have a total-mass which is ALMOST the known mass of the proton;  i.e., a total-mass of approx. 1.6217 x 10^(-24) gram … i.e., a total-mass of approx. 1780 electrons … perhaps the positron at the proton’s center (which carrys the proton’s net electric-charge) has a mass of approx. 56 electrons, for a total-mass of approx. 1836 electrons ??

SO ONE CAN SAY that perhaps THE REASON WHY the proton-mass is approx. that of 1836 electrons is because four [4] SPIN-2 electron-positron pairs, {i.e., “sternglass.cosmo.systs”}, plus an un-pair’d positron at the center, is the MOST-STABLE combination of these objects possible …

PERHAPs a physicist with great-er knowledge of these mysterys can explain more of the details re WHY this is the most-stable combination of these objects possible ??

QUESTION:  how did EINSTEIN help Sternglass develop his theory/model ??  ANSWER:  E. advised S. to always have a “day-job” to pay his bills, to allow him to work-on develop-ing his theory/model during his free-time, so he could “make his mistakes in private” …..

Sincere-ly, MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO;  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST;  PRINCETON, NJ, USA;  12-JANUARY-2015

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 8 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

#################################

CHAPTER 9:  A BOOK-REVIEW — Schroedinger’s Universe (2008)  by  Milo Wolff

“I don’t know what the fuss is all about — Dirac did it all before me”  —–RICHARD FEYNMAN

Dr. MILO WOLFF [Ref.#8] wrote a book titled Schroedinger’s Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws (2008) [Ref.#8] … I found a copy of it and read thru it:  tho I LOVE some of it, I was slight-ly disappointed, because Dr.Wolff used some MATHs which I don’t understand, and also because he repeated some of the (in my opinion) ERRORs of folks-who-challenge-the-standard-model … as already mention’d, SOME folks who understand that the standard-model is not-correct are now offer-ing models which are also not-correct … IN MY OPINION, the most-serious of these errors in Dr.Wolff’s book is his denial that a “big-bang” ever happen’d … like many writers, he MOCKs the idea that there was a “big-bang” … and yet, as already mention’d, Dr.Sternglass gives some very-power-full evidence for the idea that there real-ly WAS a “big-bang” … so, to try to “SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT”, regard-ing what I DO and DO-NOT believe in Dr.Wolff’s book, I wrote the follow-ing book-review:

BOOK-REVIEW:  SCHROEDINGER’s UNIVERSE (2008), by Milo Wolff

FIRST-LY I want to say that I love his description [page ix] of “SPACE” as “a quantum wave medium of spherical quantum waves” … if one regards the “epola-elements” in Dr.SIMHONY’s model as consist-ing of [not “particles”, but] zillions of standing-waves, each form’d by an IN and an OUT wave, then Dr.Wolff’s description of “SPACE” is very-similar to Dr.Simhony’s description of the “EPO-LATTICE” {[ i.e., “SPACE” ]} in his model …

HOW-EVER, I QUESTION Dr.W’s following ERNST MACH in say-ing that “The energy-density of space is due to the sum of waves from all matter in the Universe” … by contrast, Simhony says that the epo-lattice [i.e., “SPACE”] consists of zillions of actual electrons + positrons, and says nothing re the so-call’d “MACH’s PRINCIPLE” — the idea that the measured-masses of the ordinary objects in our universe are due-to the existence of distant stars + galaxys …

{[ IN FACT, it seems like Dr.Wolff him-self might feel a bit of doubt and/or confusion re MACH’s famous “principle”, as he says on p.43 that “You should not try to imagine that the [accelerate-ing] object is interacting with the distant stars.  Instead, the density of the surrounding space is already created by the waves from the distant stars” ]} …

IN SIMHONY’s MODEL, it’s the presence of the EPO-LATTICE, throughout our universe, which creates “the energy-density of space” —(and makes the measured-masses of ordinary objects what-it-is)— NOT the presence of distant stars + galaxys … if Simhony is right, then there is, (like), WAY-MORE EPOLA-STUFF in our universe than any-thing else … ( more details in  APPENDIX9 )

I like how Dr.Wolff describes THE ELECTRON as “the fundamental particle … made solely of waves, whose appearance mimics a point particle” … Dr.Sternglass, too, says that the electron (and the positron, its equal-but-opposite twin) are the ONLY “fundamental” “particles” … I presume that, like Sternglass, when Wolff says “the electron” he means both electrons + positrons, which differ only in that they carry opposite electric-charges … evident-ly, SCHROEDINGER, too, believed that there are no so-call’d “particles”, as he say’d that  “what we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space” [p.20, Ref.#26] … in other words, there are no “particles”, only energy-waves …

CHAPTER 3 is good:  the “MINIMUM AMPLITUDE PRINCIPLE” [p.51, CHAPTER 4] seems remark-ably similar-to the well-known “PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ACTION” of classical physics … EINSTEIN knew that principle well …

IN CHAPTER 5 Dr.W. presents some MATHs which I don’t understand;  but his WORDs seem very-reason-able, assume-ing that the maths are correct, which I’v no reason to doubt … for example, on p.59, to explain the attractions + repulsions between electrons + positrons, he says that  “The wave-centers will move together or apart in order to minimize total amplitude … Polarity depends on whether there is a (PLUS) or (MINUS) amplitude of the in-wave at the center.  If two electrons are near one another, their identical waves add together , producing maximum amplitude, causing them to move apart seeking a minimum.  If one is a positron, their waves will cancel each other, producing a minimum amplitude that will be decreased as they move together.  These changing amplitudes appear as forces dependent on total wave amplitude that changes with distance … as 1/(distance)^2, thus matching the usual empirical Coulomb law” …

CHARTER 6 presents some interest-ing HISTORICAL details … I LIKE THE DESCRIPTION on p.79:  “The pioneers [CLIFFORD, DIRAC, MACH, SCHROEDINGER, and EINSTEIN] arrived at their valid conclusions by painstaking analysis and careful adherence to the rules of logic, and the philosophy of truth.  But their thinking was ignored for sixty years” …

ON PAGE-106:  a possible “TYPO” ??  i.e., the “m” in the expression e^2 / mc^2 represents the mass of an electron, I think:  so, for great-er clarity, one might want to add a little “e” as a sub-script to this “m”, as is done else-where in the book …

NEAR THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 133, the explanation for the RED-SHIFT phenomenon {google “redshift” if you need to} sounds very-much like FRITZ ZWICKY’s “tired light hypothesis” {google it, if u need to} … as already mention’d, I feel that Zwicky’s idea might be one of SEVERAL valid explanations for red-shifts, each of which might contribute to a portion of the observed red-shifts of distant-objects … BUT ON PAGE 134 there might-be a TYPO in the short math-formula re this:  as Dr.Wolff admits, he and his co-authors are only “mediocre” mathematicians, as am I;  but that formula doesn’t look right to me …

FOR ME, THE VERY-BEST PART of Dr.Wolff’s book is the illustration + explanation on p.154 … the ILLUSTRATION shows a little cork ball, with six [6] rubber-bands attach’d to it, and the other ends of the rubber-bands attach’d to 6 of the 12 edges of a little “wooden stick frame” built in the shape of a CUBE … the WORDs explain that “the rotating ball represents a property of the space at the center of a charged particle composed of converging and diverging quantum waves” … he says that “The ball can be turned about any given axis starting from any initial position. If the ball is rotated … it will … after every two rotations … return … to its original configuration” … UN-EXPECTED-LY, THE RUBBER-BANDs DO-NOT BECOME EN-TANGLED !!

NOT ONLY does this help explain the electron’s famous-ly-mysterious DOUBLE-SPIN [(720 degrees)], it also helps support the very-speculative visualization which I present in APPENDIX5 re the possibility that there might-be “magnetic-flow currents” in the epo-lattice, and that an ep-pair exists at every place where three [3] magnetic-flow-currents converge …

IF Dr.Wolff is correct about this, then it supports my idea that the strength of these magnetic-flow-currents, if they exist, might-be the reason why the energy-content, (and there-fore the “mass”), of the electron (and also the positron) is what-it-is … if electrons and positrons are, as Dr.Wolff says, nothing but standing energy-waves, then one can easy-ly visualize a pair of the little-rascals, “coupled” to each other, exist-ing as a bit of pure energy [“waves”], which swirl [i.e., “spin” and “rotate”] in response to how strong-ly the hypothesized magnetic-flow-currents blow on them, and are there-fore stable at the places where 3 of the “flows” converge … {more details in APPENDIX5 } …

“THE FINAL UN-ANSWERED QUESTION”

Dr.W. mentions what he calls “THE FINAL UN-ANSWERED QUESTION OF SCIENCE” several times:  on p.100, on p.108, and again at the very-end of the book:  e.g., on p.100: “But what is the space medium ?  This is the final un-answered question of science” …

WELL, I suggest that Dr.Simhony [Refs. #2, #2a] might have found a VERY-GOOD answer to this important question:  I suggest that the epo-lattice [“EPOLA”] in Dr.S’s model IS IN FACT THIS “SPACE-MEDIUM” … as Dr.Wolff says and/or implys, several places in his book:  the “answer” to a tough question in physics might, in fact, be much-more SIMPLE and EASY than one expects, if one just-simply has a correct way to VISUALIZE what’s happen-ing … Dr.Simhony’s model has this wonder-full advantage:  it’s very-easy to VISUALIZE …

AS I SEE IT, one of the MAJOR problems with the standard-model is that, since the 1930s, some of the smart-est + most-respected PhD-holders in science have taught grad-students in universitys, world-wide, that there is NOT ANY kind of “aether” or “ether” or ether-like substance in our universe … by affirm-ing the existence of an “EPOLA” [i.e., an “electron-positron lattice”], which permeates our universe, without fill-ing it, Dr.Simhony has come a LONG WAY toward answer-ing this fundamental question re “what is the space medium ??” …

NOT ONLY does Simhony say that this “epo-lattice” en-ables PHOTONs to travel from here to there to where-ever in our universe, but he also says that it en-ables GRAVITY to happen !!  This is,  {[ like ]}, WAY-MORE-THAN even MAXWELL + FARADAY say’d re the “aether” in their visualizations … {[ HINT: gravity doesn’t PULL — it PUSHES !! ]} …

BOTTOM-LINE:  if one agrees that Dr.Wolff’s “final un-answered question of science” is important,  then one MIGHT want to look long + hard at Dr.Simhony’s model !!  It’s available on the INTERNET, at http://www.EPOLA.org …..

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF CHAPTER 9 >> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

################################

CHAPTER 10:  HOW + WHY DOES THE CONCEPT OF “LOCAL-GRAVITY” WORK ??

“He had the ideas and then I translated them into mathematics”  —–FREEMAN DYSON, re RICHARD FEYNMAN

WELL, if you have read this far in-to this book, then you prob’ly [probably] realize that the EPO-LATTICE in Dr.Simhony’s model is supposed to be “stiffer than a diamond”;  while, at the same time, it’s also “elastic” — mean-ing that it will bend a little bit under stress … but only a VERY little bit, because it’s “stiffer than a diamond” …

NOTE:  there is NO CONTRADICTION in the idea that some-thing can be BOTH “stiff” and “elastic”:  many things are:  a BARN-DOOR is obvious-ly “stiff”, but if you throw a rock at it, the rock will bounce back, because the door will deform slight-ly, and then bounce back, so the rock, too, bounces back:  the door is “elastic” … like-wise, billiard-balls:  tho “stiff”, they collide + then bounce apart, because they are also “elastic” …

Dr.Simhony says that the epo-lattice causes GRAVITY to happen {!!} because every bit of “ordinary” stuff in our universe, main-ly protons + neutrons, causes the epo-lattice at and near its own location to expand a little bit, so that some of that epola-stuff is push’d out of some of the space which it had been occupy-ing … so there is a “push-back” force, as epola-stuff “trys” to re-occupy the space which the “ordinary” stuff push’d it out of … natural-ly, if there is a LARGE-quantity of “ordinary” stuff in a volume-of-space, such as in the volume which a MOON or PLANET occupys, then there will be a LARGE expansion of the EPOLA-stuff in that volume-of-space …

Plus:  because ALL epola-elements are ultimate-ly connected to each other, this means that the epo-lattice BETWEEN a moon + a planet also expands, and is there-fore slight-ly less-dense than the epo-lattice-which-surrounds-both-objects:  the surround-ing epo-lattice pushes back, and this “push-back” is what we experience as “GRAVITY” …

THAT (above) is a SHORT explanation re what-causes-gravity:  an even SHORT-ER EXPLANATION is this:

      ===>> GRAVITY  DOESN’T  PULL —– IT  PUSHES  !!!  <<===

It PUSHES, because the epola-stuff which surrounds 2 objects in space is slight-ly-more-dense than the epola-stuff between them … So the objects “gravitate” toward each other … one needs a bit of creative imagination to “GET” why this explanation is prob’ly true, and I don’t want to argue details:  to me, this explanation seems obvious … tho I KNOW (from argue-ing with others) that others do not agree … so be it … what-ever … it’s all good …

=======================================

SO:  how DOES the concept of “local-gravity” fit in here ??

Dr.Sternglass hypothesizes that the concept of local-gravity applys to the “cosmological-systems” [cosmo.systs] in his model, which are a TOTAL-LY-DIFFERENT KIND of stuff than the “ordinary” stuff which physicists usual-ly study:  because they existed BEFORE THE BIG BANG, before any protons or neutrons existed … accord-ing to Sternglass’s model, protons + neutrons started their existence —( i.e., were “BORN” !! )— at the start of the “big bang” …

ONE CAN CALL THESE OBJECTs  “Sternglass.cosmo.systs” — BECAUSE THEY ARE BASIC TO STERNGLASS’s MODEL …

He says that the “inner small space” [p.223, Ref.#1] in-side-of a SMALL cosmo.syst experiences a larger local-gravity than that in-side-of a LARGE cosmo.syst,  proportional to the INVERSE OF THE SYSTEM’s RADIUS … One needs to read the book [Ref.#1] to “GET” why this might be true:  even after > 5 years of INTENSE-STUDY of the book, i’m still get-ing more info from it, info which is new to me:  and it’s a short book:  < 300 pages:  one purpose of this series of essays is to inspire folks to want to read Sternglass’s BEFORE THE BIG BANG [Ref.#1], and also to read about Simhony’s model [Ref. #2 + 2a], which is total-ly available on the INTERNET …

AS STERNGLASS WAS DEVELOP-ING DETAILs re the process by which “cosmological systems” in his model divided-in-half, again + again + again, before the big bang, {a process which I call “THE COUNT-DOWN TO THE BIG-BANG”}, it seem’d like the value of the “gravitational-constant” [“G”] in his calculations would “increase … at every division” [p.222, Ref.#1] … know-ing that this was a revolutionary idea, with no equivalent in the “standard” model, he needed to THINK, LONG and HARD, re the possibility that it might actual-ly be TRUE …

AS HE SAYs:  “after much thought, I realized that an increase in the strength of gravity was only a localized change in the curvature of space in Einstein’s theory, and that the value of G for the universe as a whole could remain constant” … [p.222, Ref.#1] …

PLUS:  he had some help from a colleague, DR. LLOYD MOTZ, who had already look’d at the same idea:  “In fact, Lloyd Motz had worked out a model for the electron based on exactly such a large local strength of the gravitational force in his 1962 paper [Ref.#28]” [p.222, Ref.#1] … and EINSTEIN, too, had thought about this possibility:

