A:/Essentials of O/S Theory.doc
Part I. Essential Ideas and Definitions
“O/S” Theory, short for “Oscillator/Substance Theory,” operates on a
relatively simple model of existence. There is postulated that all of
existence is within a substrate of unspecified form and extent, which is
organized into/organized by oscillators. These oscillators are postulated
to be members of a “family” defined by the set equation, {m x r + h/c}. In
this set equation, “m” is a measured mass at a radius, r, from a center/axis
of rotation of an entity defined by the torque constant “h/c” wherein “h’ is
Planck’s Constant and “c” is the speed of light.
The logical steps from which these assumptions arise, and the early history
of the O/S Model will be covered in a later chapter.
The following discussion covers some of the basic conclusions reached from
consideration of the above ideas.
.
The substrate has essentially the characteristics of a chemical substance at
its triple point with a constant tendency to equilibrate motion throughout.
This equilibration of motion results in various phenomena, some of which are
called “Forces,” the Force of Gravity, Electro-magnetic Force, etc.
By the O/S Model, all of these “Forces” are the result of differential
pressures within the substrate/substance. “Gravitational Force” analyzes as
being due to differential pressures between vortex conglomerates of
different sizes, Electrical and magnetic fields result from the
readjustments of the Substrate/Substance to disturbances caused by oriented
vortices--usually electrons.
The last two paragraphs have slipped a bit ahead of fundamental
considerations. We need to back track and define the types of motions
observable within the substrate/substance and which of these motions are
oscillators. We also need to define three classes of oscillators.
The types of motions within the Substrate of Existence can be classified in
various ways. One is as dot or line centered motions, i.e., movements in
and out or back and forth toward a dot or a line, or around a line, or all
of these. These are coordinated into oscillatory motions. In the case of
molecules, these are known as vibrational /rotational motion or “vib/rot”
for short. A second type of motion is motion through the substrate/substance
away from a line or point which does not move the point of origin, this kind
of motion is generally known as “electromagnetic radiation.”
Motion which carries a central point with it--usually this can be
considered motion of an oscillator or combination of oscillators from its
original place-- is known as translational motion. This type of motion is
the motion usually being considered when “Energy” or “Kinetic Energy” is
spoken of.
“Energy,” as the term is usually used, can be considered to be a “packet of
motions” having an effect which could presumably be measurable. This packet
usually consists of some combination of translational motions.
Another way of classifying motion within the Substrate/Substance is to
classify it as within a given surface and outside of that surface. This way
of classifying motions gives us a definition for the useful term, “Mass.” Mass
may be considered as a measure of the balance of pressure-tension between
the motions within a surface and the rest of the substrate outside the
surface.
[This gives a somewhat different view than the usual cyclic
definitions of Mass and Energy. “Energy is what moves mass and Mass is
what is moved by Energy.” This usual set of definitions may be considered to
be equivalent to simply saying, “Existence is.”]
There is often confusion between “Mass” as an attribute of an entity and
talking about entity itself as a “Mass.” This seems to be a possible
problem with the famous Energy definition, E=mc^2, which is usually
interpreted as meaning that if an entity were totally destroyed there would
be an “Energy “ release of an amount equal to the unit’s “Mass times the
Speed of Light squared. O/S modeling casts serious doubt on the accuracy of
that interpretation. The subject will be explored more in another section
of this paper.
.
The oscillators within our substrate/substance may be classified into three
categories which we shall call “Classes I, II and III and abbreviate these
class titles as C-I, C-II and C-III. C-l oscillators are considered as
“full-wave pulsators” which oscillate through a sphere at m = r = (h/c)^0.5,
which is a radius of about 4.7 x 10^-19 cm., with a concurrent mass of about
4.7 x 19^-19 grams. These oscillators are convertible to C-II oscillators.
These are “pseudo-spheres” which have, at any given instant, both an equator
and an axis of rotation. Any member of this group consists of two
counter-rotating halves, which inter-convert through the equatorial circle.
These halves can be split off, creating C-III Oscillators, half-wave
inverting vortices.
The best known of these are the electron and proton which result from the
split of the asymmetric C-II oscillator, the neutron. The neutron can be
considered to be the result of a compression distortion of a C-I oscillator,
which was dubbed by this writer the “Zerotron,” which is--by O/S
reasoning—also, the parent of the electron/anti-electron pair. This,
previously unsuspected, “Zerotron” appears a “major player” in the
Substrate/Substance as “parent” of both the electron/anti-electron set
and the neutron.
The “Control Oscillator of Our Universe,” whose inversion—or split-- is
the “Big Bang,” would be a C-II Oscillator. Whether we are a part of one
side of a continuing C-II Oscillator, or a part of a unit analogous to an
electron or anti-electron apparently is yet to be determined.
Considering a little basic math indicates another possible unit. . This
argument goes as follows: The number, “One,” can be considered to represent
any whole unit. If we write the Planck Equation relating a package of
motion, “Energy,” to a frequency, i.e. E = h x u, where “u’ is a
frequency, we can consider that Planck’s Constant, “h,” is the ratio between
a fundamental Motion Packet, “E,” which we may represent as a “Whole” by
using the number, “1.” If we do this and write, 1= h x u, we see that “u,”
has a value of 1/h. As the formula for the wave length of electromagnetic
radiation is “Wavelength equals ‘c,’ the Speed of Light, divided by ‘u’
the frequency,” the wave length of this packet would be , c x h, “ch.”
