#photon | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

000oo00o0o0o · 17 days ago

Text

NEW PHYSICS IDEA : Neutron negative charge - Positron in orbitals with Electron ? Any Ideas?

Hello Physics People of Tumblr!! These are some new ideas about molecular physics it seems to make so much more sense? What do you think! It has almost identical outcomes to the current math but big implications for gravity, time and radiation. It is a lot to read, check it out if you like or want to help! No schools of offices are responding about it via email, maybe you know?! The proposed ideas here are written as sentences, not questions but it has not been proven yet! Would you like to help or send this info to someone who can and is interested, feel free! :)

Proposals:

Neutron is negative charge

Positron is part of the orbitals with the Electron

NEUTRON AND POSITRON CANCEL OUT IN THE MATH

The Proton and Neutron are net positive, (nucleus)

The Electron and Positron are net negative (orbitals).

PHOTON is an Electron and Positron 'orbiting'. "Color" is the radius of the 'orbit'.

All periodic table of elements always have all 4 particles in equal quantity or are radioactive (a few notes on this below)

Radiation is Electron, Positron or both, aka PHOTON. (see below for more about photons & this idea as well)

The Earth has mass, aka more shared electrons/positron pairs, aka more positive charge. This positive charge is what we call GRAVITY.

As far as TIME: Positive charge = time is faster, negative charge = time is slower, so time dilation still applies.

It may be that we are close to the positive charge 'nucleus' of the Earth (more shared valence electrons via more "mass" means less negative net charge) and the electromagnetic field above acts like 'orbitals' w/ net negative charge (positron and electron slightly negative net charge, as ). The orbitals of our molecules are negative and are pulled toward the Earth and we call it 'gravity'. It is still time dilation as positive charge makes time go faster and negative slower. Time would be at absolute zero at the electromagnetic field at the perimeter of the universe, or close to it. Here, there is still the positive charge of the Sun pulling within the negative charge of the electromagnetic field, so time is not zero, but slow. The slowing of time is like a prism, but since it is not parallel (it is a torus shape?) no one could pass through because their molecules would be splayed out in time. Meteors would break up and congeal like magma on the other side, no problem for gas. Just a few thoughts on that!

Time is non-flat and space is infinite-flat and varies in overall 'size' based on the complexity of the system at the time.

For instance, quantum world and classical world have many possible outcomes, but only one thing happens. The other uncollapsed possibilities radiate away as SPACE. This may have a similar coefficient to the relationship between energy and matter; "the square of a large number" multiplied by "uncollapsed timelines" = "space".

Imagine slow motion lighting; it forks and 'tests' many areas and eventually one trajectory "happens" but the energy from the others was real and radiates away as HEAT in the surrounding atmosphere. That would be mechanical motion/momentum as heat. So, this is similar to the hypothesis here related to time, and expansion. Eventually, everything radiates away as photons or individual particles and each is far enough from each other so as to never interact again, and the timelines are identical again and there is only 1 unit of space again. Infinite bosons in 1 unit of space until they move apart and/or 2 things could happen but it doesn't immediately cancel back to a "stable" singular timeline etc. Maybe not be "infinite bosons in 1 unit of space" as much as many bosons in a significant minimum of space. That 'starting condition' may determine a lot for our world?

This would explain the bubble around the galaxy as well. For instance life on Earth has so many possible outcomes and only one thing happens. The other possibilities radiate away as SPACE. So expansion at a hot cloud is faster than a cold cloud of gas, and where there is life the expansion is huge. Does that explain polar orientation of satellite galaxies, if expansion is roughly emitted from a torus shape? A lot to think about! Are large voids a sign of life on a cosmic scale? Is our galaxy a rare example of a galaxy interacting with many galaxies on the periphery of the local bubble as it is a rare example of a galaxy with life?!

Superclusters (Great Attractor, Shapley Cluster) are the nucleus of a molecule that expanded during a "big bang" type event.

At that moment, did something like hydrogen or helium expand so much that the orbitals slowed down to the point that the positron and electrons were going slow enough to become classical and annihilate (more about photons below)? That would leave the neutron and proton or pair of them alone and that 'gravity' of the Great Attractor may be the positive/negative net charge of the nucleus?