“Einstein had considered a local gravitational or space-curvature force strong enough to keep the electron stable in a paper he presented at a meeting of the Prussian Academy of Science in 1919 … He and I had discussed this question at length when we met in Princeton in 1947 ” [p.222, Ref.#1] …

DETAILs … DETAILs … and MORE DETAILs …

IN HIS “TABLE 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], Sternglass lists mass and size data for many of the different-ly-sized cosmo.systs [cosmological-systems], start-ing with the “primeval-atom” [(which once contain’d all the mass/energy in our universe, as difficult as that might-be to comprehend)], and end-ing at what he calls “stage 27”, where there are zillions of tiny cosmo.systs, each of approx. the mass of 5 protons … he says that, for each cosmo.syst, regard-less of its mass or size, the radius is proportional to the square-root of the system’s mass

The large cosmological-systems share large spaces with zillions of epola-elements, while the tiny cosmo.systs at “stage 27” are just the right size to fit in-side-of a single epola-cell [Refs. #2, #2a], each of which is defined by eight [8] epola-elements …

Because it’s an ELASTIC substance, the epo-lattice expands in a way which is analogous to how HOOKE’s LAW works for a spring … {if one needs to google “Hooke’s law” and study it, then one might want to do so at this time} … in any case, the concepts which work for “Hooke’s law” also work for the epo-lattice, and are as follows:

   (1)  FORCE ~ (lattice-expansion, length-wise) …

   (2)  ENERGY ~ (lattice-expansion, length-wise), squared …

{ NOTE1:  the symbol  “~”  means  “is proportional to” } …

{ NOTE2:  I say “length-wise”, because i’m talk’n about how the lattice expands in a 1-dimensional sense, not, for example, how the volume of an epola-cell increases, which is obvious-ly the CUBE of how its length increases … but I’m not talk-ing about that:  I’m talk-ing about how its length increases } …

(2) above says that a Sternglass.cosmo.syst whose ENERGY-content is 100x that of an other Sternglass.cosmo.syst will cause the epo-lattice to expand, length-wise, 10x as much as the less-energetic system … and the radius of such a system (the more-energetic one) is also 10x that of the less-energetic system;  because, as already mention’d, the RADIUS of every Sternglass.cosmo.syst is proportional to the SQUARE-ROOT of its MASS, and therefore also proportional to the square-root of its ENERGY-content … because the radius of the larger system is 10x as long as that of the small-er system, it encloses approximate-ly 1000x as many epola-cells … so the amount of length-wise expansion for a large system is, PER EPOLA-CELL, less-that that of a tiny system …

IN OTHER WORDs:  even tho a large-er system causes the epo-lattice to expand MORE-THAN a small-er system, this expansion is LESS, PER EPOLA-CELL, than for the small-er system …

Mean-while, (1) above says that the FORCE is proportional to the amount of lattice-expansion, length-wise … so the FORCE, PER EPOLA-CELL, is also much-less for a large system than for a small one … as already mention’d, the in-ward push-back force from expanded epola-cells is what we experience as “gravity”

THAT is a SHORT explanation for why the “local-gravity” in-side-of small systems is great-er-than that in-side-of large systems …

=======================================

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT ??

MANY PHYSICS-BOOKs mention the fact that the electrical-forces which physicists study are, {( like )}, > 10^(37) x great-er-than the gravitational-forces … This is a HUMONGOUS factor:  10^(37) = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000;  and virtual-ly ALL of the books present this KNOWN-FACT as one of the out-stand-ing CURRENT-MYSTERYs of this complex + competitive field-of-study … imply-ing that any scientist (or TEAM of scientists) who can success-fully explain WHY the electric-force is so much strong-er-than the gravitic-force would sure-ly become eligible for a NOBEL-PRIZE nomination …

WELL, in my opinion, Sternglass is eligible for such a nomination, because, in my opinion, his model success-fully explains this “mystery” …

STERNGLASS says that:  “as the local strength of the space-curvature force increased with every step [in the “count-down to the big bang”], it would reach a value equal to the [ELECTRIC] Force when the mass [of the “cosmological-system”] was that of an electron … sufficient to hold the electron together in the face of the strong repulsion between its field-lines at their source” [p.222, Ref.#1] …

NOTE1:  follow-ing EINSTEIN, he says “space-curvature force” to mean “gravitational-force”

NOTE2:  Dr.Simhony uses the word “space” to describe the “epola” in his model:  i.e., the “epola” does not OCCUPY “space” — because it IS “space” … So the “space-curvature” in EINSTEIN’s model, and also in STERNGLASS’s model, is just-simply the “curvature” or “warpage” or “bending” of a portion of the epo-lattice —– which happens where-ever + when-ever any “MATTER” is present …

NOTE3:  This is an example of what Dr.J.A.Wheeler famous-ly say’d regard-ing this:  “MATTER tells SPACE how to curve, while SPACE tells MATTER how to move” 

***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***

EVEN EINSTEIN was not-able to visualize very well what’s happen-ing with TINY objects, such as protons + neutrons … I once read that he say’d some-thing like:  “‘my general relativity theory is built on a solid foundation of rock + brick regard-ing what happens with LARGE objects [galaxys + stars, etc.], but it’s built on a foundation of straw regard-ing TINY objects [protons + neutrons, etc.]'” … EINSTEIN work’d many years try-ing to find the “HOLY GRAIL” of physics:  a sensible mathematical description regard-ing the behavior of ALL the objects in our universe, both LARGE and TINY … And he was never able to find it, tho he try’d until, literal-ly, the day when he died:  he was “addicted to physics” …

{[ HEY, there are lots of worse things to be addicted to, right ?? ]} …

TODAY MANY SCIENTISTs  —(still “addicted to physics”)—  are still try-ing to find that rascal-ly “HOLY GRAIL” … This is why Dr.Sternglass’s concept of, and description of, “LOCAL-GRAVITY” is significant:  because it clear-ly shows the elusive connection between the very LARGE and the very TINY objects in our universe:  because his model describes a “count-down” scenario in which the very-very LARGE-est object in our universe, i.e., the “PRIMEVAL-ATOM”, produces ALL the objects in our universe, LARGE and TINY, by the simple trick of divide-ing in half, again + again + again … And each + every time when a piece of the primeval-atom divides in half, the “local-gravity” in-side-of the “inner-space” of each of the 2 new pieces increases by a simple factor of the square-root of 2 …

THIS IS THE CONNECTION between the very-large and the very-tiny which EINSTEIN search’d for during all those many years, and it’s also the connection which every physicist who wants to find a “theory-of-every-thing” or a “grand-unification-theory” is look-ing for …

THIS IS WHY it’s significant:  the LONG SEARCH is over:  tho I reckon that Dr.Sternglass’s model is not perfect, (is any model “perfect” ??), I also reckon that one might want to look at it long and hard, to see if one agrees that it might be able to answer some of the important questions (i.e., if it might help to solve some of the out-stand-ing CURRENT MYSTERYs) in this complex + competitive field-of-study …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  ITHACA, NY, USA,  11-FEB-2015

$$$$$$$$$$$ < END OF CHAPTER 10 > $$$$$$$$$$$

#################################

CHAPTER 11:  WHAT IS THE “PIONEER-ANOMALY” ??

Recent-ly I was explain-ing Dr.Simhony’s theory to an individual who had express’d interest in it, and he ask’d me:  “Is there any PROOF of this ??”  This prompted me to tell him about the so-call’d “Pioneer-anomaly” — and also to realize that I might want to say some-thing about it in my book … this chapter is the result …

Many years ago, start-ing in the early 1970s, the folks at NASA [National Aeronautics & Space Administration] launch’d a series of space-craft toward other planets in our solar-system, to learn more about them, and about some of their moons …

They eventual-ly launch’d > a dozen space-craft  in 2 programs known as Pioneer and Voyager … tho these missions were very-success-full, at least 4 of them, (Pioneers 10 + 11, and Voyagers 1 + 2), became notorious for an interest-ing reason, which became known as “the Pioneer-anomaly” …

It seems that, as the space-craft went farther + farther from earth, the radio-signals which they sent back to earth started arrive-ing soon-er-than-expected … Not by much:  only by a tiny fraction of a second, but enough to alert scientists that some-thing un-expected + un-predicted was happen-ing …

Why would the radio-signals arrive too-soon ??  Were the space-craft move-ing more-slow-ly-than-expected, for some un-known reason ??  Many individuals in the physics-community became passionate in their efforts to learn the reason for this “anomaly” … accord-ing to a book publish’d in 2008,  “every month, one or two new papers appear that espouse some exotic explanation for the Pioneer anomaly” [p.42, Thirteen Things That Don’t Make Sense (2008) by Michael Brooks] …

It seems that most of the folks who have try’d to solve this mystery have automatic-ly assumed what NASA-engineers assumed  (that the space-craft are move-ing more-slow-ly-than-expected),  when there is an obvious second possibility:  perhaps radio-signals move a bit fast-er in the more “empty” regions of our solar-system out beyond the large planets, as Dr.Simhony says …

This is what the Pioneer-anomaly is all about:  it’s a CURRENT-MYSTERY in physics, which the standard-model can’t explain, because the standard-model (as many physicists interpret it) says that the speed of light (+ radio-signals) in a vacuum is exact-ly the same, every-where in our universe …

The fact that our scientists have astound-ing-ly-accurate electronic-technology, en-able-ing them to measure the tiny time-differences involved, is a tribute to their intelligence + skill … but the explanation for the “mystery” might-be more-simple than expected, if Dr.Simhony’s model is correct …

As already mention’d:  the model predicts that in a region of space which is empty-er (less dust, gas, etc.), the binding-energy, (and therefore the “stiffness”), of the local epo-lattice will be slight-ly great-er, and the speed of radio-signals out there will also be slight-ly great-er, because there is less ordinary-stuff (dust, gas, etc.) to interfere with the forces which hold the epo-lattice together …

As it says on the “Simhony tribute” web-site, with some nice bright-ly-color’d schematic-diagrams:  “Test data of the Shapiro effect … exactly validates the EPOLA-model prediction that light [and radio-signals] traveling in the less-dense, expanded, EPOLA, near massive objects will be reduced in speed … the Speed of Light in a vacuum is NOT constant !” …

PLUS:  “If this is the case, then the reverse ought also to be true … [radio-signals] traveling in deep space at distances far remote from our sun should travel FASTER, due to the more densely packed, elastically stiffer, properties of the EPOLA in this region of the universe … the bewildering Pioneer 10 and 11 anomaly, where radio-signals were returning to earth TOO SOON [i.e., soon-er-than-expected], has been solved !  Without Simhony’s model, some scientists have gone so far as to consider that the law of gravity as we know it [might] be wrong” …

FROM THE SAME WEB-SITE:  “Google ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ and you will be amazed at the bewilderment of scientists all over the world when not ONE but TWO different spacecraft began doing the same thing as they proceeded further and further out into deep space” …

So it looks like NASA has provided some un-expected support for Dr.Simhony’s model … As Dr. Brooks says in his book, quoted above, the Pioneer-anomaly  “might [be] a sign of impending crisis … our current picture of the cosmos might have to change in the near future” [p.45, Ref.#37] … 

The “impending crisis” in physics has been grow-ing for > 80 years, ever since the folks who develop’d what we now call “the standard-model” decided to official-ly dis-continue the idea of “ether”, or”aether”, or ANY kind of ether-like substance in our universe … Since the 1930s, professors in university physics-departments, world-wide, have taught grad-students that there is NO ether or ether-like substance in our universe …

In 1997 Dr. Girard t’Hooft publish’d a book titled In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks … In my opinion, based-on my reading, and also on see-ing him in a youtube-video, I feel that Dr. t’Hooft is one of the more open-minded of the PhD-holders who believe in the standard-model …In 1999 he shared a Nobel-prize with Dr. Martin Veltman … below is a quote from p.75 in his book:

“Veltman was very skeptical … it was not easy to convince him that what we call empty space is actually filled with invisible particles … He said [that these would] betray their presence by their gravitational fields” … 

EXACT-LY !!  Dr.Simhony says that the invisible particles are the CAUSE of gravity, exact-ly as the mysterious “Higgs-field” are supposed (by standard-model believers) to be … tho they them-selves do-not have any weight, and therefore do-not “betray their presence by their gravity fields”, yet they “gift” [Simhony’s word] gravitational-fields [i.e., “weight”] to every-thing else … exact-ly as the “Higgs-field” is supposed to do …

Betray-ing his own lack of familiarity with Simhony’s model, Dr. t’Hooft continues:  Exactly how nature does manage to mask these gravity effects so efficiently and completely that we fail to notice anything at all is a mystery” [p.75, Ref. 40] … 

Perhaps Dr.Simhony has already solved this mystery ??

########### << END OF CHAPTER 11 >> ###########

################################

CHAPTER 12:  WHAT IS “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING”

“The proton [has] a complex structure, unlike the electron” [Sternglass, Ref.#1, p.114] …

As already mention’d:  by the mid-1950s Sternglass + his colleagues at Stanford University, (i.e., Hofstadter + Neddermeyer), were convinced that protons + neutrons are “complex” objects … this is because they found evidence of electric + magnetic fields in several different places in-side-of the little-rascals, not concentrated at the center as one would expect for a “simple” object … {( NOTE:  Hofstadter received a Nobel-Prize for this work, in 1961 )} …

Because all of the stuff which they + other researchers produced in high-energy collisions involve-ing protons and/or neutrons ultimate-ly broke-down (i.e., “decay’d”) in-to electrons + positrons, Sternglass suspected that electrons + positrons might-be the constituents of what-ever internal “systems” produced the different electric + magnetic fields which they had observed (i.e., “measured”),  in-side-of protons + neutrons …

“The evidence suggested to me, then and now, that the electron and the positron are the ultimate stable entities with which the universe began … the only truly indivisible elementary particles that have been observed in the lab since their discovery” [p. 207, Ref.#1] …

After devote-ing approx. half of his adult-life to the monumental-ly-challenge-ing task of try-ing to discover how the little-rascals behave, and what they look like, Sternglass publish’d his proton/neutron-model in 1997, in a book titled Before the Big Bang [Ref.#1] … 

In it, he visualizes the proton (also the neutron) as consist-ing of 4 electron-positron pairs, (also-call’d “dipoles”), plus an un-pair’d positron-at-the-center, the whole thing arranged to look like an upper-case letter “H” … there are 2 illustrations of this in the book, on pages 163 + 250 …

He says that the electric-forces between electrons + positrons in-side-of protons + neutrons are “relativistically increased” — due-to their great speed, almost the speed of light … (alternative-ly one can visualize this as a very-rapid electrical-oscillation, with the understand-ing that electrons + positrons are PURE ELECTRICAL-ENERGY) …

He says that the positron at the center holds the 4 pairs together, by bounce-ing back + forth, from side to side, move-ing at almost light-speed … he says that, to do this, the un-pair’d positron must weigh approx. the same as 2 of the 4 pairs, which would be approx. 1/3 of the mass of the entire proton … plus, he explains many more details, in a clear + realistic way, use-ing easy maths, which any-body who likes math can understand …

In my search for a believe-able proton-model, after study-ing Sternglass’s model very-intense-ly, along with many other sources-of-information re this complex + challenge-ing subject, I’v made a few modifications to it …

For example, I now visualize the positron-at-the-center as be-ing much-less-massive than Sternglass does:  in CHAPTER 4 I detail my reasons for believe-ing that the li’l-rascal contains only approx. 1/33 of the proton’s mass, while carry-ing ALL of its net electric-charge … plus, I reckon that the proton’s SHAPE (and also that of the neutron) might-be similar-to that of a TETRAHEDRON, instead of Sternglass’s upper-case “H” …

========>>>  ASK YOUR-SELF:  IF YOU WERE “GOD” —(or “MOTHER-NATURE”)— WOULD YOU WANT TO USE THE STRONG-EST AND MOST-SIMPLE 3-DIMENTIONAL GEOMETRIC-SHAPE TO CREATE A UNIVERSE ??  <<<======== 

PLUS:  instead of the relativistic-ly-increased dynamical-forces which Sternglass uses to explain why protons are so stable, (i.e., to explain what holds them together), I now believe that “MAGNETIC-TRAPPING” might-be what holds the un-pair’d-positron at the center, and in fact holds the entire proton or neutron together …

What is “magnetic-trapping” ??  It’s a nifty little trick which physicists now know how to do in physics-labs:  they use MAGNETs to hold charged (or un-charged) tiny-things (such as atoms and sub-atomic “particles”) in place:  perhaps our “mother-nature” already figured-out how to do this, or some-thing similar ??