As
the wave length can be considered to equal the circumference of a circle,
the radius of the corresponding circle would be ch/2Pi and the
corresponding mass, as measured at one extreme, would be 2Pi/c^2. (This is
from going back to “m x r =h/c” and inserting the above value for “r.“) This
little unit, if one grinds out the math. would appear, if we were to find
it, to be smaller and more “massive” then the proton. This writer has not
checked to see if any “fundamental particle” discovered in atom-smashing
experiments has the characteristics quoted above.
The speculation above has another twist. It is possible to consider that
any equation of the form. “xy = K = yx ,” to be the equation for a
“balance.” By this reasoning, any constant would be the “balance point” of
the units that make up its definition. Taking “c.” the Speed of Light, as
the balance for light as an oscillator, one can consider that any light
wave will have an “equal partner” wherein the absolute values of the
wavelength and the frequency are reversed. In the case noted above, where
the frequency is “1/h” and the wavelength is “ch,” the “partner set” would
have the frequency of “ch” and a wavelength of “l/h.” This very low
frequency and very long wavelength would represent the
low frequency cut off for information in “Our Universe.” Another way of
looking at this is to consider that these values may represent limits of the
“Control Oscillator(s)” within which we exist.
The “Zerotron” has been mentioned previously as the Parent C-I Oscillator
from which both the positron/negatron set and the neutron are considered to
be derived; however, the evidence from which this conclusion has been
reached has not been presented.
The evidence for the “Zerotron.” Is, as follows: The electron and proton
are known to “annihilate” upon meeting to furnish an amount of “Energy,” as
“annular radiation,” at a frequency equivalent to “mc^2” of the mass of the
electron. This is the “Energy” dissipation expected from the “head-on “
collision of two particles with the Kinetic Energy of the two converted into
electromagnetic radiation.
This “annihilation,: however, does not happen on the instant of entering
into the vicinity of one another, however, but after a period of the two
units entering into what could be called a “circling dance, or “forming a
mass-less, Hydrogen atom.” The point is that the annihilation occurs when
the two entities reach a certain specific orientation to one another. This
can be presumed to be when the inversion/pulsation and the rotations of
both units are aligned on the same vector, in exactly opposite senses such
that the two rotations will cancel. Canceling of the two rotations, each
moving at an average velocity of “c,” would furnish an observed value
of “mc^2” as radiation in one annular pulse at aright angles to the line of
“collision.”
As there remains the pulsation motions, what would logically
result would be a C-I Pulsating Oscillator. This oscillator, were it struck
by radiation having more motion content, “Energy,” than that given off in
the “annihilation,” could split into the original pair of electron and
proton. The “pair-production “ process is also known. The scientific
literature does not note annihilation and pair-production as reciprocal
processes, however.
As this oscillator is the “intermediate from which the negatron and
positron would go in opposite directions,” i.e. the zero-point for the
formation these two units, it seems logical to call it the “Zerotron.”
The logic for considering that a neutron probably results for a shock wave
compression of a Zerotron, is some what different and based more on logic
than on any known experimental evidence.
It was first considered that a proton could be considered as being derived
from an anti-electron by slowing an anti-electron to about 1/42 of its velocity
in a given direcion with all of the velocity converted to “mass.” There seemed,
however, to be no way this could be accomplished with a free anti-electron.
Since the electron and anti-electron arise from the Zerotron, and the electron
and the proton arise from the neutron, it was logical to consider that the heutron
be a modified Zerotron. “ How could this happen in such a way as to cause the
Zerotron to have one half its Vibrational energy compressed so as to appear as
‘mass’ at a later time?“ became the question.
If the oscillator were “squashed” by a shock wave such that “one half of the
oscillator met the other half coming back,” this type of result can be envisioned.
Such a “squashing” effect could be expected from the shock wave of the inversion or
splitting of an oscillator such as can be considered to encompass our
Universe.
The initial motion would be at a velocity of at least twice the
speed of light, this motion into a medium having an average motion velocity
of the speed of light would create a shock wave presumably capable of
distorting many structures in its path. If the neutron is the most stable
of the resulting units, the one to which the others would equilibrate , then
the neutron could well result from a shock wave in a medium containing a
large numbers of Zerotron entities.
The concept of the “Zerotron” as a basic unit has the effect of
inter-relating a number of ideas which otherwise seem rather unrelated. The
electron, anti-electron, proton and neutron are seen as different aspects of
one entity under different transformation conditions. The phenomena of
annihilation and pair-production are seen as reciprocal processes and the
“Big Bang” falls into place as a “creative-destructive,” recurring natural
event.
Since all of the things which we know as matter, result from the
interaction of the two units, electron and proton, which can combine in
many ways but do not recombine to form neutrons, it seems quite logical to
consider that all the events of our Univerese can be considered as the
result of the Substrate/Substance readjusting motion toward a balancing of
motion throughout, sorting out and minimizing the chaos resulting from
oscillator inversions such as the one which apparently started our universe.
We may consider everything from our own existence to the most farther galaxy as
being a result of creativity out of chaos which is tending toward an
“equilibrated chaos.” This will be explored more in the following sections
of this manuscript.
Closing this section, let us list some of the definitions which arise which
are not common to the usual scientific literature.