Strong force and weak force are electrodynamics between Electron, Positron, Proton and Neutron.

Energy is stored between the orbitals and the nucleus.

Photons can remain exclusive in their interaction (not impact the molecule) while orbiting the nucleus, and can those photons be 'digested' (similar to the way plants may) when the water needs more particles for the orbitals? If the energy storage capacity is met "black body radiation" takes place and photons spill out, (in the case of water they have a diameter/frequency in the ultraviolet range). Red is not darker than black if you are not colorblind (if you get an infection in the 'cavernous sinus' cleared out) so the brightness of steel turning red for instance is energy spilling out that was added in with heat.

Strong force is clearly the proton and neutron having magnetic interaction, pretty straightforward.

Weak Interaction is this the electrodynamics of lets say a neutron (negative charge) trying to get through the orbitals and being repelled by the electron (negative), attracted to the positron (positive), repelled by photons between the core and orbitals (negative) and possibly pulling positrons close enough to the nucleus that protons repel it (not an "antineutrino" ... a positron)

4th & 5th Phase of Matter

Do molecules have more to do with the locations of nucleus, when on Earth, but can have more to do with orbitals further from Earth or any significant charge? In an area with a lot of charge (aka gravity) and/or a lot of turbulence (aka temperature and density etc) the arrangement of the nucleus shapes complex compound orbitals we could model with this new electrodynamics idea. Further out, do the racetrack-like inertias of the orbitals have less resistance to become larger and the nucleus is inside those shapes like a seed in a seed pod. Is a molecule as we know it more than a shrink-wrapped action-figure (shrinkwrapped by the orbitals?).

When a tree branch is close to the tree it is largely related to the center of the branch, but at a certain point it becomes stems, and leaves ie a 4th and 5th phase, which expand to fit their container but are basically solids?

Is "phase 5" a gas but, even though molecules are a couple meters apart, the molecules interact like a 3d 'solid' lattice, like huge jello water molecules? In which case if a bunch were a couple meters wide evenly distributed and a charge was introduced on one side, would the structure become asymmetrical, but remain transparent? Would the orbital shells have different characteristics at interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic/cosmic space etc, as pressure and density goes down? Could water molecules be 10 meters across in places, and deform in a cool way based on charge characteristics around them from particles and the electromagnetic fields nearby?

When the ice-gas starts to move enough, can it become opaque, but still have characteristics where it is moving like a solid? In that case, does it become a solid (snow) which interacts-at-a-distance somewhat like phase 5 but opaque and solids moving together not individual molecules? Does it become an opaque liquid like clouds? Lots of observations to make about that and modeling of the different scales could be cool. Could dark matter be water molecules in this state, and at a certain radius from any star they vaporize, becoming 'non-interacting' but still impacting overall gravity aka overall charge? I suppose that wouldn't have to all be water? So is there a 3d ocean in the middle of the galaxy we call 'dark matter' - are we floating on it? Is there something similar around the Sun, such that those 'leaves' or 5th-state materials act differently beyond the frost line etc?

re: "Always equal amounts of 4 particles" Something like copper for instance appears NOT to have the same amount of each of the 4 particles. The issue there is that there are 3 orbitals, so measurement from outside the orbitals appears to have more negative charge, so we would say "more mass". We will have to redo the periodic table, but its much easier! (Sort of an "Occam's razor" situation here?)

Photon ideas

The speed of the dance is the color or 'frequency' and the angular momentum has to do with the diameter? The "magnetic wave" of the photon is because we're observing the electron, then the positron, then the electron, then the positron, as it spins, producing an observation similar to 'magnetic wave'. The "electric wave" of the photon is the center of charge oscillating around the center of rotation, as the electron and positron are not equally charged. The center of charge is along a straight line between the two particles, but they may not be orbiting at 180 degrees? I still haven't exactly figured out how the fast-time of the positron and the slow-time of the electron exactly impact this arrangement.