NOTE:  I first learn’d of magnetic-trapping from an information-display posted on the wall of a corridor in the physics-building at the University of Delaware, where I was many years ago a student … [Refs #21 + #22 + #23] …

MORE  DETAILs

As already mention’d, Dr.Simhony says that a proton or neutron enter-ing an epola-cell causes that cell to expand a little bit, then return to normal after the little-rascal exits … of course the nucleus of an atom, which is a collection of protons + neutrons, does the same thing … because atomic-nuclei are always enter-ing + exit-ing epola-cells, the ones in the path of an atomic-nucleus will expand + then contract, allow-ing the tiny nucleus to pass thru more-easy-ly … but, because atoms are most-ly empty-space, most of the epola-cells in our universe at any given moment are NOT affected significant-ly by move-ing atomic-nuclei …

ATOMs ARE MOST-LY EMPTY-SPACE

In America we have the foot-ball-stadium analogy:  if an atom’s nucleus were the size of a small marble, on the 50-yard line, then the atom it-self would be almost as big as the entire stadium … In Europe the book-writers usual-ly refer to a cathedral to illustrate this:  if the atom were the size of a cathedral, then the atom’s nucleus would-be approx. the size of a single rosary-bead in the hands of a woman sit-ing in the first pew …

The main-idea here is that protons + neutrons contain ep-pairs which are continuous-ly + continual-ly inter-act-ing with the ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice — i.e., the “EPOLA” of Dr.Simhony’s model …

========>>>  Simhony calls his model “the electron-positron lattice model of space” — while Sternglass calls his “the electron-positron pair model of matter”  <<<========

The ep-pairs which constitute the epo-lattice are small-er + less-massive than those in protons + neutrons, by a factor of approx. 21.1 size-wise (diameter), and by a factor of approx. 21.1 x 21.1 = 445 mass-wise;  but they are much-more dense, also by a factor of approx. 21.1 …

And there are obvious-ly many-many-many-many-more of the pairs (“dipoles”) which constitute the lattice, compared to the number of pairs in ordinary-stuff, i.e., in protons + neutrons … because the lattice is every-where in our universe, while protons + neutrons are, by comparison, “few + far-between” … to illustrate this, one might write the word “many” 42 times:  because if Dr.Simhony is correct, then there is in our universe approx. 10^(42) times as much epola-stuff (by weight) as ordinary-stuff …

How-ever, ironic-ly, the epola-stuff has no weight, or mass, because the epo-lattice is what “gifts” (Simhony’s word) mass, and there-fore weight, to ordinary-stuff — EXACT-LY AS THE SO-CALL’D “HIGGS-FIELD” IS SUPPOSED TO DO, accord-ing to the so-call’d standard-model … perhaps they’r actual-ly the same thing ??

###########  << END OF CHAPTER 12 >>  ###########

CHAPTER 13:  PhD-Holders Slam the Standard-Model 

When I first started this physics-study-project, almost 10 years ago, I naive-ly assumed that scientists had by now work’d-out most of the details re how nature works,  and that I would be able to learn them just-simply by find-ing + read-ing a few library-books re this challenge-ing + interest-ing subject-of-study …

I quick-ly learn’d that this is not so,  and that, in fact, there are dozens, (perhaps hundreds), of compete-ing theorys and/or models out there,  and that no-body knows for sure if ANY of them are correct …

The main purpose of this series of essays is to publicize + promote the work of two almost-un-known theorists, who are almost-un-known —(NOT because they are “crack-pots” — which they are NOT,  but … )— because of how difficult it is to get one’s papers publish’d in a “reputable” physics-journal if it differs too-radical-ly from the official-ly-approved model, the so-call’d “standard-model” …

Please  note that, as a young man, Sternglass’s papers were publish’d in some of the most-reputable journals, such as the Physical Review [1961] and the Bulletin of the American Physical Society [1963, 1965] and the International Journal of Theoretical Physics [1978] 

It was only as his theory [i.e., his “model”] became more-specific, and started to give a detail’d explanation for the structure of protons + neutrons, which differ’d from the standard-model’s explanation, that he had trouble try-ing to get papers publish’d, as he tells about in his book, Before the Big Bang (1997, 2001), [Ref.#1] … evident-ly there is a kind of “catch-22” in physics, where an “old guard” of well-respected “authoritys” try to prevent the publication of papers which offer an alternative to the standard-model … this automatic rejection of alternatives is similar to what Galileo Galilei famous-ly experienced during the 1600s, when the authoritys at that time threaten’d to excommunicate him if he refused to dis-avow his “radical” ideas …

The Standard Model Is, to Say It Polite-ly, “NOT QUITE RIGHT” 

But what gives to me, a mere amateur-physics-enthusiast, the capability to say that parts of the standard-model might be wrong ??

Just this:  for almost 10 years I’v study’d physics very-intense-ly, and have read from some PhD-holders that the standard-model might-be a bit weak in some of the areas where it purports to explain the truth … so here are some actual QUOTEs, from PhD-holders, re these several weaknesses:

“The standard model is like an aging movie star, whose best work is decades old, whose flaws once seemed slight, but are now becoming glaring” … that’s from Dr. Chris Impey, on page 298 of his book HOW IT BEGAN (2012) … 

In his book The Quantum Zoo (2006), Marcus Chown notes that:  “Eighty-odd years after the birth of quantum theory, physicists are still waiting for the fog to lift so that they can see what it is trying to tell us about fundamental reality … Feynman himself said:  ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics'”

Jim Baggott, who wrote the book Farewell to Reality (2013), says on p.131:  “We … are … immensely proud of [standard-model theories] … but these theories are riddled with problems, paradoxes, conundrums, contradictions, and incompatibilities … in one sense, they don’t make sense at all”

PLUS:  on p.137 in this same book:  “What kind of fundamental theory … can’t predict the masses of its constituent elementary particles ?  Answer:  one that is not very satisfying” … and on p.259:  “Clearly, the notion that the entire universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary belongs firmly in the bucket labelled ‘fairy-tale physics’ ” … 

{ While the idea in the paragraph direct-ly above is not actual-ly a part of the standard-model, I’v seen it in more than one book, and even as naive as I was, I reckon’d that it must sure-ly be non-sense !! } …

In his book Facts and Mysteries In Elementary Particle Physics (2003), Martin Veltman did not even wish to acknowledge “supersymmetry”:  ” The fact is … this is a book about physics, and this implies that the theoretical ideas discussed must be supported by experimental facts … neither supersymmetry nor string theory satisfy this criterion … they’re figments of the theoretical mind ” … 

Robert Laughlin, who won a Nobel-prize in physics in 1998, wrote in his book:  “A large portion of the accepted knowledge-base of modern science is untrue … obligating us to look at it more skeptically … and to value consensus less” [p.213, A Different Universe (2005)] … 

PLUS:  on p.50, Laughlin says that  “Scientists have ideological positions just like everyone else … sometimes the consequences are bizarre … the Schroedinger cat has … become a symbol of transcendence, a meaning exactly opposite to the one Schroedinger himself intended … often viewed by students as a step on the path to enlightenment … It is not … In science one becomes enlightened not by discovering ways to believe things that make no sense  but by identifying things that one does not understand and doing experiments to clarify them” … 

And on p.216:  “Large experimental laboratories cannot get the continuous funding they need without defending their work … which they typically do by forming self-refereeing monopolies that define certain ideas and bodies of thought to be important, whether they actually are or not … in extreme cases, one gets a complex web of sophisticated measurements that serve no purpose other than to expand journals and fatten frequent-flyer accounts” … 

Final-ly, from RICHARD FEYNMAN, one of the heavy-est of 20th-century “heavy-hitters” in physics … In a letter to his wife, he wrote that:  “I am not getting anything out of this meeting … There are hosts (126) of dopes here — such inane things are said and seriously discussed  — and I get into arguments outside of the formal sessions … Whenever anyone asks me a question, or starts to tell me about his ‘work’ … it is always either — (1) completely un-understandable, or (2) vague and indefinite, or (3) something correct that is obvious and self-evident worked out by a long and difficult analysis and presented as an important discovery, or (4) a claim, based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct thing accepted and checked for years is, in fact, false (those are the worst — no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which, it is finally revealed, at the end, fails, or (6) just plain wrong … Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences” … that’s on page 245 in a book titled QUANTUM MAN (2011) by Lawrence Krauss …..

########### << END OF CHAPTER 13 >> ###########

CHAPTER 14:  Richard Feynman + Julian Schwinger 

“There is always another way to say something that doesn’t look like the way you said it before” —–Richard Feynman [p.13, Ref.#39] … 

“He had the ideas and then I translated them into math” —–Freeman Dyson re Richard Feynman … 

Richard Feynman + Julian Schwinger:  two physicists with very-different mathematical-approaches, who each develop’d a success-full way to describe + explain the behavior of sub-atomic “particles” — and shared a Nobel-prize (1965) for do-ing so …

Born in the same year (1918), each started learn-ing mathematics at a young age, and went on to invent some new mathematics, after thorough-ly master-ing the “ordinary” maths which physicists use …

Schwinger used some-thing call’d “Green’s functions” as a starting-point on his math-journey … Feynman invented his own math-symbols, which only he could read, and eventual-ly invented “Feynman-diagrams” — which other PhD-holders learn’d to know + love,  and which today appear in almost every modern physics-book in the entire known universe … particular-ly [pun intended] the books re “particle” physics …

There was a famous physics-conference at Pocono Manor, in Pennsylvania’s Appalachian-mountains, in March of 1948, a few days after I was born:  I always have fun when I read about it in a physics-book, and it’s in many of them … Almost every important American theoretical physicist, and some European ones, were there …

Schwinger’s presentation continued for 7 or 8 hours, and was very-dense with maths, line after line, page after page … Yet the conference-room was still pack’d when he finish’d, as he was the current young super-star in physics at that time … Feynman’s presentation follow’d Schwinger’s, but was not as well-received as Schwinger’s …

Yet, when they compared notes, they realized that they had essential-ly solved the same theoretical problem by 2 different methods:  each had climb’d to the top of the same mountain, by 2 very-different + very-difficult routes … paths … lines-of-thought …

Their very-different mathematical-approaches actual-ly gave answers which agreed very-accurate-ly with experimental-evidence … If their results had NOT agreed with experiment, then their work would NOT have led to Nobel-prizes … The important-thing here was NOT that their maths agreed with EACH OTHER, but that they agreed with the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE …

As it turn’d out, there was a 3rd gentleman, not present at that 1948-conference, who had been work-ing on the same problem, in Japan:  Sin-Itiro Tomonaga would eventual-ly SHARE the 1965 Nobel-prize with Feynman + Schwinger for independent-ly —(and several years early-er !!)— develop-ing a similar-but-different approach to solve the same problem …

PLUS:  there was a 4th gentleman, young-er than the other three, who probably WOULD have shared the same Nobel-prize, if the Nobel-prize committee did not have a tradition of award-ing no more than 3 individuals for the same accomplishment … this 4th individual was Freeman Dyson, of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NewJersey, USA, who wrote a series of papers to show that the maths which the 3 other theorists used were essential-ly equivalent to each other …

One of the very-amaze-ing things about math is that it is almost-infinite-ly DIVERSE, + almost-infinite-ly DEEP, and can be adapted to describe and/or explain almost any SITUATION — even one which might-not actual-ly exist in reality …

Murray Gell-Mann, who “invented” quark-theory during the 1960s, suggested at that time that “quarks” might be mere mathematical conveniences — tools which one can use to analyze + calculate how tiny-objects behave, but not them-selves real “particles” … “It’s fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were … real” [p.323, Ref.#17, p.88. Ref.#30] … and “Even after the New York Times had [featured] quarks in [a] 1967 article, Gell-Mann was quoted as saying [that] the quark was likely to turn out to be merely ‘a useful mathematical figment’ ” [p.292, Ref.#39] …

The important thing re quark-theory is that it DOES give results which DO agree with experimental-evidence … Like-wise, Dr. Ernest Sternglass (the main “character” in this series of essays) insisted that his “semi-classical” model was able to accurate-ly explain masses and life-times of ALL the new-ly-discover’d particles, AS THEY WERE BE-ING DISCOVER’D … See, for example, the Proceedings of the Resonant Particles Conference (1965):       file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF

… PLUS:  the Proceedings of the American Physical Society’s annual meeting (1964):   http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112

… PLUS:  here is a LINK to a BOOK, publish’d in 1964, in which Sternglass’s contribution is a chapter titled:  “Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964nust.conf..340S

And here’s an other Sternglass-paper, from IL NUOVO CIMENTO 35(1): 227-260 (December 1964): 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226502314_Electron-positron_model_for_the_charged_mesons_and_pion_resonances

—–{ PLEASE NOTE:  you might need to “copy” + “paste” the LINKs (above), to get them to work }—–

Sternglass’s model is much simpler than quark-theory, and has the added bonus that it’s VISUALIZE-ABLE:  “ANSCHAULICH” in German:  Einstein believed that a theory of model should be visualize-able … PLUS: Sternglass’s model relys on electrons + positrons, which are KNOWN to exist, while QUARKs HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN AN PHYSICS-LAB !!  [p.323, Ref.#17] … 

In other words:  Sternglass’s model uses electrons + positrons to solve the same problem for which the standard-model needed to “invent” a long list of “new” “particles” … 

So how + why is it that every university physics-department now teaches quark-theory to grad-students, while Sternglass’s model is almost un-known and/or forgotten ??

Well, it’s about personality:  Feynman had a very-strong personality, and his ability to inspire + influence others in his chosen field-of-study is legendary:  evident-ly he help’d to convince Gell-Mann, (and in fact the entire physics-community), to accept quark-theory as the best way to explain how tiny-objects behave … “By the early 1970s Feynman had become convinced that the partons [in HIS theory] had all of the properties of Gell-Mann’s hypothetical quarks (and Zweig’s aces), though he continued to talk in parton language (perhaps to annoy Gell-Mann)”  [pp.299+300, Ref.#39] … {(Please NOTE that Feynman’s office at Caltech was right next door to Gell-Mann’s office, a fact which Sternglass mentions in his book [Ref.#1]), and that a researcher named “Dr.Zweig” had develop’d a similar model, in which he call’d the little-rascals “ACES” instead of “QUARKs”)} …

Please note also this interest-ing comment re Feynman’s personality:  “It may … be true that … he could have accomplished much more had he been more willing to listen and learn from those around him, and insist less on discovering absolutely everything for himself” [p.314, Ref.#39] …

Me???  I’m try-ing to learn enough quark-theory to show that Dr. Ernest Sternglass might have develop’d an equivalent way to solve the same problem, (i.e., to describe + explain how sub-atomic “particles” behave), in addition to the ways in which Tomonaga + Schwinger + Feynman did … And that he did so in a “semi-classical” way, use-ing the ordinary maths (algebra + geometry + calculus) which high-school students study, which many of us already know + love, with only minimal references to the fiendish-ly-difficult maths associated with quark-theory … Wish me luck !!