Mass: An attribute of an entity which is a measure of the internal
vibrational-rotational motions within that entity as evaluated at the
surface.
A measure of the tension/pressure at the surface of an entity as
against the rest of “Existence.” This is measurable, at minimum values, as a
relative value by comparisons of entities.
Energy: A generalized term for a quantity of motion.
Kinetic Energy: The motion packet that can be measured, which is the result
of motion of an entire object in a given direction.
Potential Energy: A measure of the Kinetic Energy which could arise if the
space between two units were removed…. In an situation of oscillation, there
will be an interchange of Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy, with each
being “Zero” when the other is at maximum.
Electron, also known as Negatron: A counter-clockwise-rotating, inverting
vortex, Its rotation-inversion gives rise to what is known as a “negative
charge.”
Anti-electron, also know as Positron; The clockwise-rotating inverse of the
electron, hence “positively charged.”
Zerotron: A postulated entity having the same “rest mass” as either of the
Electron or Anti-Electron units. The parent C-I Oscillator which these combine into.
An entity which can be split by additional motion of sufficient amount into
an electron and anti-electron and distorted by shock waves to neutrons.
Neutron: An asymmetric, C-II Oscillator, the result of the deformation of
the C-I Zerotron. This unit, which would oscillate between “Matter “
and “Anti-matter” forms, splits in “Our Universe” into an electron and a proton. In an
“Anti-universe it would split into an Anti-electron and Anti-proton. Its
anti-particle would be identical to it.
Proton: A clockwise-rotating, inverting oscillator, formed from the
asymmetric splitting of the neutron. With the same rotation/inversion sense
as the anti-electron it is “positively charged.” Its “rest mass” is some
1832 times that of the electron hence it has some 1832 times as often an
inversion through its “central circle,” at 4.7 x 10^-19 cm., as the electron
has through its center of the same size. The proton motion is at a
correspondingly smaller distance.
Big Bang: Title given to the Inversion--or spitting--instant of the C-II
Oscillator, which is the “Control Oscillator of Our Universe.” This event
presumably created neutrons. The decay of these neutrons produced electrons
and protons resulting in the “Matter” found throughout “Our Universe.” This
does not rule out other somewhat similar incidents continuing to create
neutrons through similar shock-wave events.
Part II. The Iso-set Approach to Matter
Most of the things we deal with in our universe are made up of what we call,
“Matter,” which consists of various associations of electrons and
protons. These associations are known as atoms, molecules, organisms,
and these are organized more and more, into many different units, stars,
solar systems, galaxies,,,,
At the very most basic level, an idea called the “iso-set” can be useful. The
idea is that any group of associations of electrons and protons can be
considered as a part of a set of “isomers,” things made up in different
ways of the same units. The first set of electrons and protons which is
likely to come to mind is the set made up of one electron and one proton,
We call this the “Iso-1,1-set” and consider it to contain the following
subsets: The set,
{e. p}. the neutron, n, and the Hydrogen atom, H-1. we can write this then
as the set, {e, p; n; H-1}. We must also remember that any set will
contain the “Null Set” wherein the components, “e,” and “p” do not exist.
This “Null set,” usually considered to be empty, may occur in any amount. What
we are saying is that the “Null set” may contain Zerotrons, an entity formed
from the union of a proton and an anti-proton., and other unrecognized Class
I Oscillators. Usually this “Null set” can be ignored; however, it may come
into play in some “nuclear” transformations and it is well to be cognizant
of its existence.
In any set, one may postulate that there will be some lowest motion
content, most stable unit, and some set of most motion content which is
still an association of units. This highest motion content set, this writer
calls the “Central Aggregate” of the set, abbreviated, “Iso-A.” For the
1,1-set, the “Iso-A.” may be the neutron, which can be said to be made up of
a tightly coordinated electron-proton pair with a good deal of excess
motion, “Energy.” content.
Another possible unit of the 1,l-set could be called a “pseudo-neutron,”
a unit made up of a rather transitory--possibly only
instantaneous--coordination of an electron and proton along the same vector.
This last postulated unit, may be what is the cause of the “proton-neutron
nucleus” which has been so useful for the last 70 some years.
Although it has been very useful in correlating data and is the basis of the
Periodic Chart of the Elements, the “Proton-Neutron Nucleus Model,” in the
belief that neutrons exist, as such, in “nuclei.” is probably in error for
any atomic species having a “half-life” greater than that of a neutron in
space. As the neutron’s half-life is known to be about two seconds, the
neutron-proton model is expected to be in error for all “naturally
occurring” isotopes and for any isotopes which do not persist in nature but
have half-lives greater than a few fractions of a second.
Considering electrons and protons to be spinning vortexes, albeit on a
different scale, it seems logical that both will show some of the same
associative characteristics. Electrons are known to have associations that
can be considered as sets of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 14 which are quite
stable. There is no reason to think that protons can not associate as
well, forming similar stable sets. As such stable sets of protons would be
on a much smaller scale than similarly constituted sets of electrons, they
would form a “nuclear” cluster.
Probably the next set that comes easily to mind would be the Iso-2,2-set.
Which contains, along with appropriate combinations of all the previous sets
and the Null Set, the important set of isomers, the Deuterium Molecule and
the He4 atom. These have been the subject of much interest, speculation and
controversy since 1989.