Photosynthesis is based on a physical structure that 'observes' a photon long enough for positron and electron to cancel out, creating negative charge that interacts with positive charge of Earth.

Do photosynthesizing plants have a structure that 'observes' a photon, causing it to have a single, classical condition. The positron and electron usually cannot 'see' each other but have a center of charge and a yin-yang looking probability where each could be found. When they become classical they COULD interact, but by the time they've moved toward each other even the smallest amount - they are already quantum again! So do plants have a structure designed to capture the radius of the photon, and 1 planksecond later is the correct diameter to observe again after however far the particles have moved toward each other electrodynamically, and after how far they have moved toward the plant at the speed of light. Could that structure trace the geometry of the collapsing photon-remaining-classical until it cancels out, leaving a net negative charge (orbitals net negative, or positron/electron pairs net negative aka light has mass)

So, to reiterate; before the pair goes back to quantum mode, (during which time the electron and positron have no location and cannot annihilate) the plant structure bumps-observes the photon AGAIN. This would be related to the speed of light, almost like a planck-length later, there's a narrower portion of a cone-like shape tracing the distance the pair travel toward each other and continually 'observing' them. Ultimately, the two have a chance to meet and cancel out, leaving a net-negative charge. When that happens, it interacts with the positive charge of the Earth and the movement of energy 'turns on' the plant like a lightbulb?!?!

Do our lungs grab energy that way? Does our spleen grab excess energy off blood cells that were unused and incorporate it into our electromagnetic field (which is visible in a cool way in RGB if you do 10^15, 10^18, 10^21 or something similar for the RGB channels respectively. It'll look especially cool in color once we get the cavernous sinus cleared out! Until then we may check each of those ranges in the green channel or on all 3 the same for b&w).

Sea level is not rising, continents are pulled into the magma because nuclear proliferation is increasing 'gravity' aka the positive charge of the Earth by removing Neutrons from mineral layers? More on this below!

re: Radiation (this last idea is a long one but has a few other ideas embedded as well. if you read this far, you might be intrigued! feel free to tell anyone or do your own research!!)

The idea is that radiation is "having extra neutrons or lacking them", and the electrodynamics associated with that negative charge. (These characteristics are particularly important when molecules bump or "observe" each other and a roll-of-the-dice configuration of the 4 particle types is specific and real.) The neutrons reduce the number of electrons by repelling the electrons. Sometimes positrons might get pulled with them. After the extra neutrons are in there and repel some electrons, the orbitals are less strong and more positively charged and the positive charge of the nucleus is no longer canceled out, so the radioactive material will repel the Earth and 'float' - as would a human who drank nuclear water.

If water has hydrogen at 104 degree angle to each other - does nuclear water have two neutrons in one hydrogen, one in each hydrogen, two in both hydrogen or two in one and one in the other? If all 4 states are examples of radioactivity, what are the other 4 angles at which the hydrogen would be found? How do they form liquid, ice and liquid clouds suspended in gas and what are the properties of gaseous nuclear material, in all 4 cases? How many positrons and neutrons might remain on each of the 4 types of radioactivity, statistically speaking, based on the 4 charge conditions?

If we ran millions of tests or 'observations' of a hypothetical molecule, eventually things like radioactive water decaying into hydrogen when "one damaged, 'radioactive' hydrogen takes proton from the other damaged, 'radioactive' hydrogen, such that it has 1 (or 2) extra neutrons and 2 protons becoming radioactive helium and releasing positrons and maybe a neutron as part of decay" could be simulated, and the probability of each outcome understood more well. That is an outcome that is frequently observed but until now, hard to explain.

The molecules of a nuclear rod for instance, have less even distribution of electron/positron pairs in the orbitals (compared to stable material) - when molecules bump into or "observe" each other, each momentary throw-of-the-dice arrangement of the electrons/positions has a net inertia which is increasingly unpredictable, as the orbitals are increasingly uneven. This means each molecule is like a little rocket ship getting propelled randomly, but not overcoming the bonds between molecules, and that internal momentum is related to mechanical HEAT. Currently we use that heat to drive a fan for energy (the energy is absorbed into gas above the solid nuclear material and the gas rises through a fan/rotor) - it would be 100s of times hotter and trillions of times cheaper to burn trash in a kiln. (people will pay you to collect garbage, so the cost is less than zero, so trillions times less than zero is MUCH less than the current nuclear costs, it is and very safe).