########### << END OF CHAPTER 14 >> ###########

CHAPTER 15:  What Are “Gravity-waves” ?? 

“He had the ideas, and then I translated them into math” —–Freeman Dyson re Richard Feynman

Recent-ly I attended an excellent presentation (at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study) re the recent observation of “GRAVITY-WAVEs” … Tho Einstein predicted them, and tho many researchers have, for many years, try’d to observe them, it seems that the folks at LIGO [Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory] have made the first success-full observation + measurement of gravity-waves …

Accord-ing to the presenters, the observed + measured gravity-waves were from two “black-holes” —(each contain-ing the mass of approx. 30 of our suns)— which merged together with each other, produce-ing a larger + more-massive “black-hole” …

How-ever, Dr. Ernest Sternglass’s model [Ref.#1] predicts exact-ly the opposite:  his Electron-Positron Pair Model of Matter predicts that a certain kind of object, with a mass of approx. 60x that of our sun, will eventual-ly divide in half, produce-ing two objects of approx. 30 solar-masses each … He calls these objects “cosmological-systems” — and says that his model predicts that there are millions of them throughout our universe, and that they constitute the vast majority of the “DARK-MATTER” in our universe, and that, every once-in-a-while, one of them will explode, produce-ing a “QUASAR” — also-call’d a “gamma-ray burster” …

Sternglass calls these explosions “delayed mini-Bangs” — and says that his model predicts them to be happen-ing during all the time since the start of the “Big Bang” … he says that these delayed mini-Bangs are very-similar to the Big Bang, but involved less matter and energy:  and he says that they do, in fact, produce new-ly-form’d NEUTRONs, most of which quick-ly “decay” — form-ing PROTONs …

IN OTHER WORDs:  if Sternglass is right about this, then the standard-model’s explanation for “quasars” is TOTAL-LY-WRONG:  because the standard-model explains a “quasar” as the result of a very-large “black-hole” suck-ing in some surround-ing matter, cause-ing some of that matter’s energy to radiate out-ward-ly, accord-ing to Einstein’s famous  E = mc2 … 

Accord-ing to Dr.Sternglass, NOTHING GETs SUCK’D IN, and large amounts of stuff comes out, include-ing high-energy gamma-rays, + new-ly-form’d protons + neutrons … So these objects are more like WHITE-HOLEs !! 

There-fore, based-on Sternglass’s model, I predict that astronomers and astro-physicists will eventual-ly realize that the “gravity-wave” signals which the folks at LIGO observed are from an object which contain’d the mass of approx. 60 of our suns, which divided in half, produce-ing two objects with approx. 30 solar-masses each …

If this be true, then one can use Sternglass’s theory to predict when the NEXT signal from these two objects will arrive, as they divide in half again, produce-ing four objects, each contain-ing approx. 15 solar-masses …

The formula is easy + simple:

T = (4.9 x 10^20 seconds) x [the square root of (Mobject / Muniverse)],  where “T” is elapsed-time until the next-signal, “Mobject” is the mass of the object which divides in half, “Muniverse” is the mass of our universe, and  “10^20″ means “ten to the 20th power” — i.e., a one with 20 zeros after it …

Use-ing this formula, one can calculate that astronomers might receive the next gravity-wave signals from the system after approx. 30 years … While this is a long time to wait for a signal, I’m predict-ing it, based-on Sternglass’s theory …

Hope-fully, as the folks at LIGO improve their techniques, they will eventual-ly observe some gravity-wave signals from an object whose mass is approx. that of our sun … If so, then one can predict that the next signal from THAT much-small-er system might arrive approx. FIVE [5] years later …..

Sincere-ly,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast), Princeton, NewJersey, USA,  2-March-2016

########### << END OF CHAPTER 15 >> ###########

CHAPTER 16:  Technical-Support for Sternglass’s Model

On pages 159 + 161 in his book [Ref.#1], Sternglass describes the structure of the pi-meson and the mu-meson … {[ HINT:  they have very-similar structures ]} …

NOTE:  While I know that the standard-model does not consider the “muon” to be a “meson”, I write “mu-meson” instead of “muon” to emphasize my belief that the standard-model is, (to say it polite-ly), NOT QUITE RIGHT about how it defines the “particle” which it calls “muon” … specific-ly, there is evidence that the so-call’d “muon” is NOT a FUNDAMENTAL “particle” … 

Because the so-call’d muons do not inter-act strong-ly with ordinary matter, like pi-mesons do, the folks who built the standard-model decided, many years ago, with no clue to its actual structure, that it’s not a meson … How-ever, one can easy-ly explain why “muons” behave different-ly:  it’s BECAUSE THEY ARE FERMIONs, while pi-mesons are BOSONs … 

{[ NOTE:  due to my belief that every so-call’d “particle” consists of pure electrical-energy, and can be consider’d as a “system”, I always put quotation-marks around the word “particle” ]} … 

Dr.Sternglass shows us what “muons” and “pions” look like:

A quick look at the schematic-diagrams on pages 159 and 161 in Sternglass’s book shows that, accord-ing to his model, the pi-meson and the mu-meson have almost-exact-ly the same structure … Copys of the same schematic-diagrams appear in Figures 2 and 3 (near the end of the paper) in one of Sternglass’s 1964-papers (LINK below):

http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4885112

One can use the image of a child ride-ing on a “merry-go-round” in a play-ground to describe Sternglass’s idea for the difference between a pi-meson and a mu-meson:  if the child just-simply sits on the merry-go-round as it spins, well, that’s a mu-meson … if he or she stands up and runs, in a direction against the rotation of the merry-go-round, as I did many times as a child, well, that’s a pi-meson …

Physicists know that a pi-meson will, after approx. a hundred-millionth of a second, experience a process call’d “decay”, produce-ing a mu-meson and a neutrino … the neutrino flys away at light-speed, carry-ing away some energy, and also carry-ing away some angular-momentum … the result is that the mu-meson’s angular-momentum is half of a Planck-unit less-than that of a pi-meson;    it’s mass is also less, because the energy which the neutrino carry’d away is equivalent to mass, accord-ing to Einstein’s famous E = mc2 … 

Recent-ly I became aware of the work of a gentleman who has taken Dr.Sternglass’s model as a starting-point to describe a possible structure for the so-call’d “tau particle” — which the standard-model also regards as a fundamental “particle” … this gentleman is Ray Fleming, and his descriptions are so clear + articulate that I will quote him, below …

Alternative-ly, you might want to look at Dr.Fleming’s paper direct-ly … here is a LINK to it:        http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf

“Summary … Ernest Sternglass determined that a neutral meson, the π 0 could be modeled as a relativistic electron-positron pair, and later determined that the muon could be modeled as an electron rotating around a similar electron-positron pair. The author noticed that there is a second higher-energy orbital solution not previously published by Sternglass where the electron-positron pair orbits around the electron’s center. A simple computation shows that the mass-energy of this second solution is consistent with the tau particle. Based on these models the mu and tau leptons are not fundamental particles as described in currently popular theories but are instead two excited meta-stable states of an electron and an electron-positron pair” …

“Background … In 1961 Ernest Sternglass published a paper titled “Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of the neutral meson” in which he described a relativistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model of an electron-positron pair. He was able to show that when the pair was in a relativistic equilibrium condition, where the inertia pulling the two particles apart was equal to the electrostatic attraction, the pair had mass-energy and a half-life consistent with a neutral meson, the neutral pion (π 0 ).  [see Ref.1, below]  In his book Before the Big Bang: Origins of the Universe Sternglass recounts how he performed his initial mathematical derivation in the presence of and with encouragement from Richard Feynman.  [see Ref.2, below]  Sternglass went on to extend his theory and describe all the known particles of the day.  [see Ref.3, below]  One of the more interesting is the muon, as today it is considered to be a fundamental particle classified as a lepton within the scope of the standard model. The other leptons, the electron and tauon, are also considered to be fundamental, rather than composed of other particles. Sternglass, however, published a rather compelling model for the muon in 1965.  [see Ref.3 below]  Given the simplicity of the model it seems likely that the muon is not fundamental” …

At this point you might want to click-on a LINK to Dr.Fleming’s paper, as there are some EXCELLENT schematic-diagrams in it:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf 

“Figure 1 … The Sternglass model for the Muon. The solid arrows indicate the direction of each particle’s magnetic moment. The open arrows indicate the direction of the angular momenta. (Figure by Sternglass from reference 3, [below]) …

“The mass calculation [for the muon-mass] required a sum of 6 contributions.  [Ref.3, below]  The first two contributions are the mass of the excited pion, 275 x Me x c^2, and the mass of the electron, 1 x Me … From that is subtracted [the mass equivalent to] the potential energy of the system -274 x Me … Next [the mass equivalent to] the kinetic energy of the orbiting electron, (1/α -1) x Me = 136 x Me, is added, with α being the fine structure constant. Additionally there is relativistic precession of the system as viewed from a laboratory frame of reference, which introduces an additional 68.75 x Me … Lastly he considered the wave mechanical binding energy between the electron and pion leading to a small correction term of –0.014 x Me … This calculation yields the sum of 206.7 x Me“…

“Conclusion … This paper shows that it is simple to model the tau particle using the Sternglass theory, and the mass calculated from this model is very close to the accepted value. The Sternglass theory can now account for both the mu and tau particles, so it seems that the standard model, in which they are both fundamental particles, is incorrect. The Sternglass theory also provides a simple physical model for the neutral pion, which is favorable when compared to the irrational quark π 0 model. Based on this result there should be more in-depth investigations made of the Sternglass theory” …..

Ref.1:  Sternglass, E. J., Relativistic electron-pair systems and the structure of the neutral meson, Phys. Rev., 123, 391 (1961);

Ref.2:  Sternglass,E.J., Before the Big Bang: Origins of the Universe, 1997, Four Walls Eight Windows Publishing (1997);

Ref.3:  Sternglass, E. J., Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances, Il Nuovo Cimento, 1 Gennaio, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 227-260 (1965); 

Sincere-ly,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio, ApE (amateur-physics-enthusiast), Princeton, NewJersey, USA, 3-March-2016

########### << END OF CHAPTER 16 >> ###########

AFTER-WORDs:  WHY DOESN’T THE EPO-LATTICE (“EPOLA”) COLLAPSE ??

“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’v MODIFY’D it ]}, at the END OF THE BOOK, 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 yr read’n 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 both STERNGLASS and SIMHONY, as well as with my MODIFICATIONs to their models … PLEASE CONTINUE READ-ING, if any of this interests you …

BTW:  the Max-Planck quote (above) was his way to say, essential-ly, that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” … because, what often happens is that the old-er, 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 !!

THIS ESSAY IS BASED-ON AN INSIGHT which I just-now received, this morning, 26-DECEMBER-2014:  it came to me, (almost), “in a dream”, as they say …

I RECKON THAT, even if the elements-which-comprise-the-epola are (as DR.SIMHONY says) strong-ly-BOUND to their individual locations in the lattice, and so not free to SWIRL, there might-be an OTHER kind of “SWIRL-ING” in the epola — similar to what MAXWELL + FARADAY might have visualized for their thin + wispy + “aetheric” aether … I reckon that the MAG’IC FIELD-LINEs  ===>>{[ “MAG’IC” = “MAGNETIC” ]}<<===  in the epola might form tiny “SWIRLs” near a “particle” — such as a proton … I reckon that this might-be WHY we perceive a proton as a “particle”:  because the little-rascal might, some-how, make near-by magnetic-fields SWIRL in a vortex-like pattern …

DR.STERNGLASS says some-thing similar on p.179 of REF.#1:  “The lines of electrostatic force are here interpreted as lines of vorticity, around which the ether fluid circulates, just as the air circulates around an imaginary line in the center of a hurricane or tornado … this is a way to interpret the electromagnetic fields postulated by Faraday and put into mathematical form by Maxwell in the nineteenth century, the electric lines of force being the lines of zero internal rotation (like the eye of a hurricane), while the circulating fluid around the line of vorticity would be represented by the magnetic lines of force” …

FOLLOW-ING Dr.Simhony, I FIRM-LY BELIEVE that each epola-element is BOUND [firm-ly !!] to its location-in-the-lattice;  as already mention’d, follow-ing Sternglass, I believe that each of the zillions + zillions of epola-elements in the lattice has a strong magnetic-field associated with it … If, as Simhony says, the lattice has a CUBIC structure, then one can visualize it as consist-ing of zillions + zillions of very-very-long, yet very-very-narrow, MAGNETIC-FIELD-LINEs, arranged in straight lines, in 3 mutual-ly-perpendicular orientations, create-ing the “face-centered cubic” structure, as Simhony describes it … Near a “particle”, one can visualize SWIRLs of mag’ic-energy, due-to the fact that a “particle” (such as, for example, a PROTON, or the NUCLEUS of an atom) inter-acts with near-by epola-elements, make-ing them SWIVEL out of their normal alignments, so that the mag’ic-[magnetic]-field-lines near a “particle” are not straight …

A “HUMONGOUS” AMOUNT-OF-ENERGY

ONE CAN VISUALIZE that what-ever kind of event “created” the epola must have involved a very-very-large amount-of-energy … because, if Dr.Simhony is correct, then there is much-more epola-stuff in our universe than “ordinary” stuff … perhaps there was, as some library-books describe, a “BIG CRUNCH” —(the opposite of a “big bang”)— which caused the hypothesized epo-lattice to achieve the cubic-form which it now has … AS A PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST, one knows that electric-energy is always associated-with magnetic-[mag’ic]-energy;  i.e., that one cannot have one without the other … Of course, one can ARGUE re “which came first ??” — electric or magnetic ??  But this might-be like argue-ing re:  “WHICH CAME FIRST:  THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG ??”  … i.e., can any-body prove that magnetic-energy is NOT the source of all energy ??   PLUS:  has any researcher-who-believes-in-the-standard-model ever look’d for MAGNETIC-FIELDs in the epo-lattice ??  i reckon not, as they absolute-ly DENY the existence of ANY kind of aether-like lattice in our universe !!