In 1989, Fleischmann and Pons announced the discovery of “Cold Fusion,” in
the finding of excess heat being generated in electrolysis of “heavy
water.” This they attributed to the fusion of Deuterium. As it was a
“Known” that “Fusion processes can only take place in plasmas at
temperatures such as are found in the Sun,” the scientific establishment
immediately denounced this as nonsense and Fleischmann and Pons effectively
disappeared into scientific banishment. Many experimenters since have
shown the effect to be real and have found the generation of He4 to
coordinate to excess heat production.
The above-discussed effect has been most often observed in Palladium
cathodes and there have been many discussions as to what may be
happening. Simultaneously, in other laboratories there have been observed
transmutation effect which appear to be the result of the incorporation of
Deuteron units, (units of the “l,2 –set”) into various nuclei. These results
suggest that the “intra-set transformation” from D:D to He4, may not be
direct but by way of Deuteron to Deuteron association with subsequent
transformations.
The stability of the D+ unit, the Deuteron, has mystified the scientific
establishment for some time. In terms of the O/S model
-- which is not burdened with having to consider the Deuteron as a
combination of a proton and a neutron--the stability of D+ is easy to
understand, as also is it’s apparent ability to associate with other “D+es.”
In O/S terms, the Deuteron would consist of an associated “up-down” pair of
protons encased within an electron.
Association with other Deuterons would be a combination of the
“ up-down” pair coordination with a similar pair to form a “four-some” and a
simultaneous coordination of the “electron encasements” to form an “electron
pair.” The combination of two Deuterons would produce a “high-energy” form
of the Deuterium Di-cation, D:D++, which, in turn, could be considered a
very-high-vibrational-rotational-energy form of an Alpha Particle.
[ The Alpha particle--by O/S reasoning a clock-wise -spinning, “square-planar”
assemblage of four protons and two electrons--is generally considered to be
the “nucleus” of a Helium 4 atom as it contains 6/8 of the constituents of
He-4.
It may be somewhat “hair-splitting” to aver that the Alpha particle is not
a He-4 nucleus; however, we shall do just that. By the O/S model, the He-4
central unit would be a tetrahedral assembly of 4 protons, and the Alpha a
square-planar unit of four protons and two electrons. In conventional
thinking both are units composed of two protons and two neutrons with no
concern about configuration nor any consideration of the different motion
characteristics for the two entities.
99
Conventional thinking does not correlate rotation (spinning) to “charge”
hence takes no note of the idea of charged units spinning or rotating in a
certain direction. For instance, no one ever has noted that the counter
clock-wise, “left-handed” twist characteristic of so many natural products
could be the result of anionic (“negatively charged”) intermediates involved
in their formation.)]
In contact with a D:D molecule, an Alpha particle could “strip off” an
electron pair, imparting its spin-twist to the remainder of the D:D unit to
form another Alpha particle of greater “Energy.” This chain-reaction
process could continue thorough a layer of Deuterium molecules on the
surface of a Palladium cathode until some Alpha developed enough Kinetic
Energy to escape the environment. Alpha particles have been observed as a
minor byproduct in the reactions that produce He4 as a major product.
What is described above is a possible scenario for the formation of He-4
from Deuterons.
The first step, the formation of Deuterons from Deuterated
Water would be endothermic, with the energy being supplied through the
electrolysis. Subsequent processes including the association of Deuterons,
and “spin-downs” with loss of vibrational energy to the medium would be
exothermic and the last “Lewis-Acid-Base” reaction removing an electron pair
from a Deuterium molecule could be expected also to be exothermic
considering the probable lesser motion content of the very symmetric He-4
as compared to an Alpha particle and a D:D molecule.
The overall effect is D:D àHe-4, and the calculable “Energy” change would
be—in terms of conventional thermodynamic reasoning—“the Energy equivalent
of the ‘mass-defect’ between the Deuterium Molecule, D:D, and its ‘Atomic
Isomer,’ the He-4 atom.”
The Iso-3,3-set contains the isomer pair, Tritium, “H-3” and the isomeric
He-3 to which it “decays” with the loss of a “Beta particle”--an electron
spun out at a rather high velocity. Here, as in the Deuterium Molecule to
He-4 example, an apparently simple “Iso-set-isomerization” very likely goes
through an intermediate cation of a smaller set.
H-3, Tritium, has no magnetic moment, that is, it has no “charge
separation.” On a “time-average” it is totally electrically symmetric. On
the other hand, the more stable He-3 does have a magnetic moment, which is
in the same direction as that of the neutron. Both it and the neutron are
unbalanced in the same direction, apparently with a clockwise spin. At
first thought, it would seem that the Tritium should be the more stable
isomer, containing at any given time two electrons more tightly bonded to
the protons in the nucleus and one electron much less bonded, as against
the He-3 which has an unbalance “charge” structure with but one electron
more closely associated with the nucleus at any given time.
A little closer inspection from the O/S viewpoint, shows a somewhat
different picture. The central unit of an H-3 atom would be a “vibrating
tetrahedron” with the three protons exchanging places among three corners of
the tetrahedron with the electrons in a complicated dance which would be
somewhat comparable. In the He-3, a coordinated motion of three protons
in a trigonal ring encompassed within one electron would involve far less
total motion content than is present in the Tritium situation.
The loss of one electron leaves the remaining two electrons in the Tritium
cation unpaired. This cation can drop into the more stable He-3
configuration.