Nuclear material is not only dangerous because it's like a tiny 3d machine gun propelling particles in a way that's dangerous for scarring and dna damage etc, but also NUCLEAR MATERIAL IS EXTREMELY MAGNETIC AND DEFORMS THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD OF THE ENTIRE EARTH.

This creates a pothole in the electromagnetic field trajectory, and that fills up with atmosphere. The moon goes by and 'splashes' up the atmosphere causing extreme low pressure. People die from horrible pulmonary experience, and may show a wound around the abdomen as the abdomen is being pulled in all directions by low pressure and cannot breathe etc. Then, an avalanche of atmosphere crashes in from around that low pressure cone, causing the exact thing in a ring shape for 100s of km around the site. This could all be modeled pretty easily. After this, avalanching atmosphere causes a high pressure event and any survivors' shredded lungs and stomach are compressed until they throw up and their bowels are forced out and die. Then the air that caused the high pressure splashes up again, causing low and then high pressure. When it falls back, that high pressure causes a ring wave that chases shortly after the low pressure wave.

This has been the way many people have died, and the issue with people floating away from nuclear drinking water explains a lot in a few different countries and areas.

The momentum from the blast eventually adds energy into the clouds and atmosphere, so large clouds hold together extra-strong, and get pressed flat over the electromagnetic field. The energy is stored as ultraviolet photons between the nucleus and orbitals and if there's too much it spills out. Everyone is colorblind (sphenoid/cavernous sinus infection) so the ultraviolet light (aka black body radiation, like when steel turns red, which is not darker than black fyi that's your red cone not working right because cavernous sinus infection and/or sphenoid sinus is pressing on optic chiasm) - the ultraviolet light spilling out looks dark grey aka "iron curtain". That big flat cloud causes extreme high pressure in the middle, low on the sides and kills many many people as well.

So many people have died and it has not been well documented because of the way it impacts a portion of the population over a large distance, so funeral homes have a few extra people per week for a while and no one notices the pattern. If you look at birth/death around WWII for instance the pattern is clear, it impacts the economy significantly as well. The great depression in USA was from people dying here and people selling 10-20% less goods each day, and rise the price to try and catch up financially, until everything "crashed" ? It appears that whichever areas have been attacked least recently are doing the most well today, but all regions have at some point within the last 250 or so years felt the impact of this.

Alright so - that's all a bit heavy duty, my apologies! Redefining the periodic table, simulating electrodynamics etc will take time, but will be exciting! The positron and neutron must have canceled out in the math before, but it's so so much easier and intuitive like this. Always 4 particles and always the same or else it's radioactive. We could model the way in which helium comes from radioactive water for instance; one hydrogen with a damaged orbital is observed/bumped with only positron for instance, (others being shared in the molecule but also missing) which propels the proton over to the radioactive hydrogen aka tritium, and it is helium w/ 2 neutrons already and now 2 protons. In that case it's really nuclear helium with 3 neutrons and 2 positrons, but the positrons may attract enough electrons to bounce the last extra neutron out quickly? Also how about super-saturated nuclear water; instead of one hydrogen with 1 extra neutron (deuterium) or 2 extra neutrons (tritium/radioactive) it actually may have 2 extra neutrons in both hydrogens?!? Lots of research and simulation to do, but once we establish charge for all 4 and the falloff of that charge…. We can do a lot and it should be really fun!