IN ANY CASE, such magnetic-[mag’ic]-fields might-be very-difficult to observe (i.e., to measure):  because, if MY HYPOTHESIS is correct, then one will find that any two [2] next-neighbor magnetic-field-lines in the epo-lattice are very-very-near to each other, and POINT IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONs, so they CANCEL …

RE GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY, OR FORCE:  any-body who actual-ly “GETs” Dr.Simhony’s model should realize that gravity is not FUNDAMENTAL, but, (to quote  Dutch theoretical-physicist Erik Verlinde), gravity is “EMERGENT” … What follows is from the web-site at:  http://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/18-gravity-doesnt-exist :

“In a paper published in December 2009 on arXiv.org, 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) is ridiculous-ly-mis-lead-ing, and so do others, as it generated a robust discussion on the INTERNET … of course gravity DOES exist:  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 essential-ly 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 …

#################################################

BACK TO THE PROBLEM AT HAND:  {remember that “magnetic” is “mag’ic”}:

ONE CAN VISUALIZE that the mag’ic-flux in any two [2] next-neighbor MAG’IC-FIELD-LINEs points in opposite-directions … this would mean that, like very-very-long BAR-MAGNETs, which are very-very-near to each other, parallel next-neighbor mag’ic-field-lines would ATTRACT … because they’r so long and so near to each other, one can visualize that this mag’ic-attraction might-be WHAT HOLDs THE EPO-LATTICE TOGETHER … ONE CAN ALSO VISUALIZE that mag’ic-field-lines which are PERPENDICULAR to each other (like bar-magnets which are perpendicular to each other) would IGNORE each other, if it’s true that MAG’IC-forces hold the epo-lattice together …

{[ THIS VISUALIZATION might en-able one to explain HOW and WHY energy-pulses (“PHOTONs”) move thru the epo-lattice like tiny bullets, and do-not spread-out, tho they are not “particles” — but waves … details in APPENDIX9 ]} …

TO SUMMARIZE:  one can visualize that the epola-elements near a proton, (or any other “particle”, such as the nucleus of an atom), must SWIVEL a bit out-of-alignment from the “normal” alignments which they exhibit when there’s no “particle” near-by, due-to the presence of strong mag’ic-fields associated with epola-elements and proton-elements … one can visualize that this might change the normal-ly STRAIGHT mag’ic-field-lines in-to VORTEXES near a “particle” …

QUESTION:  WHAT KEEPs THE EPO-LATTICE FROM COLLAPSE-ING ??  this is an important-question, because, in physics, “EARNSHAW’s THEOREM” 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 2 energy-levels, similar-to the “energy-humps” which one reads about in CHEMISTRY text-books … e.g., the water which results from the combustion of hydrogen + oxygen exists at a lower energy-level than the free-hydrogen + free-oxygen before the explosion, BUT one needs a SPARK to over-come the energy-hump between the 2 energy-levels, to persuade the stuff to explode;   i.e.,  TO INITIATE THE EXPLOSION … LIKE-WISE, 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 “natural-ly” only in-side-of a star, or in some other kind of high-energy environment, never “natural-ly” on planet-earth,  because of the huge ENERGY-HUMP between the 2 energy-levels …

ONE MORE EXAMPLE:  start-ing a camp-fire:  as a scientist, one knows that the by-products of wood-burn-ing, main-ly water-vapor + carbon-dioxide, have a low-er energy-content than the un-burn’d fire-wood, because burn-ing it RELEASEs some of the energy:  but any-body who has ever started a camp-fire knows that some times it’s extreme-ly-difficult to make that fire-wood burn !!

MY IDEA FOR A POSSIBLE WAY TO EXPLAIN why the epo-lattice does-not collapse, in spite of EARNSHAW’s THEOREM, is similar: perhaps the epo-lattice’s present structure of inter-lock-ing, mutual-ly-perpendicular, mag’ic-[magnetic]-field lines is SO STABLE that there is a LARGE ENERGY-HUMP which one would need to over-come to persuade the epo-lattice to collapse,   i.e.,  TO INITIATE THE COLLAPSE …

IN FACT, {hahaha: i just-now  thought of this}, one can visualize a tiny-bit of the lattice actual-ly collapse-ing, and release-ing 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 occur’d, at the speed of light, as an energy-pulse:  ie, as a PHOTON … and the fact that the energy travels-away so quick-ly might effective-ly prevent the build-up of enough energy to initiate a whole-sale collapse of the lattice … like the flow of HEAT away from the FIREs on 11-SEPT-2001 flow’d thru structural-steel, AWAY from the fires, so that the fires did never get HOT ENOUGH to melt enough steel to collapse the buildings !!  in spite of the NIST-report (they should be ashamed of them-selves for prepare-ing such a bad report), which NEGLECTED the COEFFICIENT OF HEAT-TRANSFER in the calculation, not because they are stupid, but because they wanted to try to mis-lead 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 sure-ly get [i.e., “receive”] an “F” … so I give to NIST [National Institute of Standards and Testing of the USA] a big-fat “F” for their serious-ly-flaw’d report !!

ONE CAN CARRY THIS THOUGHT-FULL ANALYSIS regard-ing 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 actual-ly REPAIR the collapse, as soon as it happens:  as if one were to design a BULLET, with some SUPER-GLUE in-side-of it:  if one were to then shoot some of these bullets at a brick-wall, try-ing to make a hole in it, then one might find that, tho one is able to knock-off some pieces of brick, the super-glue might immediate-ly replace the miss-ing pieces-of-brick, and so prevent a hole from form-ing … there is HINT of this possibility in Dr.Sternglass’s descriptions re what PROTONs 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, similar-ly, an epola-element [which is an ep-pair], if hit by a large jolt of photon-energy, can “reproduce itself” — by convert-ing this energy in-to a NEW ep-pair [“PAIR-PRODUCTION” —see APPENDIX4], which will quick-ly attach it-self to a “hole” in the lattice, and so keep the lattice in good repair … perhaps, amaze-ing-ly, the structure of the lattice has built in-to it some kind of self-repair capability ??

DOES THIS MAKE SENSE ??   WHY or WHY NOT ??   please send feed-back to  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com …

ALTERNATIVE-LY, one might hypothesize a simpler explanation … perhaps there might-be some kind of natural, inherent, out-ward-ly-directed “energy-pressure” associated with the elements which compose the lattice,  which balances the in-ward-ly-directed magnetic-attractions which hold the lattice together … one might call this 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, include-ing the “stuff” which composes the epo-lattice … this hypothesized ENERGY-PRESSURE throughout the lattice might effective-ly prevent the lattice from collapse-ing …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  NEWARK, DELAWARE, USA,  26-DECEMBER-2014      mark.creekwater@gmail.com

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

###################################

REFERENCEs

#1) Sternglass, Ernest; book: BEFORE THE BIG BANG (1997);
#1a) Sternglass, Ernest; paper: “Relativistic Electron-pair Systems and the Structure of Neutral Mesons”, Physical Review, v.123, pp. 391-398 (1-JULY-1961);
#2) Simhony, Menahem; http://www.EPOLA.orghttp://www.EPOLA.co.uk;
#2a) Simhony, Menahem; book: THE ELECTRON-POSITRON LATTICE SPACE (1990);

3) Grathman, Roy; quote: “the proton is always plucking at the corners of the epola-cell in-side-of which it’s located”, in an e-mail to me, (approx. 2011);  NOTE: this gentleman is familiar with Dr.SIMHONY’s model, and one of my main informants re it;  plus, he’s one of the PhD-holders whom I have inform’d re Dr.STERNGLASS’s model;

(4)  Creek-water Dorazio, Mark; paper: “A Semi-classical Calculation Regard-ing Proton-radius” (2013);     http://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/a-semi-classical-calculation-re-proton-radius/
(5)  Creek-water Dorazio, Mark; paper: “A Semi-classical Calculation re the Mass-density of so-call’d ‘Neutron-stars’ ” (2013);   http://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/semi-classical-calculation-re-the-mass-density-of-so-calld-neutron-stars/
(6)  Creek-water Dorazio, Mark; paper: “Lattice-Length of the Epola-cell” (2014);  http://markcreekwater.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/lattice-length-of-the-epola-cell/

(7)  McTaggart, Lynne, book: The Field (2002);

(8)  Wolff, Milo, book: Schroedinger’s Universe and the Origin of the Natural Laws (2008);

(8a) Wolff, Milo, Youtube-video: “Milo Wolff – Wave Structure of Matter”;

(9)  Van der Merwe, Alwyn (editor),  book: OLD AND NEW QUESTIONs IN PHYSICS, COSMOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEORETICAL BIOLOGY (1983);

(10)  Pinnow, Douglas,  web-site: http://www.DARKMATTERPHYSICS.info;

(11)  Arp, Halton,  book: ATLAS OF PECULIAR GALAXIES (1966);

(11a) Youtube-video:  Harton Arp Intrinsic Red Shift;

(11b) Youtube-video:  Universe – Episode 1 – The Cosmology Quest – The Electric Universe and Plasma Physics;

(12)  Impey, Chris;  book: HOW IT BEGAN (2011), p.298;
(13)  Thorne, Kip; book: BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS (1994);
(14)  Baade, Walter + Zwicky, Fritz; paper: “Supernovae and Cosmic Rays”, Phys Rev, (15-JANUARY-1934);
(15)  Demorest, P.B., + others; paper: “A Two-solar-mass Neutron Star Measured Using Shapiro Delay”, Nature, (28-OCTOBER-2010); —–> (SEE QUOTE BELOW) <—–
(16)  Melia, Fulvio; book: HIGH-ENERGY ASTROPHYSICS (2009);
(17)  Kragh, Helge; book: QUANTUM GENERATIONS (1999);
(18)  Kragh, Helge; book: DIRAC: A SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY (1990);
(19)  Dirac, Paul; book: DIRECTIONs IN PHYSICS (1978);
(20)  Antognini, A., + others; paper: “The Proton Radius Puzzle”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, v.312, n.3 (2011);
(21)  Stern, David P., NASA-article: “Principles of the Magnetic Trapping of Charged Particles” (2001),  http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtrap2.html
(22)  Paul, Wolfgang, paper: “Electromagnetic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, Rev.Mod.Phys., v62, n3, July 1990;   http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/iontraps/RMP.pdf
(23)  Gomer, V., et al, paper: “Magnetostatic Traps for Charged and Neutral Particles”, Hyperfine Interactions, 109 (1997) 281-292;   http://www.ask.com/web?q=magnetic+trapping+charged&qsrc=364&o=0&l=dir&qo=homepageSearchBox
(24)  Wheeler, J.A., book: GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM (1998);
(25)  Feynman, Richard, book: LECTUREs ON GRAVITATION, Cal.Tech. Lecture Notes 1962-1963;
(26)  Kuhn, Thomas, book: THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1962);
(27)  Ford, Kenneth W., book: THE QUANTUM WORLD (2004);
(28)  Motz, Lloyd, paper: Nuovo Cimento, 26, 1 (1962);
(29)  Motz, Lloyd, paper: “The Unit Gravitational Charge Solves the Cosmological Problem Without Inflation” (1983 ??), bulletin, Columbia University Dept. of Astronomy and Astrophysics;
(30)  Pickering, Andrew, book: CONSTRUCTING QUARKS: A Sociological History of Particle Physics (1984);
(31)  Unzicker, Alexander, book: THE HIGGS FAKE:  How Particle Physicis Fooled the Nobel Committee (2013);
(32)  Thornhill, Wallace, Youtube-video: Deep Impact: Confirming the Electric Comet;
(33)  Baggott, Jim, book: THE QUANTUM STORY (2011);
(34)  Friedlander, Michael W., book: A THIN COSMIC RAIN (2000);
(35)  Susskind, Leonard, book: THE BLACK HOLE WAR (2008);
(36)  Bethe, Hans + Morrison, Philip, book: ELEMENTARY NUCLEAR THEORY (1947);
(37)  Brooks, Michael, book: THIRTEEN THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE (2008);
(38)  Morrison Philip, book:  NOTHING IS TOO WONDERFUL TO BE TRUE (1995);
(39)  Krauss, Lawrence, book:  QUANTUM MAN (2011);
(40)  t’Hooft, Gerard, book:  IN SEARCH OF THE ULTIMATE BUILDING BLOCKS (1997);
(41)  Fleming, Ray, paper:  “A tau particle model based on the Sternglass theory (2014),  http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0078v1.pdf
(42a)  Sternglass, Ernest, paper:  “NEW EVIDENCE FOR A MOLECULAR STRUCTURE OF MESON AND BARYON RESONANCE STATES”, from the Proceedings of the 2nd Resonance Particles Conference (1965);
  file:///C:/Users/adult/Desktop/Sternglass%20Proceedings%202nd%20top%20conf%20Resonant%20Particles%201965.PDF

(42b)  Sternglass, Ernest, paper:  “Electron-pair theory of meson structure and the interactions of nuclear particles, Proceedings of the American Physical Society (1964),   http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4885112 

(42c)  Sternglass, Ernest, chapter in the book NUCLEON STRUCTURE (1964), edited by Robert Hofstadter + Leonard Schiff:  “Evidence for a Molecular Structure of Heavy Mesons”,   http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964nust.conf..340S 

(42d)  Sternglass, Ernest, paper:  “Electron-positron model for the charged mesons and pion resonances, IL NUOVO CIMENTO 35(1): 227-260 (December 1964),  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226502314_Electron-positron_model_for_the_charged_mesons_and_pion_resonances 

=================================================
QUOTE FROM REF.#15, ABOVE: “WE MEASURE A PULSAR MASS OF (1.97 +/- 0.04) SOLAR-MASSES, WHICH IS BY FAR THE HIGHEST PRECISELY MEASURED NEUTRON STAR MASS DETERMINED TO DATE”
================================================
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF REFERENCEs >> $$$$$$$$$$$
 ########################################
APPENDIX1:  THE PROTON-ELEMENT IS A SPIN-2 STERNGLASS.COSMO.SYST
In Sternglass’s model he talks about “cosmological-systems” [“cosmo.systs”], which are un-like ANY-THING in the so-call’d “standard-model” … {details re different kinds of cosmo.systs are in “TABLE 1”, p.234, Ref.#1} … these “Sternglass.cosmo.systs” existed BEFORE THE BIG BANG, and contain’d mass, and therefore energy, but NO PROTONs and NO NEUTRONs, for the simple reason that each “cosmo.syst” is the “SEED” [Sternglass’s word] of protons + neutrons:  IN OTHER WORDs, Sternglass’s model explains the origin of ALL the protons + neutrons which now exist …
PLUS:  NOT ONLY DID THIS STUFF EXIST BEFORE THE BIG BANG, BUT SOME OF IT EXISTs RIGHT NOW, and constitutes the vast majority of so-call’d “DARK-MATTER” in our universe … it’s out there, LURK-ING, un-seen and un-see-able, in the vast regions between stars + galaxys … more details in CHAPTER 1 … 
Every PROTON-ELEMENT is actual-ly, accord-ing to the model which I present in these essays, nothing but a tiny sternglass.cosmo.syst of a particular (pun-intended) size + mass, and each consists of the simple-est imagine-able system:  an electron + a positron, orbit-ing around each other … because their orbital-velocity is so high, (it’s almost the speed of light), they are RELATIVISTIC electrons+ positrons, whose MASS is much-great-er-than the “rest-mass” of electrons + positrons … because they’r NOT REST-ING, but move-ing at almost the speed of light:  in fact, Sternglass says that, because there is “no upper limit to the energy contained in the relativistic electron-positron pair system … I realized that a higher energy version of this microscopic structure could in principle form the seed of stars, galaxies, and the entire universe, as difficult as this was to contemplate” [p.175, Ref.#1] …
==================================================
HERE IS AN EASY WAY to describe what the proton-element is:  The “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” in Sternglass’s model divides in half, and each piece divides in half, and each of THOSE pieces divides in half, and so on, and so forth:  each time when a system divides in half, the MASS of each of the two pieces decreases by a factor of 2, and their SIZE (i.e., the length of the RADIUS) decreases by a factor of the square-root of 2:  so the angular-momentum, too, decreases every time when a system divides in half, because ang.mom. is (MASS) x (VELOCITY) x (RADIUS) …
When the size of the system is small-enough, its angular-momentum equals 2 x [PLANCKsCONSTANT / 2x(pi)]:  in physics-jargon, this means that it’s a “SPIN-2 system” … As already mention’d [in CHAPTER 8], the MASS of a spin-2 sternglass.cosmo.syst is a bit less-than 1/4 the mass of a proton: so when 4 of them team-up, along with an un-pair’d positron, they make a proton …
NOTE:  there are MORE DETAILs re this in CHAPTERs 4 and 8 …..
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX1 >> $$$$$$$$$$$
#####################################
APPENDIX2:  THE STERNGLASS-LeMAITRE “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” AS A GIGANTIC CAPACITOR  [refers to the discussion in CHAPTER 1] …