[It may be considered that the “drop from the lowest energy state of the
H-3 to the highest energy state of the He-3, taking place when the states
happened to coincide in configuration, furnished the ‘impulse energy’ to
cause the unpairing of the electrons and the expulsion of one as a Beta
particle.” This latter comment is very close to standard reasoning, which,
however would have to involve a “neutron to proton conversion” discussion.
By conventional models, the H-3 has a nucleus of two neutrons and one
proton, while the He3 has a nucleus of one neutron and two protons. By O/S,
both have a central aggregation of three protons, in different
configurations.]
The Iso-set approach can become very complicated very rapidly, but it is
useful in comparing two or more units of the same set while keeping in mind
the ideas of the possible involvement of the “Null” set and of Iso-A
structures which do not fit the standard patterns of atoms or molecules but
may be intermediates. This seems to not only add some flexibility to
thinking about possible reaction routes, but also some guides to where
“flexing” might take place.
An interesting set to follow by O/S reasoning would be the “self-destruction
in search of symmetry” of the unstable Iso-8,8-set whose final unit is
Beryllium-8.
Be-8 is so symmetrical that it twists apart into an Alpha particle which
spins off in one direction and another square planar unit which might be
expected to exit in the opposite direction. However, this second square
planar unit is contained within an electron pair. It “goes nowhere” as its
paired electrons counter-acting the spin of the four protons and
counter-balancing one another cause it to “stay in place.” Eventually, both
the Alpha particle and the Di-anion become Helium-4 units.
One would expect Be-8 to split directly to He-4: however, the symmetry
difference between He-4 as a tetrahedron and Be-8, whose central core could
be expected to be two square planar arrays twisted 45 degrees to one
another, prevents this kind of transformation. The spin apart of the two
square planar arrays needs only a “slight nudge” to any point.
This type of discussion needs ultimately to continue throughout the Periodic
Chart of the Elements, sorting out and developing understanding of the
patterns that cause the chart to work so well for many purposes. Finding
the reasons for Elements, without the need to invoke the “neutrons in the
nucleus” model, will be an interesting challenge.
(Note: In the few weeks since this was written, there has been a break throught
in thinking and the addition of a couple of additional "confederates" who have slants
on this which will negate or require rewriting of a good deal of this. We seem closer to
"breaking the code<" than this writer could have guessed.)
. This problem will most probably be solved by someone having advanced
computer skills. The human genome was decoded. Why couldn’t the Periodic
Chart be decoded also?
Here are some factors that might be considered in trying to develop a
computer program to solve the mysteries of the Periodic Chart.
If we abandon the idea of neutrons in the nuclei, except perhaps for some
nuclei with such short half-lives that the neutron has a comparatively
infinite life, then we must find a rationale for their “phantom presence.” The
concept of pseudo-neutrons consisting of momentary co-ordinations between
electrons and protons and/or groups of electrons with groups of the same
number of protons might solve this problem.
Another factor is the mobility or lack of mobility of the two “nucleons.” The
electron appears to have great mobility and there seems no reason to think
that, at any given time, any electron could not be in any part of the “dance
of the electrons.” That is, it can probably be considered that all electrons
in a given unit are equivalent although at an instant of motion disturbance
the electrons could be considered to momentarily “freeze frame” at the
instant before and after readjustment.
Although, most “Energy absorptions” and emissions are considered as motions
of one electron from one “orbit” to another, it is more likely that the
rearrangement is total in the electron dance, and, sometimes this may also
interact with the continuing “proton dance.”
The proton dance, because of the far different frequency of oscillation is
confined ot a smaller space and apparently causes the protons to have much
less freedom of movement, as evidenced by the number of transformations that
occur in the “shake apart” of the Iso-8,8-set. This also appears in the
fact of “internal conversion” within some of the heavier elements.
One may guess that geometric structure is apparently far more important in
the closely packed interior of an atom than it is in the outer part of an
atom occupied by the electrons. We have already discussed the probable
geometric importance of certain simple arrangements in the cases of the
Alpha particle and the Helium-4 atom and in the Tritium to Helium-3
transform. As the number of protons making up the central “matrix” of an
atom increases, the role of geometry probably becomes more and more
important.
It is easy to visualize some of the interactions between two protons, three
protons, four protons, and five protons. Up to this stage, coordinated
actions are relatively easy to visualize. Thereafter, the situation becomes
more difficult.
The “orbit-shape structures” developed for electrons may well be of some
help, but should not be considered as definitive. They do not, for instance,
note the possibility of a coordinated, continuing motion through the points
of a three dimensional star, which is one possibility for five spinning
objects.
\For the more complex atoms, it may well be that “Buckyball” structures,
even “Buckyballs” within “Buckyballs” will turn out to be probable
structures for the central unit of atoms.
People who believe in the proton-neutron model for the central unit,
“nucleus,” of an atom have worked out shell sets and preferred shell sets
for the supposed neutrons. These models might be of help in understanding
the electron to proton coordination that makes these “neutron shells” appear
valid.
Part III. The Out and Beyond
If ”All” be part of a Substance/Substrate, then science should be a
continuum including everything from nano-chemistry to cosmology. The
happenings within constellations, within stars, neutron stars, Quasars and
all the other species that make up the units of existence beyond our Earth,
would be subject to the same ideas of oscillators and oscillations that we
have discussed in the few previous examples. Cosmology would be the study of
these interactions on a very macro scale in one respect and with a very
close attention at the very tiniest level in another set of concerns.