One other note about the nuclear solid material - if there is a lack of electrons and/or positrons, and one wants to break a rod or object it in half - it may be that the other half would have NONE of the orbital particles and basically cannot break. In the case that it does, it is grabbing xray/ultraviolet photons from all the water (vapor and liquid) around to fill up its own orbitals. As a result people see an xray flash BUT - the nuclear material IS NOT INCREASING THE EXPLOSIVE POWER in fact it requires more. "Nuclear Bomb" is just a way of saying they don't know what to do with nuclear waste - it was just a trick to cover up their mistake. The mistake is that nuclear material simply doesn't add up. Burning trash and construction debris in a kiln would produce more rotational energy than nuclear energy, not to mention hydroelectricity…

If the net positive charge of the Earth's core is balancing the charge of the bedrock, is nuclear material causing Earthquakes and Volcanoes and "Rising Sea Level" by causing an imbalance between positrons and neutrons (removed to make nuclear material)?! Is the the increasingly positive net charge (aka gravity) changing the distance of the bedrock from the center of the Earth?!? That would mean that SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING, CONTINENTS ARE DROWNING IN MAGMA BECAUSE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS INCREASING 'GRAVITY' AKA THE POSITIVE CHARGE OF THE EARTH?

We say that the center is solid iron HOWEVER, experimental forms of iron have been tested up to a certain measurable pressure; that limit is many many many times less than the hypothetical pressure at the center of the Earth. This means that we absolutely do not know what iron, or any material would do at that pressure… Maybe it is a very large number of protons and neutrons and the bottom of the magma layer is so hot it is a gas? (Earth's composition hypothetically being : Nucleus particles as a core, surrounded by gas surrounded by magma ocean with the continents sitting on it, liquid water on the continents and gas water as atmosphere with electromagnetic field aka orbital particles weaving through outer layers of atmosphere, (em field usually stabilizing the gas unless misshapen from radioactivity and/or radiated water clouds?))

Is radioactive material radiating atmospheric gas water such that the exposed molecules' orbitals become positively charged but the core is not negative as in nuclear water, because it has no neutrons? The repulsion of electrons by neutrons means increasingly positive net charge for physically adjacent materials (and people?!). So, that water has less "gravity" or even repells the Earth. Does that mean nuclear material is also ejecting water from the Earth permanently, possibly that the water molecules are put it into orbit while they slowly regains electrons from solar wind) and fall back? Could the net negative charge of the electromagnetic field hold the radiated aka 'unusually positive net charged' water in the sky, increasing air pressure? If the extra water is in the sky and not on Earth could the increase in air pressure be the cause of everyone having colorblindness-sinus-infection (sphenoid and cavernous sinus) as a child that gets infected and opacified? Could the increase in air pressure be the cause of dementia, when the ducts around the pineal gland get inflamed and eventually opacified such that melatonin comes out unexpectedly every 2-3 days causing dreamlike, sometimes dangerous/confused behavior mid-day? Could the damaged/radiated water being misplaced into the atmosphere be causing CLIMATE IMBALANCE - as too much water is stored in the sky and heat is stored in water? Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland are freeze dried and Australia, North Africa, Gobi Desert, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Argentina & Persian Gulf are dehydrated, meaning more than 50% of the known world is occupiable because of nuclear proliferation? Projections indicate the entire Earth will be unlivable because of this?! Can we stop ruining everything for no reason?!

Does nuclear water float on liquid-water but when it hits a glacier it freezes and is heavier than normal ice-water, falling to the bottom of the glacier making it deep blue color? Is that mass of frozen nuclear water radiating how many of liters of water into the atmosphere each day?! We could calculate this as well, at least approximately.

Is - a useless, weak energy source that kills billions and ruins the only planet with life in the known universe and costs so so much and thins out the atmosphere causing oxygen deficiencies for those nearby the material (as well as inverted waste from particle colliders) and increasing gravity in those areas with that material - "worth it"? Regrettably it is hard to be confident about some of these issues until we confirm the positron and negatively charged neutron, but you may notice here - figuring this out soon and publishing it could be a very important thing to do for humanity and the solar system and the galaxy! (If space radiates because of temporal dynamics and energy from unselected timelines - does the large "bubble" around our galaxy come from life on Earth specifically radiating space as the Galaxy dances us around Laniakea and Perseus Pisces? If we ruin our entire lives with useless proliferation will the Galaxy stop interacting with the expansion of the Universe at a cosmic scale? Is our Galaxy navigating from Perseus Pisces to Laniakea and avoiding interaction with Andromeda with this expansion behavior?! Of course it is hard to be sure about that one, but interesting to think about! How about is the polar arrangement of satellite galaxies, because the expansion is happening less at the poles, specifically much less within the perimeter where the electromagnetic field crosses the surface of the Earth - do we have a name for that boundary?!)