NOTE:  as you read this attempt to model the “primeval-atom[p.2, Ref.#1] as a gigantic electrical-capacitor, please be aware that it is, at best, only a very-rough and approximate model … first-ly, because our universe is so un-imagine-ably large and ancient, the electrical-phenomena which we observe in our part of it, in this era, might-be different from those which prevail’d in former eras, and/or in other parts of our universe … second-ly, as an amateur physics-enthusiast, my understanding of electrical phenomena is, to be honest, not very good:  hope-fully, the ideas which I present here might inspire some-body with great-er knowledge + skill to propose a better capacitor-model …

ANY-WAY, FOR WHAT IT’s WORTH:  one of the things which a capacitor can do is to temporary-ly store electrical-energy, and release it “on demand” … if a capacitor were the size of our universe, as was the “primeval-atom” in Sternglass’s model, then this “temporary” energy-storage might be for millions or billions of years, as Sternglass describes the “temporary” life-times of the LARGE “cosmological-systems”  [“cosmo.systs”]  in his model [TABLE 1, p.234, Ref.#1] …

CONSIDER a CAPACITOR which consists of 2 metal cylinders, one in-side-of the other, with a non-conductor in the small gap between them, to insulate them from each other … standard math-formulas found in many ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING text-books say that:

C  =  [ (permeability) x H ] / LN(B/A),   (EQN.#1),  where “C” is capacitance, “(permeability)” is the electrostatic-permeability of space, a KNOWN quantity, “H” is the height of the cylinder, “LN” means “natural logarithm”,  “B” is the radius of the OUTER-cylinder, and “A” is the radius of the INNER-cylinder;  obvious-ly, the gap between the 2 metal cylinders [ie, “plates”] is equal-to B – A:    i.e.,    (B – A) = D    (EQN.#2),  where “D” is the gap between the plates …

Use-ing the IDENTITY  (permeability) = 1 / [ 4x(pi) x K ],  one sees that EQN.#1 implys:  C = H / [ 4x(pi) x K x ln(B/A) ]   (EQN.#1a),  where “K” is COULOMB’s ELECTROSTATIC-CONSTANT,  and “pi” is 3.1416 …

ONE CAN VISUALIZE twist-ing this cylinder in-to the shape of a TORUS [ie, a DONUT] until its “top” and “bottom” join, with the hole-at-the-donut’s-center have-ing a radius of zero … so it looks more like a fat BAGEL than a donut … one sees that the “height” has become a circle, whose length is equal to 2x(pi) x B … one sees that this circle is located in-side-of the torus, half-way between its center-hole and its edge …

Use-ing EQN.#1a and do-ing a CARE-FULL ANALYSIS of this new shape reveals a new formula for capacitance: C = [ 2x(pi) x B ] / [ 4x(pi) x K x ln(B/A) ] =  B / [ 2 x K x ln(B/A) ]  … visualize-ing our universe as a gigantic torus, { to be consistent with one’s visualization of all the OTHER cosmo.systs as have-ing that shape }, one sees that B”  ( and also “A” ) represents HALF of the radius of our universe, which one can call “R” … so one now has:  C = R / [ 4 x K x ln(B/A) ]   (EQN.3); 

{ NOTE:  one of the beauty-full aspects of Sternglass’s model is that both the MASS and the RADIUS of our universe are KNOWN quantitys [TABLE 1, p.234, Ref.#1] } 

From any electrical-engineering text-book, one has:   W = Q^2 / (2 x C),   (EQN.#4),    where “W” is the amount-of-work [=energy] needed to charge-up a capacitor, while “Q” is the result-ing charge … as before, C” is capacitance …

One sees that, together, EQNs. #3 + #4 imply:   W = [ 2 x K x Q^2 x ln(B/A) ] / R   (EQN.#5);

EQN.#2 implys: B = A + D   (EQN.#2a);   so  ln(B/A) = ln( (A + D) / A ) = ln( 1 + D/A );   because  D/A  is VERY-SMALL,  one knows that  ln( 1 + D/A )  =  almost-exact-ly  D/A;  recall that  “A” represents half of the radius of our universe, so one has: ln(B/A) = 2xD / R   (EQN.#6);

Combine-ing EQNs. #5 + #6  gives:   W = [ 4 x (K x Q^2) x D ] / R^2   (EQN.#7);

NOTE:  because these equations model OUR UNIVERSE [actual-ly, they model the PRIMEVAL-ATOM in the STERNGLASS-LeMAITRE model of our universe, Ref.#1] as a GIGANTIC ELECTRICAL-CAPACITOR, one can now make a few changes to illustrate this more-force-fully …

First, one can change “W” to say “Mu x c^2”(where “Mu” is the mass-of-our-universe)— on the assumption that the amount-of-“WORK” which MOTHER-NATURE did when she “created” our universe must in fact be equivalent-to the TOTAL ENERGY-CONTENT of our universe … Next, one can add a subscript to “R”,  to affirm that one is talk’n about the RADIUS-OF-OUR-UNIVERSE, a KNOWN quantity in Sternglass’s model … so EQN.#7 becomes: Mu x c^2  =  [ 4 x (K x Q^2) x D ] / (Ru)^2   (EQN.#7a),  where “Ru” is the radius-of-our-universe …

NOW,  for the FINAL-step, one needs to look-at the Q^2″ in EQN.#7a:  this is the TOTAL ELECTRIC-CHARGE of our universe, SQUARED … regard-ing this, there is yet one more blessing:  in Sternglass’s model,  THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONs AND POSITRONs IN OUR UNIVERSE —(ie, the number of ep-PAIRs)— IS A KNOWN QUANTITY !!   Sternglass says that the number of electron-masses needed to equal the mass-of-our-universe is approximate-ly 1.736 x 10^(85) [p.211, Ref.#1] …

{ when he says “electrons” he means “electrons and positrons” as one can verify by do-ing the math:  each ep-PAIR weighs approx. 2 x Me  =  2 x (9.11 x 10^(-28) gram) = 1.822 x 10^(-27) gram:  he gives the mass-of-our-universe as approx. 1.581 x 10^(58) grams [TABLE 1, p.234, Ref.#1] … divide-ing the big-number by the little-number gives 8.68 x 10^(84) as the number of ep-PAIRs:  so 2x that is the number of electrons + positrons, which Sternglass refers-to as just-simply “electrons” … his thinking here is that “positrons” are just-simply “electrons” with opposite electric-charges } …

So the TOTAL ELECTRIC-CHARGE on the gigantic electric-capacitor which was once the “PRIMEVAL-ATOM” would be equivalent-to [Mu / 2xMe] x Qe;  because, for the CAPACITANCE-CALCULATION, each ep-PAIR represents ONE unit of charge … this unit [“Qe”] is well-known to be approx. 1.602 x 10^(-19) coulomb …

Put-ing all this together gives:  Q^2  =  [ (Mu x Qe) / (2 x Me) ]^2  =  (1/4) x [ (Mu x Qe) / (Me) ]^2    (EQN.#8); combine-ing EQNs. #7a + #8  gives:  Mu x c^2  =  [ (K x Qe x Qe) x (Mu^2) x D ] / [ (Me^2) x (Ru^2) ] … one can re-arrange this to say:  D  =  [ c^2 x (Me^2) x (Ru)^2 ] / [ (K x Qe x Qe) x Mu ]    (EQN.#9);

NOTE:   “c”  “Me” and “(K x Qe x Qe)”  are KNOWN quantitys,  while, as already mention’d,  in Sternglass’s model,  “Ru”  and  “Mu”  are also KNOWN … but what about  “D”  ??

Use-ing numeric-values   c = 3 x 10^(10) cm/sec,   Me = 9.11 x 10^(-28) gram,   (K x Qe x Qe) = 2.3 x 10^(-19) gram.cm.cm.cm / sec.sec,  Ru = 2.35 x 10^(30) cm,   and  Mu = 1.58 x 10^(58) grams],   one calculates a value of approx. 1.14 x 10^(-12) cm  for  “D”;   

NOTE:  this tiny distance is analogous to the gap between the “plates” in an ordinary CAPACITOR … if our universe was once, in effect, a gigantic capacitor,  then one might expect the average-gap between the opposite-ly-charged electrons and positrons at that time, (before the big bang), to be approx. that tiny size:  ie, approx. the size of an average atomic-nucleus,  which is also approx. the size of one of the “epola-cells” in Dr.Simhony’s model,  when a SMALL atomic-nucleus is in-side-of it, which causes the cell to expand a bit [Ref.#2] [Ref.#6] …

IN OTHER WORDs:  this numeric-value, calculated from theory, is  IN THE RIGHT BALL-PARK  …  so the idea to model the primeval-atom in Dr.Sternglass’s’s model [Ref.#1] as a very-large CAPACITOR might turn out to be sensible and rational and do-able …..

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END of APPENDIX2 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

###################################

APPENDIX 3:  DIRAC’s “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS”

PAUL DIRAC was one of the 20th-century’s great-est physics+math geniuses … he lived until 1984, and was still quite-active during Sternglass’s career … in his book [Ref.#1], Sternglass tells about exact-ly HOW he used a slight modification of Dirac’s “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS”, which en-abled him to calculate, very-elegant-ly, a theoretical numeric-value for the mass-of-our-universe …

RICHARD FEYNMAN, who lived until 1988, was also one of the 20th-century’s great-est physics+math geniuses, and in fact was one of Sternglass’s professors at CORNELL UNIVERSITY, where Sternglass earn’d his PhD … in his famous lecture-notes (re GRAVITATION) from 1962-1963, now PUBLISH’D for our reading-pleasure [Ref.#25], Feynman also try’d to use Dirac’s large-numbers hypothesis, but without much success …

IT MIGHT BE INTEREST-ING, and ILLUMINATE-ING, to analyse their different approaches, and WHY I say that Feynman’s use of this idea was not very success-full …

One can go to http://www.GOOGLE.com for details re DIRAC’s famous idea, but a quick-description is as follows:  Dirac call’d attention to two [2] very-large numbers:  10^(39) and 10^(79) … ie, 1 with 39 zeros after it, vs 1 with 79 zeros after it … one immediate-ly notices that 39 + 39 = 78, i.e., almost 79 … i.e., that 10^39 x 10^39 = almost 10^79 … in fact, one can get a better understanding regard-ing what Dirac’s idea is about, if one makes a slight adjustment to ONE of the numbers, to make the SQUARE of the small-er number exact-ly-equal the larger number … this is very-easy:  one can easy-ly see that:  [ (sq.rt. 10) x 10^(39) ], SQUARED, equals exact-ly 10^79 …

——– i.e.,   [ (sq.rt. 10) x (10^(39)) ]^2  =  [10^(79)]; 

WHY WAS DIRAC LOOK-ING at these particular numbers ??   BECAUSE: the ratio (mass-of-our-universe) / (mass-of-proton) is approx. 10^(79) … i.e.,  (Mu) / (Mproton) = approx. 10^(79) …

“Dirac argued that these and other simple relationships involving cosmological quantities were unlikely to be pure coincidences, and that somehow these relations had to be explained in terms of a model for the evolution of an expanding universe” [Sternglass, p.210, Ref.#1] …

THE MASS-OF-THE-PROTON is well-known to be approx. 1.67 x 10^(-24) gram … multiply-ing this by 10^(79) gives 1.67 x 10^(55) grams, which is a good estimate for the actual total-mass of our universe, based-on what astronomers can see …

OTHER INTEREST-ING RATIOs involve the SQUARE-ROOT of this large-number;  ie, [(sq.rt. 10) x 10^(39)], which equals approx. 3.16 x 10^(39) … one can calculate the ratio (strength-of-electrical-attraction) / (strength-of-gravitational-attraction) between a proton and an electron …  ie:  [ K x Qe x Qpr ] / [ G x Me x Mpr ],  where “K” is Coulombs electro-static constant, “Qe” is electric-charge-of-electron, “Qpr” is electric-charge-of-proton, “G” is Newton’s gravitational-constant, “Me” is mass-of-electron, and “Mpr” is mass-of-proton … look-ing up the numeric-values of all this stuff, and then do-ing the math, reveals that this ratio is approx. 2.23 x 10^(39) … very-close !!

IN VOLUME 3 of the lecture-notes from 1962-1963, Feynman gives a LARGE-NUMBER which is also in Sternglass’s book:

4.17 x 10^(42) is the ratio (electric-attraction) / (gravitational-attraction) for an electron-positron pair, which is different from the previous-ly-calculated ratio, which applys to electrons –vs– protons, not electrons –vs– positrons … Sternglass notes, in his book, that this ratio is very-close to the SQUARE-ROOT of the ratio (mass-of-universe) / (mass-of-electron), which is, of course, also the ratio (mass-of-universe) / (mass-of-positron), because the 2 li’l-rascals (electron and positron) carry equivalent masses …

In HIS book, Feynman mentions that that large-number represents a ratio between FORCEs (electrical vs gravitational), without mention-ing the ( Mu / Me )-connection … perhaps he didn’t notice it ??

AFTER NOTICE-ING THAT  (Mu / Me)  =  approximate-ly [ (electrical-force) / (gravitional-force) ]^2, Sternglass takes this idea and runs with it, to develop an elegant way to calculate, theoretic-ly, the mass-of-our-universe, which appears on p.265, Ref.#1 … PLUS: he uses a more-accurate version of this number [4.167 x 10^(42)] in several of his publish’d papers, call-ing it “the Dirac-number” … [he calls its SQUARE, 1.736 x 10^(85), “the Eddington-number” — in honor of SIR ARTHUR EDDINGTON (a colleague of EINSTEIN), who loved to play with large numbers] … Feynman does nothing similar with these numbers, which is WHY I say that he did not find a very use-full way to use DIRAC’s large-numbers hypothesis …

In the follow-ing LINK:

one can hear Feynman give “black-holes” as the possible explanation for “quasars”, with no mention of Sternglass’s model, which features objects which are more like WHITE-HOLEs:  nothing gets suck’d in, and large quantitys of stuff comes out …

Evident-ly, Feynman was not aware of Sternglass’s work, tho F had been S’s professor at Cornell …

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX3 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

####################################

APPENDIX4:  RE “PAIR-PRODUCTION”

SIMHONY and STERNGLASS have different explanations for the phenomenon of “PAIR-PRODUCTION” …

DR.SIMHONY says that “PAIR-PRODUCTION” does not real-ly involve any-thing be-ing produced;  instead, he says that a photon which contains a certain amount-of-energy will knock-loose an electron-positron pair from the pair’s location in the epo-lattice … he mentions CARL ANDERSON’s 1932-experimental-discovery (google it) re this … he says that the energy-content of the photon must be at least as much as the “binding-energy” of the ep-pair to the lattice, a KNOWN quantity [approx. 1.022 x 10^(6) eV, which is equivalent to approx. 1.64 x 10^(-6) erg] … [NOTE: this is the energy-content of an electron + a positron, “AT REST”] …

DR.STERNGLASS, by contrast, explains “pair-production” as follows:  “It happens all the time, when energetic gamma-rays coming from outer space strike the particles in our atmosphere … the photons produce electrons and positrons with high energy, in a process called pair-production” [p.182 Ref.#1] … accord-ing to this way-of-think-ing, “energy” becomes “matter” by some un-explain’d process …

HOW-EVER:  there is a HINT of an explanation else-where in his book, where he talks about how protons behave:  “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 EPOLA-ELEMENTs are similar:  perhaps, be-ing ep-pairs, the little-rascals might have the capability to produce an electron-positron pair as a response to be-ing hit by a large jolt of photon-energy:  i.e., to some-how CONDENSE the energy-content of a photon to produce “particles” of ordinary matter …..