.
To understand “Black Holes” probably requires a close examination of the
“Hidden Half of Existence” below 4.7 x 10^-19 cm. in radius. This half has
been implied in the rest of this paper but not emphasized. This is the half
of miniscule radii and huge “Mass” values as compared to our “outer world”
of the reversed absolute values, a world wherein the electron has far more
mass than the proton…. This is a world wherein “negative becomes positive,
large becomes small and light becomes heavy.” This “World” has not been
ever considered in science other than in comments about the disappearance of
matter into the singularities of Black Holes.
To understand Galaxies may require an understanding of Class II Oscillators.
It may well be that the Black Hole in the center of a Galaxy is the
inversion site of the Class II oscillator which controls that Galaxy. Galaxy
shapes may indicate the “Stage of Life” of the Galaxy. It seems that while
the “Universe” as a whole is expanding, Galaxies may be contracting, i.e.,
in a contraction phase of their “control oscillators.” There are recent
reports that “Quasars” may cause galaxies to develop about them.
Another thought is that Quasars and Neutron Stars, might be analyzable in
terms of being not only controlled by a central oscillator, but containing
what might be called a melting –pot of Iso-A units of all kinds from the
simplest units to the most complex. The “neutron stars” might actually be
creating neutrons from Zerotrons and heavy elements from the mixture of
Iso-A forms therein. It has been reported recently that ions of heavy
elements have been detected streaming out from quasars.
Examination of Cosmology from the O/S viewpoint should lead to very
interesting results. The role of Black Holes in the balancing and
Evolution of the Substrate/Substance will be interesting to discover.
It may be noted that if a half oscillator such as the electron or proton
were to pass through the inversion center of a Class II Oscillator, its
sense would be reversed, that is, an electron would become an
anti-electron, this could have interesting consequences in that out of phase
contacts would cause reunions to the Zerotron.
Considering the situation with the proton in the above scenario leads to an
even more interesting idea. The proton-anti-proton union would produce what
might be called a “Super-Zerotron.” If this speculation be correct, and the
idea that Zerotrons are distorted to neutrons also be correct, then there is
a conclusion that the Substance-Substrate is in a continued process of
evolution toward ”tighter and tighter” forms of Class I Oscillator, with
the Zerotron being possibly the predominant form at the present stage of
Evolution of the Substrate.
If the model be correct, the ultimate form would
most likely be the central average sphere of radius, (h/c)^0.5.
Interesting aspects of all of this appear where this model begins to
interact with both philosophy and science-fiction. Many questions arise. Is
Our Universe a one of a kind, except for the “co-created” “Antiverse,” or is
it that there are many sets so constituted that these units can exist
“concurrently” slightly “out of phase” with one another. What about the
situation of anti-matter?
[A short article by this same writer, dealing with the problem of
anti-matter has been published on the Internet in Helium.com. It will be
included in an appendix along with several other special topic units which
have been published on Helium.com , SciScoop.com and /or the Google Group
Site, Oscillator/Substance Theory.]
There is indication that there may be ways to take advantage of the
continued flux of existence, the “Ground State Energy” which is perhaps
represented by the temperature of about 2.7 degrees Kelvin which is
characteristic of outer space.
This temperature represents the average Kinetic Energy of the moving units
in space. It may be that we are already taking advantage this in the
phenomenon of “Super Conductivity” of certain materials when they are cooled
to temperatures approaching “Absolute Zero.”
The super-fluidity of “Helium II” may also be related to this “tiny bit of
heat” which by O/S reasoning would underlie everything but only show up as
an effect when there is a deliberate attempt to reach a “lower temperature
than that of the Substrate of Existence.” In other words, what ever makes up
the basis of the Substrate/Substance appears to have a constant motion which
is measured, at least in our vicinity as about 2.7 degrees Kelvin.
As by Carnot Cycle reasoning, a heat engine operating between Zero Kelvin
and 2.7 Kelvin could operate with 100 % efficiency, it would appear to be
feasible to utilize the “temperature of outer space” for human
purposes.
Part IV. O/S , Space-Time, Quantum Mechanics and The Standard Model of
Particle Physics
There are quite a number of “Theories of Everything which predate the O/S
model. In particular there are three models which have been quite widely
accepted in scientific circles and touted as being essentially Theories of
Everything. These three are Space-Time Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and
The Standard Model of Particle Physics. None of these is truly
comprehensive. Each operates primarily in its own niche, and the languages
and concepts do not mesh well.
Some scientists seem to think all are correct at the same time and end up doing
discussions which seem abstrusely intellectual but which on closer analysis are
found to be “concoctions of word salad,” i.e., nonsensical verbiage.
{It is quite possible that some title such as ‘The Quantum Electrodynamics
of the Relativistic Strange Quark” would be taken seriously as the subject
for a presentation at some scientific meeting. Jazzed up with enough
incomprehensible reference to differential equations with a few quantum
mechanical operators thrown in, some joker might well get complemented on
his or her new advance, which no would understand because it would be a
compilation of disparate parts, utter balderdash.]
There will be an attempt to see how these three approaches might fit in with
the quite comprehensive O/S approach. Looking first at Space-Time we find
that, surprisingly enough, much of the mathematics may fit in fairly well
for rather accidental reasons.
Mathematical space does not actually have a concept of a void.
Mathematically, space is filled with dots. Now, looking at “Time.” In practicality, time is
always referenced to some cycle. Putting the two together, Space-Time by
its title implies that the mathematics deals with motions of dots having a
cyclic motion.
As to the relativism, the relativistic corrections apply to transmission
of information between transmitter and receiver sets that are moving with
respect to one another. There may be validity in cases of relative speeds
that approach the speed of information transfer. The equations become
nonsense when applied to non-communicative relative motion.
Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model which was designed to correlate
the information from the line spectra of Hydrogen to Energy. It deals only
with positive numbers. Operating in three dimensions with both Kinetic
Energy and Potential Energy terms it does not address oscillatory motion,
nor does it differentiate “vib-rot” motion from translatory motion. What it
appears to deal with is translatory motion of electrons in atoms from a
statistical view- point of a vibratory wave motion. Based on one electron
and one proton, the Hydrogen atom, it is stretched to apply it to more
complex units.
There is no notice whatever of the fact of the two possible
energy equations which arise from integrating the formula for momentum, p
= mv both ways, i.e, with mass as a constant and velocity as a variable to
get the standard KE equation, E=”(mv^2)/2, and integration with “v”
constant to obtain the alternate expression, call it “E’”, E’= (vm^2)/2,
and there is certainly no indication of the overall energy expression found
by simply integrating, “p,” to obtain (p^2)/2 which equals (m^2v^2)/2. It
is possible that the Quantum Mechanical mathematical approach could be
developed to apply more generally if the various energy expressions were
taken into consideration and some mechanism developed--possibly by the use
of both forms of signed numbers—to account for the “Second World below a
radius of 4.7 x 10^-19 cm. "
Neither of the two models discussed above give any attention to the size,
shape , interior motions or actual exterior motions of electrons and
protons. The two models discussed thus far are primarily mathematical in
form and do not really address entities as such. Both appear to have some
possibility of integration with O/S.
The third model, the Standard Model of Particle Physics , received a Nobel
Prize in Physics in the 1970’s and is called by some, “The Crowning
Achievement of Particle Physics.” In my opinion, if this was “The Crowning
Achievement of Particle Physics,” then the “Geocentric Model of the Solar
System” was certainly the crowning achievement of astronomy. Both models
start with sets of misconceptions and add assumption upon assumption to
obtain a model that seems to work.
The Standard Model has a number of starting assumptions. One is that ther are
the “Four Forces of Nature,” which are “Gravitation,” “Electromagnetism,”
the “Strong Nuclear Force,” and the “Weak Nuclear Force.” It then is
assumed that Gravitation has no effect at the nuclear level and can be
ignored. Another assumption is that the various units which arise from
atom-smashing are fundamental units which are somehow released by the
experiment.
All of these assumptions are open to criticism. The Four Forces of Nature,
on analysis, can be seen to be two observational phenomena which can be
explained by differential pressures in the Substrate/Substance. The two
“nuclear forces” are necessitated by the assumption of neutrons being
constituents of nuclei. All four “Forces,” are either fictional or
imaginary.
Additionally, the actual force that is responsible for
Gravitation would be very much present at the atomic level.
The units which can be identified from atom-smashes are probably better
characterized as alternate states of matter which are created under the
conditions rather than being always there.
To complicate things even more, some electron scattering data is interpreted
to show that some things called “Quarks,” can carry either 1/3 or 2/3 of a
charge. (As the electrons and protons as oscillators have two limits and a
central inversion point, i.e., three definable points of possible scatter in
a ration of 2/1. the phenomena that are identified as “Quarks” may be valid
observations but are certainly not evidence of existence of basic units.)
To explain other things more and more basic units are invoked, gluons to hold
things together, gravitons to explain gravity and so on and on….
What needs to be done with this model is to find where, rationally, the
actual products of atom smashing would fit in to a pattern of matter and/or
anti-matter. One such unit, the “Beta sub 2” apparently also known as the
"B sub s, " has been shown to invert between Matter and Anti-matter forms.
This is a characteristic shared, according to O/S thinking, by all C-II Oscillators.
In this writer’s opinion, the Standard Model should ultimately go into the dust bin
of failed nonsense. A very unfortunate result of the blind belief of many scientists
in the Standard Model has led to one of the great scientific experiments of all
time, the Hadron Collider under the border of France and Switzerland.
This Collider, designed to smash streams of protons into streams of protons is
designed on Standard Model ideas an is hoped to find evidence of something
called the “Higgs Boson.”
When initially put into operation the Collider immediately broke down. O/S
considerations indicate that that is the probable continuing fate of the
Collider. Break down, start up, break down again. The problem probably is
that the designers, having no idea of existence of a Substance/Substrate
nor of the fact that protons can coordinate with protons in many ways, do
not realize that a stream of protons can generate an electrical field in the
opposite sense from the fields developed by moving electrons.. This means
that the force requirements to move protons in the ways that they “expected
to do so may well be several orders of magnitude larger than expected.
In addition, the clockwise rotation of the proton will make the requirements
for sending protons clockwise different from sending them counter clockwise
so running streams in opposite directions appears to be a very difficult
task , to say the leaxt. . Also, on meeting the protons may well
coordinate rather than making hard collisions.
The Hadron may well go into history as one of the most expensive failed
scientific adventures ever attempted, because it was based on a combination
of no information and misconceptions.
There is much that needs to be done with the O/S model which is still in its
infancy as the writer is the only “expert” in the field. There need to be
many others who can see and extend, amplify and, possibly refute the ideas
that arise. At this point, however, O/S seems to be the closest thing to a
comprehensive theory which is available.
Part V. History of the Model
Some people may be interested in how this model came to be developed. In
its first form, which has been much modified since, the basic ideas were
published in April 2007 in an article on the Internet site, Heliium,com,
entitled, “Motion in a Matrix as a Theory of Everything.”
However the genesis of the basic ideas began, for this person, in the Spring
of 2004, the year before “The Year of Einstein,” when in thinking about the
idea of “Relativity,” the thought came to mind that perhaps Einstein’s
Genius could have been the ability to see the “Overlooked Obvious.” After
all, the idea that information is relative to the observer is rather
obvious; but, before Einstein, no one had “made a big deal out of that.” If,
per chance, this kind of ability were “genius,” one could pretend to be a
genius by deliberately looking at seemingly obvious ideas and trying to find
different ideas, views, slants on them.
Later research showed that this apparently was not a facet of Einstein’s
Genius. However, the “Pretend Genius” idea turned out to be quite good.
One of the first things that was looked at was Einstein’s “Special
Relativity” with the thought, “Is there something here that is so obvious
that the significance may be overlooked.” The first thought was, “Well, it
deals with a mathematical formulation.” “Mathematical formulations can be
generalized. What happens if we generalize the formulas containing the ‘v
squared over c squared expressions?” What then would be the meaning of the
constant, ‘c?’ “ The answer was that the constant would be the maximum
velocity of information transfer, and the equations would apply to any
situation of information transfer. One could define “Perceptual Universes”
by the maximum velocity of information transfer in the volume under
consideration. This writer had no idea that this would eventually lead to
the current Oscillator Substance Model for Existence.
Following up on the idea of Perceptual Universes, however, led to the
thought, “Just what would be the meaning of ‘maximum velocity of information
transfer?; ” “How is information transferred? How does it go out in all
directions from a center? Considering these questions it was realized
that,whether by electromagnetic radiation or Pony Express, the maximum
velocity of information transfer, in any direction over any significant
distance, would be the average speed of the carriers in that direction.
Applying this to the Speed of Light it was realized that, logically, the
Speed of Light should be the average velocity in all directions from any
given point of the carriers of the information, whatever they were. The
Speed of Light then is a Constant of nature but not a Limit to Velocity in
an absolute sense; but, instead, it is an average of the velocity of
something.
This view of the Speed of Light led to the idea that light has to be carried
by something in a Matrix.
The next thought was a bit of an aside, “What is there else about reality
that we take for granted? We take Mass and Energy as interchangeable. If
they are interchangeable, they must be, somehow, aspects of the same thing.
What else is there that is always present in existence? Motion. Can motion
have two aspects? Sure. Motion about a point and motion along a line.
What then are the aspects of our Universe? Motion in a Matrix.
What else can we find out about our matrix and motions in it and the Speed of Light as
information carrier? Where can we look?
How about Planck’s relationship?
I noticed that it is said to have the dimensions of angular momentum. That
fits. A rotating unit could carry information in a straight line at the
speed of rotation at its surface. What happens if we equate Planck’s
Constant to its definition as an an angular momentum and plug in “c” for the
velocity?
This was done and the little equation, m x r = h/c, made its appearance.
It was realized that this could be the equation for a family of oscillators.
The question-answer-new-question-new-answer dialog such as was reprised
above has led to the current state of the Model…
A simple thought led to some intellectual exercise which led quite
accidentally to the construction of a sort of “Theory of Everything.”
This Model is still evolving as more and more information falls into place, more
questions arise, more answers are found.
It was later realized that Max Planck had actually gone over some of the
same ground a hundred years before and had used an oscillator-particle model
in developing his equation.
It was also realized that someone could easily have reached the same
conclusions by much simpler logic by considering the implications of the
Michelson-Morley Experiment beyond the popularized version of considering
that it had “disproven the “Aether Theory.”
This whole Model could have been developed over a Century ago had
scientists followed up on the ideas of Max Planck rather than becoming
enamored with the ideas of Albert Einstein.
Had that happened there is a strong chance the there would have been
avoided much of the confusion which has been alluded to in other parts
of this paper.
Part VI Appendix. The Fun Stuff. Short , Special Topic Articles From the
Internet (Quite obviously, this part is not finished! The following comments are
reminders to the writer....)
In this section are to be compiled some of the previous writings that
pertain to this topic. Some are of “historical interest “ and show a
somewhat more naïve view of the area. Some go into short topics in more
depth than was done in the body of the paper. It is hoped that the reader
will find these interesting and enjoyable.
Append: Motion in a Matrix, Vreeland’s answer; “letter to Sophie,” the
whole Sci-Scoop File, the Matter-Antimatter article,
Constancy of Constants, Worlds within world or what ever I called
it…..Equivalency of Electrons, Worlds Within Worlds, and anything else
that looks like it might be pertinent, Perhaps the articles on Signed
numbers and Iso-As the Key to Radioactity…..
“SON” ("The End," in Turkish)