The issue is that they never finished the equation for nuclear material. If it takes 1000s of years of containment to wait for the material to go through cycles of half lives until it is safe, and we do not have any structure/materials that lasts that long; nuclear material WILL destroy the entire atmosphere eventually and all oxygen based life (the only such life discovered in the entire Universe so far?!) and quite *possibly* even disrupt some level of functionality at a cosmic scale? Is it worth the risk and deaths and cost? There may be ways to expose for instance radioactive 'tritiated' water to copper-64 (radioactive by product of lithium refinement which lacks neutrons, exhibiting different radioactive characteristics than tritiated water which repels electrons and possibly photons aka energy storage; that type of copper would collect photons and electrons but might grab neutrons from nuclear water (into which radioactive metals had been diffused) although it would want to be tested in very small quantities at first. Also… what is the story with the chemical structure model for the copper-64 molecules… a little suspicious… anyway they could never really do the math on it without the positron or realization that molecules with extra orbital layers show more negative net charge if tested from outside those orbitals but… I don't know, hopefully someday we can just get the math right finally. If someone used radioactive copper-64 for building or cladding, would it all fall apart if nuclear material or water was within probably a few 100 yards? Imagine all the metal structures of a building disappearing simultaneously !?! We need to figure some of this out soon!!!)

If enough uncontained radioactive material deformed the atmosphere for a week or two (moon passes overhead, displacing a calculable amount of atmosphere that would otherwise be held in place, 10-15 times at that point) we'd have such a disruption that that would be the end of all life on Earth (if the magnetic vector was strong enough to displace the right amount of air resulting in; oxygen imbalance and air pressure imbalance and probably the iron curtain flat, pressure cloud holding together unusually strong for gas-water, because of surplus energy spilling into the air above and friction as the charged material moves along the electromagnetic field itself, which increases in the wind not decreases). If material was launched and distributed over a large area it would be impossible to clean up, and if it was magnetic enough, again, - it would launch atmosphere high above the areas it should be, reducing oxygen and causing asphyxiation, as well as reducing electromagnetic protection, it would kill people with pressure waves, it would kill people with an 'iron curtain' cloud appearing anywhere and everywhere with pressure anomalies until something stops it, (and at that height above the surface it won't be buildings or trees etc) this would impact temperature and food production. Additionally, radiated water would get stuck above the electromagnetic field as discussed earlier. The South American Magnetic Anomaly may have caused El Nino, Lake Effect, air movement over Greenland blowing away clouds of water which have absorbed heat and moving them to North Africa and Saudi peninsula. If that's a nuclear-related issue, has it also set off a volcano covering most of Argentina in ash? Scary stuff.

As far as the idea that we can 'cancel out' types of surplus nuclear material - Copper-64, for instance, a byproduct of lithium refining, might cancel out with nuclear water, leaving behind nickel, zinc, oxygen and maybe helium with a neutron or normal water which shakes the 2 extra neutrons loose and gives it to the copper w/o decaying. One material has too many neutrons and the other has not-enough. Even if we collect everything we can and cancel it out, there will be some left that WILL destroy the atmosphere over the course of any couple of weeks of being un-contained. That means that there is currently a 100% chance that the existing material will kill all oxygen based life in the observable universe unless we live for 1000 years and keep patching up the equipment every few decades. There is NO REASON to make this problem worse!

Alright, that is a few ideas to think about! If there were people looking to highlight paragraphs/hypotheses, or print the email large and cut up individual sentences to divy up areas of research for thesis students etc, that would be awesome! Whatever works, but I realize it is a lot and it takes a lot of people to focus on each step in the math to paint the whole picture!

#physics #quantum #photon

1K notes · View notes