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX4 >> $$$$$$$$$$$
################################

APPENDIX5:  PLEASE IGNORE THIS, AS IT’s TOO-SPECULATIVE …

“Faraday … overcame … a lack of mathematical training to become renowned for his … prodigious scientific imagination”  —–quoted from the dust-jacket of a book by Nancy Forbes + Basil Mahon, titled “Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field” (2014)

ARE THERE “MAGNETIC-CURRENTs” ??

DR. DAVID LaPOINT has posted a series of youtube-videos, titled “The Primer Fields” which are quite-good:  to view them, just-simply go to http://www.YOUTUBE.com and in-put “PRIMER FIELDs” in-to the SEARCH-BOX …

THESE YOUTUBE-VIDEOs are ALL ABOUT MAGNETICs:  I reckon that there are still some BIG LOTs of stuff which the average physicist just-simply doesn’t know re how things behave under the influence of MAGNETIC-FORCEs …

PLEASE view at least ONE of these videos, because (1) they are, in my opinion, EXCELLENT,  and  (2) they might help make my HYPOTHESIS re “MAGNETIC-FLOW-CURRENTs” (below) seem more-possible, and there-fore more-believe-able …

HYPOTHESIS re “MAGNETIC-CURRENTs” — [remember: “magnetic” is “mag’ic”]:

SIMILAR-LY to how FARADAY + MAXWELL HYPOTHESIZED the existence of “magnetic field-lines” go-ing thru their “aether”,  one can hypothesize (for the “EPO-LATTICE” in Dr.Simhony’s model) the existence of “MAGNETIC-FLOW-CURRENTs” flow-ing at a very-high rate-of-speed (the speed of light ??), energetic-ly, thru very-narrow yet very-long MAGNETIC-FLOW-CORRIDORs …

After all, the word “flux” apply’d to magnetics implys the possibility of SOME-thing flow-ing …

One can supposed, (for the sake of this essay), the possibility that flow-corridors go thru the epo-lattice in a cubical-pattern, align’d in three [3] mutual-ly-perpendicular orientations, form-ing the epo-lattice as Dr.Simhony describes it … one can hypothesize that the mag’ic-currents in next-neighbor corridors flow in opposite directions, so that next-neighbor flow-corridors would attract, like bar-magnets … one can hypothesize that these magnetic-currents (if they exist) blow and/or flow EVER SINCE THE “BIG-BANG” — because there is no friction to slow them down …

One needs a bit of creative-imagination to visualize this:  I’v never seen this hypothesis in any book or publish’d paper or article or science-story … so it’s definite-ly not a part of the “standard-model” …

HOW LONG WOULD THESE NEXT-NEIGHBOR FLOW-CORRIDORs BE ??  as long as the diameter of our universe ??  HOW NEAR TO EACH OTHER WOULD THEY BE ??  so near to each other that one would need  > 10,000 of them, all parallel and lined-up side-by-side, to cover the distance from a sodium-atom-nucleus to a chlorine-atom-nucleus, in a SALT-CRYSTAL ??

{( did Dr.Simhony actual-ly have the !!AHA!!-moment which inspired him to develop his “Electron-Positron Lattice [EPO-LATTICE] Model of Space” while work-ing with SALT-CRYSTALs in a physics-lab ??  google his “SIMHONY TRIBUTE” for details )} …

HYPOTHESIS:  AT SOME TIME IN THE REMOTE PAST, there was a very-very-high-ly-energetic ENERGY-EVENT, whose effect was to create these hypothesized + hypothetical magnetic-flow-currents, in a CUBICAL form, because that might-be the most-efficient way to store energy in a 3-dimensional space … perhaps this hypothesis might explain the origin of the mutual-ly-perpendicular lines of Dr.Simhony’s model ??

PERHAPs one can demonstrate that a cubic-lattice of magnetic-flow-corridors is the most-efficient way to store energy in 3-dimensional space ??

Perhaps one can IMAGINE THIS AS A PROBLEM FOR AN ENGINEER design-ing a heating-system to heat the in-side of a very-large box-like structure ??  perhaps this heating-system might consist of a set of pipes, with hot-air blow-ing thru them ??  if one wants to know what arrangement of pipes would transfer heat most-efficient-ly, perhaps the only two contenders for this honor would be the cubical-pattern described above, and the hexagonal and/or tetrahedral-pattern ??  if one arranges the pipes in a hexagonal-pattern, perhaps by imagine-ing that TETRAHEDRONs (instead-of CUBEs) fill the space, or by visualize-ing oranges stack’d-up on a shelf in a grocery-store, then can one calculate the length of pipe needed to serve a given volume of space ??   When I did this, I found that it’s more-than that needed to serve a given volume of space if the pipes are arranged in a cubic-pattern …

THAT IS WHY I SAY THAT the cubic-pattern might-be the most-efficient pattern for hold-ing energy … perhaps, in the remote past, there was some kind of “big crunch” —(the opposite of a big bang)— in which all the stuff in our universe, [(include-ing EPOLA-STUFF)], collapsed down in-to a very-tiny volume ??  perhaps this “big crunch” created the present-ly-exist-ing epo-lattice, as a way to ABSORB the humongous ENERGY-SURGE which such an event would sure-ly cause ??

Perhaps the hypothesized magnetic-flow currents are the primary energy-sources in our universe ??  perhaps every-thing else exists because of them ??  for example: if one assumes that they form a cubic-lattice, then one can wonder what might happen at the place where three [3] of the mutual-ly-perpendicular “flow-corridors” intersect … perhaps the 3 magnetic-currents swirl in a way which stabilizes the electron-positron pair which one finds at the intersection ??  like a 3-dimensional freeway-interchange, where, instead of cars + trucks, one finds magnetic-flow-currents ??  perhaps the ep-pair at the intersection is what keeps the flows from mix-ing ??  I can visualize that … can you ??

Follow-ing STERNGLASS, one can visualize each epola-element as consist-ing of an ep-pair, whose e and p rotate (i.e., “orbit”) around each other at almost the speed of light, and also SPIN as they “rotate” or “orbit” … {can one visualize “spins” team-ing up with “rotations” to produce “swirls”??  or “vortexes” ??} … Sternglass is very-specific re the nature of the “spins”:  he says that they spin in OPPOSITE directions, so that the 2 MAGNETIC-FIELDs associated with them point in the SAME direction, and in fact ADD …  instead of hypothesize-ing that these magnetic-fields are what hold the lattice together, one can hypothesize the CONVERSE:  perhaps the ep-pairs are what prevent the hypothesized magnetic-flow-currents from flow-ing together and collapse-ing the lattice ??  similar to how the complex-arrangement of on-ramps + off-ramps at a freeway-interchange prevent speed-ing cars + trucks from crash-ing in-to each other ??  perhaps, in this way, one can do an “end-run” around “Earnshaw’s theorem” ??

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX5 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

##############################
APPENDIX6:  Dr.STERNGLASS:  BIOGRAPHY + OBITUARY
   Dear physics-enthusiasts:  warm greetings + many blessings !!
The link below is to an obituary of Dr.Sternglass, who died THURsDAY-12-FEB-2015 at age-91 … {[ NOTE:  Dr.Sternglass lived in ITHACA, NY, USA [home of CORNELL UNIVERSITY], for many years, after retire-ing from a very-productive career as a physicist ]} …
========================================
file:///home/chronos/u-f177067aa5c170bfb5db7ad8f878037f3428a68c/Downloads/ernest_
sternglass_information_021315%20(1).pdf
—–{[ SORRY — one needs to “CUT” + “PASTE” the LINK ]}—–
========================================
Tho some consider’d him a —(to quote DR. FREEMAN DYSON, of the IAS [INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY])— a “heretic”, others consider him to be possibly a 21st-century “GALILEO” …
After I discover’d his book, BEFORE THE BIG BANG, almost 6 years ago, in the main-library, down-town, in BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, USA, Dr.Sternglass became my main physics-mentor:  I’v study’d his model-of-our-universe very-intense-ly;  along with, of course, many other books + papers by PhD-holders … As a result, I have develop’d the capability to DISCERN, with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that Dr.Sternglass’s model is more-clear + more-realistic than the so-call’d “standard model” …
BELOW ARE SOME BIOGRAPHICAL-DETAILs re Dr.Sternglass, which appear in the obituary (LINK is above), plus more details re this amaze-ing man:
*** worked on radar systems in the Navy 1945-1946, followed by a research position at the Naval Ordinance Laboratory. He completed an Engineering Physics Masters degree in 1951 and a PhD in Applied Physics at Cornell University in 1953 on a McMullen fellowship, just prior to joining Westinghouse. He later became Professor of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh …
*** a physicist and inventor whose TV cameras sent the first live pictures back from the moon’s surface, and whose digital x-ray systems work in the 1970s and 80s led to the low x-ray dose and high image accuracy of today’s digital machines …
*** Emeritus Professor of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and also a leading anti-nuclear activist, whose warnings about the health effects of low-level radiation contributed to the passage of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty in 1963 …
*** worked with Dr. John Gofman and Dr. Arthur Tamplin, among many others, on this work. The nuclear industry aggressively disputed Dr. Sternglass’s claims, which continue to be controversial. He was the first to apply epidemiological analysis to radiation effects, publicizing infant mortality and cancer statistics. He continued to research, publish and testify at nuclear licensing hearings around the world over the next 50 years, significantly contributing to public awareness about the health effects of nuclear power …
*** born in Berlin, Germany, September 24, 1923. His mother and father were both physicians. Their family escaped from Nazi Germany in 1938. After high school in New York City he attended Cornell University in 1940 on a Regent’s Scholarship to study Electrical Engineering …
*** earn’d a BS (1944) and PhD (1953) at CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
*** Dr. Sternglass’s view of elementary particle physics is that the building blocks of heavier particles like protons and neutrons are electron-positron pairs, each consist-ing of an electron and a positron rotating around each other at nearly the speed of light, a so-called Classical Pi Meson. These combine to produce larger, heavier particles. These ideas appeared in numerous scientific publications, and were summarized in his 1997 book Before the Big Bang … 
*** in 2012, Japanese researchers reported experimenting with … nuclear reaction with energy generation potential. Neutrons were being formed from protons and electrons at very low energies. They discovered Dr. Sternglass had observed this in 1951, and had discussed it with Einstein. Science writer Mark Anderson met with Dr. Sternglass and researched and wrote a detailed article, including describing Einstein’s role in detail, for the Nautilus magazine, winter 2014 issue …
*** Meetings and Correspondence with Albert Einstein  http://books.google.com/books/about/Before_the_Big_Bang.html?id=VmebQgAACAAJ Published by Four Walls Eight Windows,(294p) ISBN 978-1-56858-087-6 …
*** In his book [REF.#1], Sternglass tells of his 1947-visit with EINSTEIN, during which they talk’d re physics + philosophy, in their first-language, GERMAN …
*** In addition to his research + development work in video + X-ray technology, include-ing the NIGHT-VISION technology that army-guys use, Dr.Sternglass is also known as an anti-nuclear activist, for many years, go-ing back to the JFK-presidency during the early 1960s: his testimony before the U.S.Senate help’d to ban nuclear-bomb tests in NEVADA … In his book, he comments that he has become “estranged” from some of his former-colleagues, due-to his public anti-nuclear stance … Also in his book he talks about be-ing call’d to THREE MILE ISLAND during that nuclear-disaster …
*** There’s a wonder-full video of him speak-ing for almost an hour at UC BERKELEY, during 2006, on his way to JAPAN, to meet with anti-nuclear activists there, and also to speak in front of the JAPANESE PARLIAMENT;  so he might-be better-known in JAPAN than in the USA … GO TO http://www.YOUTUBE.com and in-put “sternglass 2006 berkeley” in-to the “SEARCH-BOX” to find the video on YOUTUBE … ENJOY !!
 Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  AMATEUR PHYSICS-ENTHUSIAST,  ITHACA [CORNELL UNIVERSITY] NEW YORK, USA … 5-MARCH-2015
$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX 6 >> $$$$$$$$$$$
################################
APPENDIX7:  TYPOGRAPHICAL-ERRORs (TYPOs) IN Dr.STERNGLASS’s BOOK [Ref.#1]
DEAR READERs:  AFTER CITE-ING DR.STERNGLASS’s BOOK, “BEFORE THE BIG BANG”,
MANY TIMEs, I REALIZE THAT, FOR THOSE OF U WHO HAVE A COPY OF IT, I SHOULD POST
A LIST OF TYPOGRAPHICAL-ERRORs {TYPOs} IN IT WHICH I HAVE FOUND …

=====================================
BTW:  if yr like me, then every time u open the book, a little-bit of the “Sternglass-magic” will rub-off on you !!  I still get more info from it, even after study-ing it, very-intense-ly, for almost 6 years … details which I didn’t understand before are now understand-able to me, because I now know much-more than I did when I first read the book …
=====================================
ONLY THE FIRST 5 “TYPOs” IN THE LIST (below) ARE SIGNIFICANT-LY CONFUSE-ING, and might cause one to mis-understand details re the science:  the others are minor inconveniences …
***ON PAGE 152, IN THE SCHEMATIC-DIAGRAM, PART (C),
ONE OF THE ARROWS POINTS THE WRONG WAY:
THE ONE WHICH INDICATEs THE DIRECTION OF THE ORBIT;
***p.213, LINE (-8):  change “1.703” to “1.581”;
***p.234:  WHICH IS “Table 1:  Masses, sizes, and rotational periods of cosmological systems … “,
AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAYs THAT 1 MEGAPARSEC IS EQUAL TO “9.46 trillion
kilometers” … IN FACT,  THAT IS 1 LIGHT-YEAR … A MEGAPARSEC IS 3.261 MILLION LIGHTYEARs;
***p.242, L. 4:  SHOULD SAY “2^100” —NOT “2100”;
***p.265, #1:  FORMULA SHOULD BE:  Mu = e^4 / (m0^3 x G^2) … IE,
THE “e” IN THE FORMULA SHOULD HAVE “4” —(NOT “2”)— AS EXPONENT;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***PAGE 117, LINE 11:  ADD “is” AFTER “that”;
***p.118, L.17:  ADD “equal” BEFORE “magnitude”;
***p.118, L.26:  ADD “if” AFTER “even”;
***p.133, LINES 11+12:  MOVE THE “the” FROM BEFORE “electrons” TO BEFORE “proton”;

***p.133: at the end of the 3rd full paragraph, add a “1” as a superfix, to refer to the END-NOTE at the top of p.264;

***p.152:  SEE ABOVE;

***p.153, L.1+2:  CHANGE “the same” TO “opposite” …
OMIT “but are … motion”;
P.153, L(-12, -11):  CHANGE “applies” TO “apply”;  ADD A COMMA AFTER
“molecules”;
***p.160, L.5:  ADD “produced” AFTER “never” (FOR CLARITY);
***p.172, L.12:  MOVE COMMA TO “them”;
***p.185, L.18:  OMIT ONE “and” —WHICH ONE ??  GOOD QUESTION !!
***p.187, L(-11):  ADD PARENTHESES AROUND “but not anti-protons”;
***p.192, L. 15:  ADD A COMMA AFTER “electron”;
***p.210, L.21:  ADD: “and the gravitational force between them” AFTER “electron”;
***p.211, L.(18): ADD COMMA AFTER “muon”;
***p.213, L.(-8):  SEE ABOVE;
***p.222, L.3:  REMOVE COMMA;
***p.223, LAST LINE:  ADD “which” AFTER THE COMMA;
***p.234:  SEE ABOVE;
***p.242, L.4:  SHOULD SAY “2^100”,  NOT “2100”;
***p.243, L.26:  CHANGE “quarter” TO “half”;
***p.263, ENDNOTE #3:   L.3:  CHANGE “masses” TO “energies”;
L.3, L.4:   THE “a” SHOULD BE A GREEK-a;
L.5:  NEED A COMMA  + A SPACE AFTER “1/137.036”;

***p.263, ENDNOTE #4:  L.(-11):  CHANGE “valve” to “value”;
***p.265:  SEE ABOVE;
P.266, ENDNOTE #7:  OMIT “that” AFTER “J/psi”;  ADD COMMA AFTER “m0”;
***p.266, L.(-4):  FORMULA SHOULD SAY:   [e^2/m0^2] / {2 x [ 2^(2/alpha) x (2/alpha – 2) ] }^(1/2) ;  the DENOMINATOR of all this is equivalant to:  {2 x [ 2^(274.072) x (272.072) ] }^(1/2),  which is equivalent to: {2 x [ 3.20 x 10^(82) x (272.072) ] }^(1/2), equivalent to: { 2 x 8.68 x 10^(84) }^(1/2) = { 1.736 x 10^85 }^(1/2) = 4.167 x 10^(42);  WHEW!!!  this little calculation is an illustration re why EINSTEIN say’d that he was not much smart-er-than some of his colleagues, but just-simply STAY’D WITH A PROBLEM LONG-ER-THAN THEY DID !!   Sternglass, too, was like that … and so am I …  BTW:  the LAST number is Dr.Sternglass’s version of one of DIRAC’s large numbers, from Dirac’s famous “LARGE-NUMBERs HYPOTHESIS”;  more info in APPENDIX3 …

***p.287, IN THE INDEX: AT “electrons,  classical diameter”:  ADD: “113, 114, 202”;
By the way:  after intense-study of Sternglass’s model, which includes find-ing + study-ing a TEXT-BOOK which 2 of his professors at CORNELL (Bethe + Morrison) wrote [Ref.36], I’v come to the idea that when he says “diameter” he real-ly means it, despite the fact that every other reference which I’v ever seen to the numeric-value 2.8 x 10^(-28) cm characterizes it as the classical “radius” of the electron … This is because I reckon that the “shell-electron” which Sternglass mentions in his book is, odd-ly, a kind of object whose “radius” is equivalent to its “diameter” — because I reckon that they (his professors, Bethe + Morrison) supposed that all of a shell-electron’s MASS was in a hollow, spin-ing, “SHELL” whose diameter was 2.8 x 10^(-13) cm … So that the “radius” of the object —(regarded as the distance between the bits of “stuff” which “orbit” around each other)— would be equivalent to its “diameter” …..

SINCERE-LY,   MARK “TRUTH-LOVER” CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  ITHACA, NY, USA,  25-FEB-2015;

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX7 >> $$$$$$$$$$$
#################################

APPENDIX8:  RE “QUARKs” — WHAT DID THEIR “INVENTOR” SAY ??

MURRAY GELL-MANN, whose office at CALTECH was next to RICHARD FEYNMAN’s office [p.167, REF.#1], first proposed the “quark”-model, during the early 1960s:  to PARA-PHRASE him:  “‘it would be interest-ing to know whether quarks are real, or just-simply mathematical-abstractions, or mathematical-tools'” … TO QUOTE HIM:  “It is fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were … real”  and  “A search for stable quarks … at the highest energy [particle-]accelerators would help to reassure us of the non-existence of real quarks” [p.323, book: QUANTUM GENERATIONS (1999) by HELGE KRAGH (Ref.#17);  p.88, Ref.#30] … 

On p.324, Kragh continues “The less-than-enthusiastic response [to the quark-model] did not prevent experimentalists from attempting to disprove Gell-Mann, that is, to show that quarks existed, rather than to show that they did not exist.  A 1977 survey of quark search experiments listed about 80 such searches” … These are high-ly-educated, high-ly-pay’d, TEAMs of scientists:  if “quarks” real-ly exist, one would think that they would have found some, hey ??

“The most interesting [quark-search experiment] was undertaken by William Fairbank [we’r name-ing NAMEs here, folks !!] and collaborators at Stanford University … In 1977, after several years of work, the Stanford group reported [embarrass-ing-ly, as it turn’d out !!] that it had found [evidence for “quarks” — in the form of] fractional charges in Milikan-like experiments {please google “Milikan electron” if u need to} … The claim was not confirmed by other experiments and … was, after much discussion, rejected by the elementary particle physics community” [p.324, Ref.#17] …

HISTORICAL-PERSPECTIVE:  [please NOTE that this HISTORICAL-PERSPECTIVE appears also in the GENERAL INTRODUCTION section of these essays, and that I REPEAT IT HERE, as I feel that it’s important] …

During the 1930s, a young-er generation of physicists (BOHR, HEISENBERG, PAULI, DIRAC,  etc.) made many brilliant + important discoverys, which led to the development of what folks now call “the standard model” … they insisted that the model’s non-ability to visualize what tiny-things look like was NOT IMPORTANT, because the model provided so many ADVANCEs to our understanding of our universe … of course, other physicists (EINSTEIN, DeBROGLIE, SCHROEDINGER, DIRAC [who, with his long legs, “straddled the fence”, so to speak], etc.) beg’d to differ, and continued to search for a way to actual-ly visualize what-protons-look-like …

IN HIS BOOK, Sternglass tells about his 1959-meeting with NIELS BOHR, in DENMARK, a few years before the great man died … PLUS, he talks about meet-ing with EINSTEIN in 1947, at E’s little house in PRINCETON, NJ, where they talk’d physics + philosophy in their first-language, GERMAN … Einstein + Bohr, for many years, famous-ly debated the merits + non-merits of what we now call “the standard-model”:  Einstein always insisted that it was “incomplete” and needed some major insights to make it believe-able, while Bohr defended it very-valiant-ly …

{[ PLUS:  he describes how strong-ly-divided the physics-community was at that time (late 1950s), re this important issue:  “I asked De Broglie whether he would help me arrange a visit to Bohr in Copenhagen … at first, de Broglie was hesitant, saying that Bohr would not be happy about talking to someone who had spent so much time in the opposite camp … who shared Einstein’s ideas on the incompleteness of the Copenhagen School’s view of quantum theory” ]} …

TODAY MANY PHYSICISTs are realize-ing that the standard-model has several disturb-ing defects: this is what one current book-writer says re this:  “The standard model is a bit like an aging movie star  whose best work is decades old  and whose flaws once seemed slight  but are now becoming glaring … it gives no explanation for why there are three levels of quarks and light particles … it can’t predict the masses of all the particles” [Ref.#12] …

—{NOTE:  “quarks” have NEVER been observed in a physics-lab [Ref.#17, pp.323+324]}—

STERNGLASS is a follower of EINSTEIN, and of others who question some of the details of the standard-model:  his “electron-positron pair model of matter” offers a clear + realistic way to visualize what-protons-look-like, which the standard-model does-not do … one will not find his proton-model [p.250, Ref.#1] in any other book:  Sternglass’s ideas are original, based-on his life as a truth-seeker …

ON THE OTHER HAND, books which “parrot” the standard-model are “a dime a dozen” … this is how I “discover’d” Sternglass’s book:  after read-ing parts of many different books-which-parrot-the-standard-model, and realize-ing at some point in the book that I didn’t understand what they were talk-ing about, I found Sternglass’s book:  like a breath-of-fresh-air, it made sense to me all the way to its end … since then I’v never look’d back …

IN THESE ESSAYs, my HOPE is to persuade folks of the value of Sternglass’s work … to do this,  I’v included also some of the work of DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY [Ref.#2], which I “discover’d” on the INTERNET approx. 1.5 years after I found Sternglass’s book … In combine-ing the models of these two elders in the physics-community, I’v made a few slight modifications to each;  the result is, I think, a clear + realistic way to visualize what-protons-look-like …

PLEASE READ MORE if any of this interests you !!

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX8 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

################################

APPENDIX9:  SIZE OF THE EPOLA-ELEMENTs (refers to the discussion in CHAPTER 2)

In my re-visualization of Sternglass’s and Simhony’s models, there is an OTHER numeric-value re the epo-lattice which I need to explain:  the SIZE of the elements-which-comprise-the-epola;  i.e., the size of the EPOLA-ELEMENTs … In CHAPTER 2, I mention that epola-elements are much-small-er-than proton-elements, and MORE-DENSE:  here are some details re why I say this …

Use-ing only easy-maths, (i.e., “high-school algebra”), one can derive the size and mass and density of an epola-element from Dr.Sternglass’s “TABLE 1” — which appears on p.234 of his book [Ref.#1] IN MY OPINION, “TABLE 1” might be one of Sternglass’s most-important and significant contributions to our knowledge + understanding re how-our-universe-works:  this is because in TABLE 1 Sternglass details mass and size data of a kind of substance which other theorists only HINT at …

For example, many years ago, the creative + far-range-ing imagination of Dr.J.A.WHEELER en-abled him to come up with the concept of a kind of object which contains “mass without mass” as he stated it … he call’d these rascals “GEONs” — and described them as follows: “in the geon paper [publish’d during 1955] … I concluded that the smallest ‘purely classical’ geon (a geon for which quantum effects could be ignored) was a donut the size of the sun with a mass of about a million suns … the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy coursing around the donut racetrack … ‘mass without mass’ in the sense that it relies on no material particles … larger geons were in principle possible, I found, up to the size of the universe” [p.237, Ref.#24] 

SIMILAR-LY, in his “TABLE 1”, Sternglass lists masses and sizes, (and rotational periods, too), of “cosmological-systems” [“cosmo.systs”] which contain no protons or neutrons,  i.e. “no material particles” … Instead, each consists of nothing but the electromagnetic-field energy of a single electron-positron pair, which can be of ANY size, and ANY mass, up to that of our universe [“the primeval-atom”] [p.175, Ref.#1] 

One of my first (!!AHA!!)-moments after I started study-ing Sternglass’s book came to me when I noticed that, if one extends “TABLE 1” a bit farther-than it appears in the book, down in-to the part which Sternglass would call “stage 28”, then one finds there a place for a cosmo.syst whose mass is that of a single electron, and whose radius would be approx. 5.6 x 10^(-13) cm, that “SPECIAL” numeric-value, already mention’d near the end of CHAPTER 6 … except that Sternglass says that the tiny-systems in this part of TABLE 1 experience a “relativistic-shrinkage” (by a factor of approx. 137;  ie, “the inverse of the fine-structure constant”) … which reduces the radius to approx. 4.11 x 10^(-15) cm  (i.e., to approx. 4.11 x 10^(-17) meter) …

But the “!!AHA!!” did not come immediate-ly:  in fact, for several years I puzzled re what-might-be-the-significance of this, during which time I “discover’d” the work of Dr.Simhony [Ref.#2] … The “AHA” came when I realized that this particular (pun-intended) “cosmo.syst” in Sternglass’s model, and the individual “epola-element” in Simhony’s model, might-be one-and-the-same … i.e., that these 2 gentlemen, who never collaborated, might have independent-ly identify’d the most-common objects in our universe:  because, as already mention’d, epola-elements are every-where in our universe, while “ordinary” objects (main-ly protons + neutrons) are, by comparison, very-few and far-between …

SO, if i’m correct in my interpretation of Sternglass + Simhony, EPOLA-ELEMENTs are, by far, the MOST-COMMON objects in our universe …..

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF APPENDIX9 >> $$$$$$$$$$$

#######################################

APPENDIX10:  IF PHOTONs ARE WAVEs, THEN WHY DO THEY NOT SPREAD OUT ??

THIS discussion, the very-last in the book, refers back to two little details, one in the INTRODUCTIONs section, and one in the AFTER-WORDs section …

IN the INTRODUCTIONs section I suggest that photons are waves, (i.e., vibrations of the elements which compose the epo-lattice), but waves of a very-special kind, because (as is already known, yet still consider’d a MYSTERY) they travel from place to place without spread-ing out, like little bullets … in the AFTER-WORDs section I say that one can visualize the epo-lattice as if it be composed of very-very-long, yet very-very-narrow, BAR-MAGNETs, each of which represents a line-of-magnetic-force, and that these align in three [3] mutual-ly-perpendicular orientations …  PLUS:  I say that, if this is true, then one would expect perpendicular lines-of-magnetic-force to IGNORE each other, like 2 bar-magnets ignore each other when one holds them perpendicular to each other …

{ Actual-ly, perpendicular bar-magnets experience a TORQUE-force, which makes them try to rotate 90-degrees (i.e., 1/4 of a full circle) to align with each other, but they do not experience any attraction TOWARD each other … one can verify this by play-ing with little toy bar-magnets } …

Visualize-ing the EPOLA in Dr.Simhony’s model as a collection of very-long + very-narrow mutual-ly-perpendicular bar-magnets, I have a feeling that this interest-ing set-of-circumstances might-be the source of an explanation for why the energy-content of a photon does-not spread-out as it travels thru space;  but, alas, it’s ONLY A FEELING … I’m almost-ashamed to include it in my book, but feel, intuitive-ly, that it might-be true … so I include it here as ONLY A SUGGESTION, and admit that it’s a VERY-SPECULATIVE suggestion, and might-be not true …

HOW-EVER, it it turns out to be true, then I hope to receive a nomination for a Nobel-prize in physics … if I live long-enough, that is … as one can say:  “OY-VEH:  I SHUD LIVE SO LONG” …..

Sincere-ly,  MARK CREEK-WATER DORAZIO,  ApE (amateur physics-enthusiast),  age-67,  12-APRIL-2015,  BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY, USA,  MARK.CREEKWATER@gmail.com …..

########### << END OF APPENDIX 10 >> ###########

$$$$$$$$$$$ << END OF BOOK >> $$$$$$$$$$$

Advertisements

2 comments on “THE ENTIRE BOOK — Essays re the Work of DR. ERNEST STERNGLASS + DR. MENAHEM SIMHONY

  1. Pingback: FORE-WORDs: IN-SIDE THE MIND + HEART OF A TRUTH-SEEKER | markcreekwater

  2. Pingback: Dr.Sternglass: OBIT + INVITE | markcreekwater

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on January 12, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: