THE OLD CLASSICAL ATOM

THE NEW MODEL ELECTRON

The collected works from; a BRITGRAV4 Conference talk,   a BRITGRAV5 Conference talk,  the "James Clerk Maxwell 150 Years On Conference" poster presentation and an Institute of Physics poster presentation

  ©Dunstan Dunstan 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 The Hague

MSc Applied Energy in Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow Cranfield,

MSc Instrumentation & Analytical Science UMIST,

Master Of Physics with Astrophysics Kent,

BSc Technology The Open University,

BSc Genetics and Biochemistry The Open University

 

Dedicated to The Merry Maidens of Cornwall,

For The Republic of Atlantis and for republicans with The Hague around the World;

 

An anisotropic-dipole graviton-electron of 1/19 the proton-centre diameter with a thin shell in a double-hemispherical formation

 

A proton of 1836 spherical-stationary (graviton-locked) electrons formed from a massive-primordial electron cloud

 

A length-varying (absorption-time dependent) particle-photon mass

 

A graviton-electron membrane-collision (and magneton collision) causing photon emission



     Historical studies of “The old classical atom” usually begin their personal study with the writer depicting a relationship between various atomic constants, i.e. by dimensional analysis, (without giving an illustration of the physical picture that is being measured) and then continue with a description of the entire atom with only a few sketches (which the writer hastily reminds the reader to not take seriously).

 

     The reader is initially interested in the equations, but the writer fails to complete the picture, (i.e. he claims that we can never see the Atom) leaving the reader uncertain that the story is worth reading and is nothing more than a story.  This makes you wonder what you are looking at anyway, since it is well known in Biology that the eye can detect a single photon.

 

     This leaves us to complete the task, e.g. one can throw in as many historical anecdotes as one likes in order to keep the readers’ attention, or draw realistic illustrations of experiments which can actually be photographed (see The Experiments.pdf). Two types of stories emerge, one with endless equations that bore the readers as they do not describe the atom and the second type where the physics historian depicts how attempts were made to describe the atom, but the physicists became bored with Classical Physics and gave up (deciding to invent Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which are equally boring and fail to give us a picture of the atom).


The Experiments.pdf

 

     Since we are at a point where artists are becoming interested in science and scientists are trying to become artistic, it may be the right time to point out to physics historians what has been overlooked by scientists in different epochs, i.e. because the moment was not right for elucidation (due to various conflicting societal, political, economical, militaristic and no doubt religious issues). This is all probably due to the Devil.

 

     Leaving religious mythologies aside, by taking a cue from the Devil, as modern-day Satanists advise us, one can start with the era around the year 1913, i.e. just before World War One began, when Bohr (having discovered the length of the Hydrogen atom 1st-shell radius), promptly gave up on classical physics and wrote a famously-overlooked memorandum to Rutherford describing his predicament.  Bohr wrote that it is admittedly an impossible task to describe the atom with Classical mechanics.  He went on to invent (early) Quantum Mechanics, which has not answered the question as to what the atom looks like, nor answered the other questions on the same level concerning the electron, proton, neutron, graviton, magneton, photon and any other particle which the reader has in mind.

 

 



Electron-ground state-orbit


             KEY TO FIGURE 1: A quick overview. In Fig.1 the electron graviton (not shown), is hypothetically interacting with the electron surface at the electron's approximate centre, i.e. the graviton is travelling orthogonally into the electron's centre at the velocity of light. The electron is orbiting at 137th the velocity of light, (i.e. the velocity of light times the Fine Structure Constant = 2.187 million metres per second). The graviton hypothetically contributes one half its mass to the electron as it collides with the electron surface, i.e. 1/2 mass times velocity squared = the energy of the collision. This is gravitational deceleration (negative acceleration of the graviton), which should equal the inertial acceleration of the electron's hypothetical magneton rim. It will be shown in the text below how both the electron's radius and the electron's hypothetical thickness, (i.e. the proton's centre radius/19 divided by the electron-charge ionising-volume per 1st shell-radius squared orbital-area times unit radius, "e/radius2 x unit length"), are found to equal approximately 0.212 Newtons for both the electron graviton's force of deceleration and the electron-magneton rim's force of inertial acceleration. 0.212 Newtons = the Coulomb Force (see text for details) divided by the cube of the Fine Structure Constant. (See the Poincaré Energy Equation, Equation 1 and Equation 2 for the mathematics about how the electron's graviton-decelerational forces equal the electron's rim-spin inertial forces. i.e. 0.212 Newtons)

     0.212 Newtons is from the force equation: "the electron mass squared x the gravitational constant and divided by the so-called Planck Length squared." If we look at the classical mechanics of the reaction of photon-emission absorption-phenomena, we can find a relation between the stress-strain equation for circumferential (rim spin) and axial (electron gravitational) deceleration.


     D. J. Dunn in his treatment of classical mechanics, gives the elasticity modulus (measurement) as being equal to the circumferential (electron rim spin) stress minus the axial (electron-graviton) deceleration stress. The Poisson ratio is considered as being equal to 1, i.e. so the equation reads: 0.212 Newtons x the Planck Length/ [(4Pi x electron radius squared) x (the electron's effective radius "thickness")] = the circumferential (electron-rim spin) stress minus the axial (electron graviton) deceleration stress

     The circumferential (electron-rim spin) stress is a maximum of 1.022 Mega-electronVolts and the axial (electron graviton) deceleration stress is a maximum of half 1.022 Mega-electronVolts, i.e. the 511,002 electronVolts which constitutes the normal mass-energy of the bare-pure electron with no photon inside of it. This means that the stress caused to the electron's rim when it is decelerated by proton-magneton capture, combined with the stress caused by the electron's axial graviton penetrating the decelerated-electron's (inner-negative tension) hemispherical-surface, causes photon emission.

     The numerical value we get, e.g. of 3.822091799 x 1013kgm-1s-2 equates to the Coulomb Force via the electron-charge volume, the electron-charge volume to 1st shell-radius squared ratio, the electron charge-to-mass ratio, the magnetic constant. the 62,584 magnetons (which ionise the proton), Wien's photon-length displacement Law and the Fine Structure Constant. This indicates that the change in electron deceleration due to proton-magneton (electron-capture). causes a change in the ratio of stress between the electron rim and the electron centre, i.e. a change which causes a different photon length and photon temperature.

     The electron-charge volume to electron-mass ratio, times the magnetic constant per 4Pi steradian, [e/me x 4Pi x 10-7/4Pi] often shows up as a scaling factor, i.e. involving gravitational equations which seem too large compared to well-known standard-physics equations. This scaling factor, which results in units of 17,588 metres squared, is equivalent to 511,002 electronVolts multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant and divided lastly by the 0.212 Newtons of gravitational force. 511.002 electronVolts is the energy per metre cubed of the standard electron, e.g. the standard electron orbiting the proton's first shell in the ground state of the proton at Absolute Zero (0 degrees in degrees Kelvin). The "Electron Stress-Strain Relationships.pdf", will attempt to simplify the terms used in the preceding paragraphs.




Electron Stress-Strain Relationships.pdf

 


             F = Coulomb force, the contracting magneton force on the electron, which = 8.238 x 10-8 Newtons. This value is found from the ratio of the product of the 13.605 Volts, (which ionise the proton and its orbiting electron away from each other times the electron-proton charging-ionising volume), to the length of the 1st proton-shell magneton-orbit

             e = the external-magnetic volume, i.e. the (Coulomb-force equalising) volume within which 62,584 parallel magnetons, (travelling at the velocity of light), can separate an electron from a proton.   This volume = 1.6021917 x 10-19m3.  These 62,584 magnetons have the force which can just overcome the Hydrogen atom's own (magnetic) Coulomb-binding force on the 1st-shell electron, i.e. due to the electron's graviton being able to wrap itself about the 62,584 magnetons and permit the 62,584 speeding magnetons to pull the electron away from its 1st-shell orbit.

             εo = the Electric Constant. The Electric Constant = 8.854187818 x 10-12 Coulombs per Volt per metre length of conducting wire,  This tells you how many protons will have lost their electrons to the other end of a metre length of conducting wire when a magnet of 1 Tesla strength is passed over the wire once every second, (about 55 million electrons per Volt applied to the wire per metre length of wire).  At the atomic level,  the ionising volumes of the positively-charged protons at one end of the conducting wire and the negatively-charged proton-volumes at the other end of the wire,  give the term e2 n the Fig.1 equation.  This term, i.e the Electric constant multiplied  by 13.605786 Volts squared times 8Pi, = the Electric Force, i.e. 1/2 the Coulomb force.

             r2 = the 1st shell radius squared, i.e. 5.291785381 x 10-11 m squared and ir is the unit vector (from Maxwell's equations), which signifies that the electron, the proton magneton and the Coulomb force all have resultant directions, e.g. all at right angles to one another.



            

     A good idea to start the physical discussion of the atom involves the electron-ground state-orbit. Figure 1 depicts the spinning electron (the small black dot to the right of the arrows), the spinning magneton (spinning in the same direction as the electron) and the 1836 stationary-electron proton (to the left of the arrows). The spinning magneton rotates as well (Oliver Heaviside Electrical Papers) and is re-absorbed and re-emitted continually by its attached-stationary electron within the proton. This rotation is necessary, (as classically), any particle which had no rotation would shear off and break from its connecting path (i.e. the next junction point of its master particle), if it could not spiral into the master-particle junction to avoid a 90-degree bend. The stationary electrons are held in place by the gravitons (Dunstan BRITGRAV4 2004 RAL) and do not move around as J. J. Thomson thought (at Cambridge university in the "Cambridge Cavendish years" in the early 1900s), but are stationary (as Walter Kaufmann thought from his Gottingen university studies during the "Gottingen years" in the early 1900s).

 

     The electron in the picture, is travelling into the plane of the diagram and then orbiting to the left behind the proton. It orbits within all of the 1st-shell magnetons and spin-couples with them (only 1 magneton is drawn into the picture), i.e. winding in the magneton (which is trying to expand all the way out to the molar radius, at some 7.34 x 10-10 m).

     The electron in the picture, has just been decelerated by the magnetons which it has contracted with and has released a photon (the photon is not shown). The photon is spinning the same way as the electron and the magneton in the diagram but it is travelling out of the electron towards the viewer, i.e. at 180 degrees from and in the opposite (linear) direction to the electron. The magneton in the diagram has an orbital diameter of 5.2917 x 10-11 m and forms the radius of the 1st shell of the Hydrogen atom with this magneton-orbital diameter. The following portable-document file-chart depicts how the electron graviton would affect Hydrogen-atomic orbital-parameters.The magneton and electron 1st-shell parameters are given in the 1st-Shell portable-document file .


1st Shell.pdf



Magneton Stress-Strain Relationships.pdf

 


 

     A good idea to start the mathematical discussion of the atom involves the term 8Pi2 me/h2.  This term involves the graviton, electron, proton, magneton and photon reactions in the atom’s ground-state orbit, (i.e. where the free electron is decelerated at the molar radius from the velocity of light to the 1st-Shell orbit at a lower velocity of c x F.S.C.). Newton’s 1st and 2nd laws apply to this phenomenon.

Me = electron mass in (proton-bound) ground-state at velocity of c x F.S.C.
2Me = electron mass in its free state at velocity of light
h = Planck’s constant, Joules per frequency of particle cycle
13.60578693 Volts = magnetic and/or photonic forces per metre squared

     Multiplying this term by the 13.605786 Volts that it takes to free the ground-state electron with magnetism or accelerate it using photons to the free-electron state at the velocity of light, yields 2.22 x 1039 m-5.  This is equal to 1/e x 1st-shellradius2

e = electron charge and proton charge

1st-shellradius = ground-state orbit-distance from atom’s centre

 

     Planck’s constant refers to the amount of energy there is in one cycle of a particle, e.g. in one photon cycle.  Hypothetically speaking, though it has not been done before, dividing by c2 gives the mass per cycle of a photon (particle). Planck's constant can also be thought of as the change in areal mass per time change. the electron mass multiplied by the square of the (electron charge-volume divided by the square of the 1st-shell radius) and divided by the atomic time of 752.88 seconds, yields Planck's constant, i.e. divided by the ratio of Pi multiplied by the square of the Fine Structure constant. The atomic time is found in several physics equations, e.g when manipulating Joules divided by Watts or volume divided by Amperes. For example, the cube of the (electron charge-volume divided by the square of the 1st-shell radius) divided by the "atomic time" equals the 3.311 mAmperes volumetric flow of the 1st-shell magneton, i.e. with a ratio of the Fine Structure constant squared (divided by 4) being applied.

     The electron charge refers to the minimum volume (for the 62,584 magnetons to occupy) in order for the magnetons to ionise the Hydrogen atom when the electron is orbiting at the 1st-shell radius in the ground state, i.e. at absolute zero.  This volume is determined by the molar volume (per molecule) and the Faraday number. The molar volume times the Faraday number = e.

    The preceding equations give us the Classical Grand Unified Field Theory, i.e. using Maxwell's Laws from Heaviside, which can be applied to the Hydrogen Atom, based upon the classical Laws of Newton, Galileo, Laplace, D'Alembert and Kepler.


The Grand Unified Field Theory.pdf

 

 


Grand Unified Field Theory Discussion.pdf

 




     Ask your physicist friends what the electron charge is and very few of them will tell you that it is the volume of magneton-space which causes the charge separation, i.e. this volume of moving magnetons causes electrons to be attracted down the magnetons’ path toward a proton which has lost its own electron. This is of course what we call electricity, but very few of your physicist-friends will tell you how far this magneton path extends from atom to atom in a copper wire, i.e. how does it overlap the next magneton (cathode to anode) pathway to cause electricity in a copper wire?

 

     Temperature is another phenomenon which is much taken for granted, i.e. it is known as degrees Kelvin but not by dimensional analysis (Amps squared per metre squared).  Wilhelm Wien reported that a photon’s length (in metres) divided into  the charge volume times c2/5, yields the temperature of the atom which emitted that photon.  By dimensional analysis ec2/(5 x the photon length) yields m4/s2.  Yet no one (including your physics friend) will give units other than the Kelvin to temperature!

 

     Sidgewick reported from Oxford in 1950 that two protons will only combine to form the Hydrogen two molecule if they both collide at the same place against the wall of the container.  This means that their collision area divided into their positive charge current (which pulls a free electron away from its pathway between atoms in the wall) is an example of what we call temperature.

 

     If we multiply the amperage of the Hydrogen atom by the amperage of the electron-charge volume in the wall (which has pulled out the Hydrogen atom’s electron with its 62,584 magnetons, i.e. the induction volume where the electron orbits circuitously within a magnetic field continually) and we divide by the 1st-shell radius of the Hydrogen atom multiplied by the radius of our ionised electron in the induction orbit, e.g. what we will call the simple–harmonic oscillator-orbit,  then we get the maximum temperature of Hydrogen, 31,603 degrees Kelvin.  The units are Amps2/m2 and we find our atomic scaling factors, which we shall find explained in the first attached article (see Maxwell's 150 Years.pdf below).

 

     By the Uniqueness Theorem, we shall find that all of our atomic equations which are in dimensional units of Amps2/m2, can be related specifically to 31,603 degrees Kelvin by atomic (dimensionless) scaling factors. This we can say classically because temperature is due to an accelerated (or decelerated) charge, i.e. m s-2 x m3 = Amperes per metre squared. A decelerated free electron will emit a photon and a photon's length determines the temperature.

 

     Let us take another example in our tour (or as another might say, our guided walk around the classical atom).  Our first example was 13.605 Volts x 8Pi2me/h2  = 1/e x 1st-shell radius2. This, (by the Uniqueness Theorem) = 1/Hydrogen-minimum photon-length5 and some scaling factors, i.e. [4Pi]5/[62,584 x 103 x 17,275 x F.S.C.5] .

 

     If we multiply this term, (i.e. 2.22 x 1039 m-5  which is equal to 1/e x 1st-shellradius2), by our 31,603 Amps2/m2 and the square of the Hydrogen-minimum photon-length, we end up with 5.8494 x 1029 m/s2, i.e. acceleration.  It is well known from the Classical Atom (Newton) that inertial acceleration equals gravitational acceleration, i.e. where velocity squared divided by radius = mass times Newton's gravitational constant divided by radius squared.  The maximum inertial acceleration of the electron  and its spin in the ground state is equal to c2/1st-shell radius.  5.8494 x 1029 m/s2 = c2/1st-shell radius and some scaling factors, e.g. the Fine Structure constant, 8Pi  and 10.  The mass of the electron times Newton's gravitational constant divided by the Planck Length squared, will give the same answer, (i.e. with factors of 8Pi and 10 being involved). A step-by-step rigorous proof for this shall be presented later.

 

     Newton said that matter and light were obviously interconvertible. We may hypothesise that the decelerated-free electron emits light where (due to) the electron dipole graviton interacting more quickly with the energy-absorption capability of the electron membrane, as 2 Belgian women researchers (Betty and Yves see BRITGRAV4 Figure 1) and myself have implied. The gravitational constant and the radius of the graviton, i.e. the Planck Length, must account for this. If we multiply the electron mass by the gravitational constant, by the electron charge, the square of the Fine Structure Constant and divided by the square of the Planck length times 20 Pi, then we get the maximum temperature of Hydrogen, ( i.e. 31,603 degrees ).

 

     If we multiply the electron mass by the gravitational constant and divided by the square of the Planck length, we can now say that the electron interacts with itself in the ground-state orbit as the Coulomb-force magnetons of the Hydrogen proton force the electron-dipole graviton to orbit the proton in the ground-state orbit and couple with the back of the electron.  We can hypothesise this because it explains (classically) why the electron does not spiral into the proton centre as Bohr said it must, i.e. as it lost energy by charging the proton. Henri Poincaré (Dernier Pensées 1910) warned us to pay attention to Walter Ritz when he hypothesised that the electron must undergo spin-coupling, i.e. between a "vortical-spinning electron" and a "vortical-spinning magneton". Henri Poincaré was a French Mathematical Physics Professor of the highest order. It was Mr. Henri Poincaré who actually wrote the now-famous equation e = mc2 (1898 Henri Poincaré). Some of the international, (i.e. nationalist), press have attributed this equation erroneously (on purpose) to someone else. This person was forced to admit some 40 years after the great Frenchman's death that it was Henri Poincaré who wrote e = mc2 and not him.

 

     The equation actually means (as well) that all energy changes (i.e. according to the 1st law of Thermodynamics), occur with the second dimension being involved. This means that photon emission from electrons, magnetons, isotope radiation and breaking radiation all involve surface-area equation terms, (i.e. phenomena involving surfaces of photons or electrons). This second-dimensional term occurs (Jointly) because the electron has forward (Linear) velocity (Newton's First Law) as well as sideways (Spin) velocity (D'Alembert's Principle) at the same time. This is noted in the equation J = L + S, i.e. where the electron's "Joint" momentum is due to its combined "Linear" momentum and its "Spin" momentum.

 

     The electron's internal energy is Mc2. It has forward velocity components of up to "c" metres per second and sideways velocity components of up to "c" metres per second. Since it has these two components of velocity it must be a two-dimensional object and have a surface that constitutes its shape, i.e. it must have a very small thickness and volume. The electron surface (membrane) must have the two velocity components moving in the surface membrane all the time except when the electron is travelling at the velocity of light. This is because the forward-linear velocity-component would be travelling faster than the velocity of light if it travelled at the velocity of light within the electron when the electron was travelling at the velocity of light, i.e. as a free electron. The electron would always have its sideways-spin velocity component except when it was captured as a Beta-particle (i.e. by the proton) to form the neutron. If the electron had only two dimensions to it, it would collapse when it collided with other electrons and with atoms. It must have a three-dimensional component and this we hypothesise to be the graviton.

 

     The term Mc2 stems from Lazare Carnot's mathematical work during the French Revolution in the 1790s. Lazare Carnot was the father of Sadi Carnot, who is credited by Kelvin and Clausius with founding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of entropy or photon (heat) emission. It shows that you can get a lot from Science if you lop off a few inbreeding-monarchs' heads, i.e. as Diderot noted for Cicero in classical literature.

 

     We can say all this due to the result from the Classical Atom equation where meGo/PL2  = c2/1st-shell radius and a scaling factor, i.e. The Fine Structure Constant. The inability of Bohr (to use a graviton) in order to explain why the electron remained in a continual ground-state orbit (i.e. according to classical physics, as he wrote in the now infamous Rutherford Memorandum), led him to abandon classical physics. Bohr went on instead to invent (the so-called "early") Quantum Mechanics, which I quote as being “totally unnecessary” in this report.  It is interesting to note that Bohr could not make use of the photon as a particle, i.e. since classical cause and effect relations force one to use a graviton-photon reaction together. The following article shows how we could have been saved if we had read Oliver Heaviside’s original work on gravitation (1893).   It is from a poster presentation I gave at the 150th anniversary of James Clark Maxwell at Aberdeen University.

 


Maxwell's 150 Years.pdf

 




     The earlier-mentioned portable document, "Maxwell's 150 Years", portrays how all atomic constants and fundamental equations can be depicted by the Heaviside-Maxwell equations. These equations directly describe atomic phenomena or use the atomic scaling factors; 17,275 the ratio of the induction-orbit radius to the 1st-shell radius in the Hydrogen atom (as well as 4Pi times the mass of the electron divided by Planck's constant, all in dimensionless units), 62,584 (the number of magnetons required to ionise the Hydrogen atom within the area defined by [Pi x the induction-orbit radius2]) and the Fine Structure Constant. The Fine Structure Constant is not well defined numerically, (see Wikipedia). It is best defined numerically perchance, as an element of a ratio. For example, the 1st Shell radius of Hydrogen divided by the Fine Structure Constant and Pi2 yields the radius of one ionised proton, i.e. ~7.3474 x 10-10 metre. The 1st Shell radius3 x 17,275 x 62,584 x 103 = the electron charge. The electron charge is of course the electron-proton ionising-volume made up by the 62,584 parallel magnetons, (which are part of the 13,605 x 108 magnetons), which compose 13.605 Volts. 13.605 Volts can ionise the electron and the proton. The electron-proton charging-volume divided by the Faraday Number equals the molar volume of one ionised proton. If we divide the molar volume by 4Pi/3 and take the cube root, we arrive at the radius of one ionised proton. If we then take the cube root of 17,275 x 62,584 x 103/{(4Pi/3) x the Faraday Number}, we get ~13.88 or the reciprocal of The Fine structure Constant x Pi2.

 

     Pi2 is important here for it is the ratio of the molar-radius magneton-frequency due to its velocity at c to the 1st-Shell magneton frequency due to its velocity at c x The Fine Structure Constant.

 

     The Fine Structure Constant is called the fine-structure constant because it is used in equations to explain why there are slightly different frequencies of red, for example, in the second shell of Hydrogen, i.e. when an electron is caught by the 2nd shell of a Hydrogen proton while it is orbiting the Hydrogen 3rd shell of another proton. As a result, the Hydrogen proton yields up a band of slightly differing lengths of the red photon, e.g. instead of the exact mathematically-predicted photon-length for red. It is assumed then that a change in the radial position of the electron, i.e. when it releases the red photon, causes the change in the colour of red. A slight change in the vertical position of the electron, i.e. as if one hit the proton on the North or South magnetic pole when the electron is releasing the red photon, causes a very fine difference the spin velocity and hence the hue of the colour released. This is described as the Hyper-fine Structure Constant.

 

     Photons are emitted when a captured electron is decelerated to a lower-velocity orbiting-level which is closer to the Hydrogen (mathematical) atomic centre. If the proton is spinning backwards or forwards, or if it is moving away from the captured electron or towards it, then the photon length will be slightly shorter or longer. This is due to the time of photon release being slightly shorter or longer.

 

     In Classical Physics, the decelerated electron always has a slower velocity while its graviton is still constantly travelling at the velocity of light. This phenomenon forces the electron's incoming graviton to convert itself at a faster rate into the electron's surface membrane, e.g. the electric-convection potential (G. F. C. Searle 1897 Cavendish). The electron membrane cannot contain this extra graviton-electric-convection potential-mass within its control volume (Dunstan BRITGRAV 4 2004 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory). The extra mass is emitted as a photon. Matter and light mass are thus mutually interconvertible by the Law of reversibility of Light (Isaac Newton Cambridge).

 

     The graviton would be modelled as a helical coil which attracts matter gravitationally as it pierces it mechanically, (due to its corkscrew-like construction). The graviton would operate mechanically by travelling through the gaps between sub-nuclear static-electrons (e.g. as when we walk upon the surface of a planet) or by actually piercing the surface membranes of sub-nuclear static-electrons. As the graviton pierces a surface membrane it would displace matter. This extra matter is the mass anomaly known in nuclear binding (and it is equal in mass-energy terms to the radiation emitted when fusion occurs). The equation by which to model the graviton's volume ( for one helical cycle ) is connected to the gravitational constant. As the previously-mentioned pdf shows, the Planck length squared times Pi/4, multiplied by the graviton-cycle length gives the graviton volume for one helical cycle. This volume multiplied by the graviton frequency squared and divided by the mass of the electron, yields the gravitational constant (with a coupling factor of 8).

 

 



 

A Classical and Quantum Electron Hemisphere

BRITGRAV4 Figure 1: A typical classical/Quantum membrane (of specific curvature) intersected by a graviton:

 

• would be under tension due to local momentum of graviton. Yves Brihaye and Betti Hartmann have written on a negative tension existing on the membrane, i.e. which would localise gravitons (Yves Brihaye and Betti Hartmann 2004).

 

• would emit a photon as the graviton absorption rate would change as the electron decelerated (Dick, R. and McArthur, D. M. E. 2002). Conversely, the electron membrane would accelerate as it reabsorbs converted mass from a photon (Walter Kaufmann 1902, 1906).

 

• would spin at a velocity equal to its transverse velocity, e.g. in J = L + S, the linear velocity equals the spin velocity.

 

• would spin-couple with proton magnetons in a vortical fashion (Poincaré 1910, Ritz 1911), i.e. exhibiting k-space interactions causing magneton contractions as described by the Fermi vector.

 

• would follow the continuity equation of the First law of thermodynamics, i.e. the matter flowing into the electron from the graviton must flow back out of the electron into the graviton, if no entropy exists such as light emission.

 

     The 1st-shell portable document file and BRITGRAV4 Figure 1, should give an experimental idea on how the dipole-graviton complex might interact within the Hydrogen Atom and what the electron graviton might look like. A decelerated-free electron will have its axial-spin velocity decelerated if the electron's axial-spin velocity and the electron's forward-orbital velocity are related. The Fine Structure Constant seems to be the parameter which relates electron-axial spin, forward-orbital velocity and proton-distance parameters with one another. If the earlier-mentioned graviton does have a helical-cycle length which is directly proportional to the gravitational constant, then there are 137 graviton cycles within a single circumferential orbit of the electron in the 1st Shell. If the decelerated-free electron is travelling at the velocity of light in the 1st Shell before it is decelerated, then since it is travelling 137 times faster than the normal-orbiting 1st shell electron, it will cover the distance in 1/137 the time, i.e. the time which it takes the normal-orbiting electron to cover 1 cycle of the alleged graviton length. This because there are 137 graviton-helical cycle-units (end to end) in a single orbit of the electron flight around the proton (within the 1st shell). This is the equivalent of 1 orbital cycle for the free electron. If the free electron is decelerated within 1 cycle time of the graviton unit length, then the decelerated electron would have to absorb the extra energy of graviton-electron membrane-conversion, i.e. a photon would have to be emitted. The graviton spin would have to be proportional to the electron and photon spin, i.e. the spin change in the decelerated-free electron (at the velocity of light) due to the decreasing spin change in the proton's magnetons would cause graviton conversion rates in the electron membrane to build up photon-releasing pressure until the free electron was decelerated from the velocity of light to 1/137 the velocity of light in the 1st Shell. It is important to point out that it is the free-electron body which is decelerated and not its graviton. The graviton must always travel at the velocity of light (or it would become tangled up with itself).

 

     Let us look at an example. If a free electron is decelerated to 3/4 of its speed from the velocity of light due to its capture by the 2nd Shell of the Hydrogen atom, then it will have lost 1/4 of its forward velocity and release a photon which is 4 times as long as the photon released when a free electron is decelerated to the 1st Shell. For a free electron decelerated to the 3rd Shell, 4th Shell, 5th Shell and 6th Shell, the electron will have lost 1/9 its (forward) velocity, 1/16 its (forward) velocity, 1/25 its (forward) velocity and 1/36 its (forward) velocity. The photons released will be 9 times, 16 times, 25 times and 36 times longer, i.e. 9 times, 16 times, 25 times and 36 times longer than a photon released by a 1st-shell electron. This is shown by experimental data from Aangstrom, Rydberg and others. The electron's (spin) velocity, on the contrary, should increase, in order to compensate, i.e. in order to follow conservation of momenta laws, (as well as conservation of angular momenta laws).

 

     Let us look at another example. From the 1st Column in our 1st-Shell pdf-file mentioned earlier, we can see that the number of electron orbits in the single-hydrogen atom’s ground-state orbit is exactly twice the Hydrogen-maximum photon emission-frequency, i.e. twice 3.289 x 1015 Hz. From the same chart the maximum 1st-shell magneton orbit frequency is twice the electron frequency, i.e. 4 times the maximum Hydrogen photon-frequency. It follows that the last magneton shell in ionised Hydrogen has an orbital frequency of Pi2 times the 1st-shell magneton orbital-frequency.

 

     The frequencies are determined by velocities and the velocities are determined by the Fine Structure Constant. If we multiply the velocity, i.e. the velocity of the last shell magneton in Hydrogen by the time of the last shell's magneton orbit-cycle, then we get the distance, e.g. the molar radius times Pi. Multiplying by the frequency ratio of the last shell of molar Hydrogen to the Hydrogen maximum frequency, i.e. multiplying by 4Pi2, gives the Hydrogen-minimum photon-length.

 

     Let us recap what we have just said in the last two paragraphs. The length of the photon released by the decelerated electron is due to the exact change in spin between the free electron and its decelerated spin velocity, i.e. Classical Mechanics and Classical Physics laws are upheld exactly. There are no mysterious mathematical coefficients and so the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply, i.e. the entropy itself is in the photon emission. Only the First Law applies and is needed. The frequency change (its ratio) between the last-magneton shell in molar Hydrogen and the Hydrogen-maximum frequency, (i.e. the photon frequency released in the 1st Shell), determines the length of the photon released. The outer magneton and the "free" electron, both travel at or near the velocity of light. The electron spin increases as the "free" electron is decelerated towards the 1st shell, so the length of the released photon will be shorter if the "free" electron spins faster for 1 electron-rim revolution.

     If one had looked at Planck’s Constant and could have divided by c2 Joules per kilogram, one arrives at the amazing mass of a photon particle, i.e. some 10-51 kg per cycle. If we multiply this by the frequency of the proposed graviton, e.g. some 1020 Hz, then we arrive at the mass of the ground-state electron. From our previous paragraphs on the mass of the electron, we can see that the mass of a photon was a minimum of ¾ the ground-state electron (for a 1st to 2nd shell transition), 8/9 for a 1st to 3rd shell transition, 15/16 for a 1st to 4th shell transition and so on up to the mass of the electron.

 

     Assuming that the shell distances are the same, then there would be about 64 shells from the 1st shell out to the Hydrogen molar radius at about 7.34 x 10-10 metre out. The smallest mass would then be about 1/632 – 1/642. This is much larger than 10-51 kilogram per photon.

 

     One arrives at the amazing conclusion that the 10-51 kilogram must be the mass of a photon particle, i.e. a sub-particle.

 

     Classically speaking, i.e. according to the laws of Classical mechanics, a photon-cycle unit would commence within a graviton-cycle unit, A photon-cycle unit would consist of some 1020 individual "helical cylindrical-like wires" of individual single twists. These helical-like twists would all start near the front of the photon, i.e. within the start of a graviton-cycle unit which is about to touch the inside of a decelerating electron. The twisted "helical-like" photon/graviton sub-unit particles would end near the back of the same photon. This geometry would allow the graviton/photon sub-units to overcome the surface tension of the electric-convection potential of the electron, i.e. the surface tension which keeps the electron surface intact. This would be because the combined pressure of all of the 1020 some photon points in a single graviton cycle unit would pierce the electric-convection potential of the electron membrane. In turn, the graviton intersection points with the electric-convection potential-membrane would be the propagation points for causing the graviton sub-units to turn inwards, i.e. towards the centre of the electron. The graviton sub-units would run into each other at the centre of the electron hemisphere and reverse direction, (e.g. their forward direction would gradually become a sideways direction and then they would turn 90 degrees at the point where they collided at the very centre of the hemispherical-electron surface). The photon units would now emanate backwards out of the electron but with the same spin direction as the electron. The latter two points are well known in physics laboratories.

     If some 1.2355 x 1020 photon sub-units compose a photon and the photon is released from within the graviton, i.e. when the graviton collides into a decelerating electron, then one can assume that the graviton-unit cycle-length is also composed of 1.2355 x 1020 photon sub-units. We can assume this as our previous discussion explained classically how the decelerated-free electron released a photon when its velocity was changed from the velocity of light to the Fine Structure Constant times the velocity of light, (e.g. as in the 1st shell orbit of the Hydrogen atom).

 

     If we have defined a graviton-unit cycle-length as 2.4263 x 10-12 m, then this length divided by 1.2355 x 1020 gives 1.9636 x 10-32 m as the distance between photon sub-units overlapping, e.g. like fibres in a string. From the “Maxwell’s 150 Years pdf” we defined the volume of a graviton unit cycle as PL2 x Pi x 2.426 x 10-12 m. If we divide this volume by 1.2355 x 1020 then we get a particle that is 2.426 x 10-12 m long with a radius of 1.4527 x 10-45 m.

 

     In the normal graviton the 1.2355 x 1020 photon sub-units must overlap one another, i.e. as fibres do in a string. Classically speaking, this is the only manner by which there can be coherence to a photon sub-particle graviton-unit.

     The value of the radius of the photon sub-unit particle is mathematically significant. If we multiply Pi times the square of this 1.4257 x 10-45 m by twice the radius of the universe (the graviton orbital radius of 1.1784 x 1056 m), we get 1.5626 x 10-33 m3. If we divide this volume into the proposed overlapping distance of the photon sub-particle units, e.g. 2.426 x 10-12 m divided by 1.2355 x 1020 cycles, we get 4Pi m-2, e.g. a steradian per m2. The metre squared term can be explained by the derivation we got for the radius of the universe in the “Maxwell’s 150 Years pdf”, i.e. we got 4Pi x me x G0/1 m2 to be dimensionally the reciprocal of the number of gravitons per metre square per steradian to give 1 ms-2 acceleration. Multiplying the reciprocal of eq. 17 (i.e. in the “Maxwell’s 150 Years pdf”), by c2 m2s-2 gives the radius of the universe per steradian, e.g. in metres squared.

 

     This is the unit of all matter, i.e. it must flow through the graviton, the electron membrane, the magneton and all parts of the proton and neutron. In fact, by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, it must commute through all nucleons via their gravitons and be released as photons, whether by synchrotron emission, photon release, gamma-ray emission of isotopes or braking radiation.

 


Inertial Acceleration.pdf

 



Electron Hemisphere

BRITGRAV4 Figure 2: A depiction (for discerning mathematicians) of the orbital-ground state-electron. The 9 graviton units depicted (not to scale) are proposed to emanate out of the front of the hemisphere, travel out to the edge of the Cosmos and circle back in behind the back of the electron hemisphere. This depiction of the orbital electron is from the BRITGRAV4 Annual Conference at the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in 2004. Further research indicates that the electron-rim thickness is more likely to be the electron radius/(the electron charge/the square of the 1st-shell radius). The graviton-cycle units (not to scale) should be approximately 2.42631 x 10 -12 metre. (See text or author for details)




     The electron itself is the most elusive little devil. As the table on inertial acceleration shows, e.g. column 1 row 5, every time that one tries to put the electron radius, i.e. 7.415649545 x 10-17 m, into an equation, the coefficient 19 (or 38) shows up. One thus gets the proton-centre radius (1.4809 x 10-15 m) or the fusion-approach radius (2.8179 x 10-15 m). The fusion-approach radius of 2.8179 x 10-15 m, is the measurement from the centre of the proton to the points where the (non-orbital) magnetons form the fusion barrier. The fusion barrier is mathematically the value of velocity which a nucleon must have to allow its own gravitons to pierce the (non-orbital) magneton layer at the fusion-approach distance and to pierce the proton’s electrons. When the nucleon’s gravitons pierce the proton’s static electrons, they displace a certain amount of static-electron mass, i.e. the mass anomaly of fusion. This energy quantum is always equal to the mass-energy of the radiation released from within the proton’s (non-orbital) magnetons, e.g. when the approaching nucleon’s gravitons pierce the (non-orbital) magnetons’ barrier at the fusion-approach distance. Hence, most classical equations have always described the fusion-approach radius of 2.8179 x 10-15 m as the electron radius when it is the radius of orbit of the proton's (i.e. the static electrons') magnetons. It is the closest point of approach of a nucleon to another nucleon if the nucleons combined velocities are less than the fusion-approach velocity. This is the Thomson cross-over section radius, e.g. where Rutherford showed Helium atoms bouncing off Gold.





Proton Centre

BRITGRAV4 Figure 3: A depiction of the cut-off section of the equatorial plane in a hypothetical-proton centre. If one packs 1836 static-electron spheroids in 6 concentric layers, then one discovers that one has constructed a crystal. This crystal would have a flat-hexagonal North-pole top and 6 trapezoidal sides sloping down to the equator and 6 trapezoidal sides sloping down to the flat hexagonal South-pole bottom. (see BRITGRAV4 Figure 4)



Proton Centre Crystal

BRITGRAV4 Figure 4: A depiction of the hypothetical-proton centre. The magnetons emanating and returning vertically (a few shown in the diagram) would be locked into their 1st-to-6th-shell radii by the (not shown) horizontally outgoing and incoming gravitons (in the equatorial plane) of the proton-centre crystal. (see PROTON.pdf)

 


PROTON.pdf

 





The Neutron Centre

     BRITGRAV4 Figure 5: A depiction (for discerning physicists) of the neutron centre. The 9 graviton units depicted (in figure 2 emanating out of the front of the double-hemisphere) are now counted as 18 i.e. 9 outgoing gravitons and 9 incoming gravitons make 18 in total. This allows the static-spheroidal electrons in the neutron centre to obey the close-packing laws for spheres. The arrows at the graviton unit ends indicate the direction of the 18 gravitons which connect the central beta-particle to the surrounding static electrons. (See text for details)






     BRITGRAV4 Figure 5 depicts the absolute centre of the neutron together with the first shell of the Neutron (and proton), i.e. the 18 surrounding static spheroids which form around the central blue spheroid according to the close-packing laws for spheres. The central blue spheroid represents the Beta-particle which Walter Kaufmann proved to be the electron, i.e. from some Radium which he got from Marie Curie in 1901. The centre-to-centre distance from the central-blue static-electron to the surrounding 18 static electrons is 1.5 electron radii. The central-blue beta-particle and the six-surrounding blue static-electrons are all in the equatorial plane of the neutron (and proton). The orange-electron spheroids lie above the equatorial plane and the green-electron spheroids lie below the equatorial plane. As the static electrons are 1.5 radii apart, i.e. due to the close-packing laws for spheres, the 1st shell is 1.5 radii from the centre, the 2nd shell is twice that, the 3rd shell is thrice that, the 4th shell is quadruple that, the 5th shell is quintuple that and the 6th shell is 6 times this ratio. This can tend to explain how Balmer derived the formula for explaining the ratio between photons released from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th shell electron captures and the inverse square law for distances (e.g. as explained earlier regarding photon-length changes and electron shell velocities).

 

     The neutron structure follows the Proton structure depicted in the Proton.pdf and BRITGRAV4 figures 3 and 4. The incoming and outgoing graviton units attached to the static spheroids in BRITGRAV4 Figure 3, i.e. in the equatorial plane of the proton, are proposed to form a mechanical lock on the 1st shell, 2nd shell, 3rd shell, 4th shell, 5th shell and 5th shell magnetons of the proton. This mechanical lock is proposed to be the phenomenon which holds the 6 magneton shells in their positions and maintains their radial distance from the proton centre. It is interesting to point out that the sub-protonic muon particle still has Hydrogen-like shell-drop emissions, i.e. even after it is broken down from a proton-cosmic ray collision. This means that the magneton shells of the muon are still at the same radial distance (from the muon centre) as the proton's magneton shells are from the proton's centre.

 

     The absorption of an electron by the proton (e.g. the white central spheroid in BRITGRAV4 Figure 3 or the blue beta-particle in BRITGRAV4 Figure 5), is proposed to be the phenomenon which causes the contraction of the proton magnetons to the fusion-approach distance, i.e. 2.1879 x 10-15 metre instead of the molar or atomic radius. The magneton-collapse phenomenon is proposed to be due to the central beta-particle being able to re-route the incoming and outgoing-graviton units (in a manner which prevents the equatorial-plane graviton-units from forming a mechanical lock on the proton's six magneton shells).

 

     The re-routing of the proposed sub-atomic matter-corpuscles (see earlier section on the graviton sub-units) could also help to explain how a proton magneton could expand and contract radially, (i.e. centrifugally from the proton's south magnetic-pole), without making the proton heavier or lighter. If the proton centre could absorb sub-atomic matter-corpuscles from the graviton flow, (through the static-spheroids surface-membrane and then into the magneton), then the phenomenon of mass commutation via sub-atomic matter-corpuscle flow could explain experimental recording of magneton characteristics. These sub-atomic matter corpuscle-transfers could occur in quantum units, i.e. in much the same manner as photons account for mass commutation in super-atomic corpuscle-units.




     Using our model, e.g. BRITGRAV4 Figures 1 and 4, we can attempt to explain what phenomena occur during beta-particle capture. The incoming beta-particle ( BRITGRAV4 Figure 1 ) will have its gravitons penetrate the North-pole (the top) of the proton in BRITGRAV4 figure 4 and travel inside the proton (along the North pole-South pole axis) until the gravitons exit via the South pole (the bottom of the proton, e.g. BRITGRAV4 figure 4). As the beta-partcle travels along the inside (hollowed) north-south polar axis, (see figure BRITGRAV4), the beta-particle and the proton begin to react with one another, i.e. via their mutual-graviton interection-potentials.

 

     The 6 magnetons depicted in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4 form the 6th magneton shell of the proton and there are 6 shells (5 not shown) where a further 6 magnetons (per proton shell) form the 6 shells. This makes 36 magnetons in all, which mathematically leaves 1800 magnetons to form the fusion-approach barrier at a distance of twice the proton-centre radius (from the proton centre).

 

     The 36 magnetons, those which form the 6 shells of the proton, will contract their orbital radii upon Beta-particle capture by the proton's centre. The magneton flow must be diverted by the phenomenon of Beta-particle capture. The logical place for the flow to be diverted to would be the graviton/electron surface area on the incoming Beta-particle. Since the graviton has been estimated to be 4/7 the mass of the electron, i.e. 9 x 32,444.608 eV, then if the graviton would be found to be 4 times the mass of the magneton, then 4 x 9 Beta-particle graviton-units, would equal 36 magneton units. An experiment needs to be done to corroborate this hypothesis.

 

 

     It is hypothesised that when the beta-particle’s gravitons exit from the South pole (as depicted above) they interact with these hypothesised 1800 magnetons and are bent outward (so that they reverse direction and travel inside the orbit of the 1800 magnetons at the fusion-approach distance). This would tend to force the beta-particle’s graviton-surface contact point to be reversed also and the graviton-surface contact-points would tend to be forced backwards towards the central-magneton rim of the electron (see BRITGRAV4 Figure 2).

     At the time of beta-particle penetration (into the North pole of the proton in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4) the gravitons of the static electrons in the northern half of BRITGRAV4 Figure 4 would tend to enter into the back of the electron (BRITGRAV4 Figure 2) and tend to invert the inner-electron hemisphere. This hypothesised inversion of the electron’s inner hemisphere would tend to force the incoming graviton’s surface contact points out toward the electron’s magneton rim (i.e. where they would be in confluence with the outgoing-graviton contact-points of the electron surface). At the time of beta-particle penetration (into the centre of the depicted proton in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4) the gravitons of the static electrons in the southern (lower) half of the depicted proton in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4 would tend to enter into the front of the electron (BRITGRAV4 Figure 2) and tend to keep it hemispherical.

 

     The rotatory flow of sub-atomic corpuscles about the graviton-contact points in the electron surface will tend to find the lowest entropy (the mathematical point of focal stability), i.e. the lowest entropy in classical thermodynamics. It was Heaviside (Electrical Papers) who first had the idea that the magnetons might have a rotatory flow as well as an orbital flow (so we use his word rotatory instead of any other word). This convergence of sub-atomic corpuscular flow of the gravitons (about the equator of the now-formed beta-particle spheroid) will tend to disrupt the electron-magneton rim (BRITGRAV4 Figures 1 & 2). The sub-atomic (circumferential) corpuscular flow in the beta-particle rim will be forced temporarily inside the beta-particle spheroid by the re-arrangement of the gravitons, i.e. from a dipole flow in (BRITGRAV4 Figures 1 & 2) into an isotropic flow in (BRITGRAV4 Figure 5).

 

     The lowest entropy state for the Hydrogen proton (in classical thermodynamics) is an isotropic-gravitational state (field) combined with a dipolar-magnetic state (field), i.e. as we know exists in the ionised proton classically. The magneton of the beta-particle would have to emanate out of the south pole of the neutron (i.e. parallel to the other magnetons of the neutron) and would have to travel out around the neutron. The beta-particle magneton would now have to be re-absorbed by the neutron at its North pole and return to the beta-particle. The other manner in which the beta-particle magneton could be viewed is in the following fashion. The beta-particle magneton might sit just above the surface of the beta-particle at the neutron centre, i.e. some sort of beta-particle restructuralisation of its surface must occur. The manner in which to test between the two experimental hypotheses is to test for anisotropic versus isotropic-neutron spins, i.e. due to the presence or absence of the beta-particle magneton at the neutron surface. This is the same type of test which might be made to test for the gravitational isotropy of the proton versus the gravitational isotropy of the neutron, i.e. due to the gravitising restructuralisation of the proton/neutron change when the gravitising electron is captured by a proton.

 

     There is usually no emission of energy (other than an electron neutrino) in beta-particle (K-Shell) capture, (i.e. if the atom is proton-rich and if there is an energy difference between the new and old atoms of less than the rest-mass energy of the free electron) [http://radiopaedia.org/articles/beta-decay, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay], so by Maxwell’s laws, the mass-energy of the beta-particle must be added to the proton. This is accounted for by the extra mass of the neutron, e.g. the neutron has a mass of approximately 2 and 4/7 electron masses more than the proton. 2 of these electron masses are accounted for by the ground-state mass of the electron and the unbound state of the free electron, i.e. its classical mass increase due to classical-photon capture (Kaufmann 1906). The 4/7 times the mass of the ground-state electron would be accounted for by the absorption of the beta-particle’s graviton units by the rest of the static spheroids in the proton. Since, classically, the ability of nucleons to absorb gravitons during fusion is due to the ability of nucleons to emit radiation ( from within the 1800 magnetons ) during fusion, there would have to be a 4/7 mass increase due to there being no radiation emission during beta-particle capture. Radiation emission during normal beta-particle capture will occur if the absorbed electron has a greater energy than twice the rest-mass energy, i.e. if the energy difference between the old and new atoms (nucleons) is greater than 1.022 mega-electronVolts. The other way to account for the increased mass of the neutron, i.e. when compared with the proton, is to state that restructuralisation of the graviton matrix within the neutron (see BRITGRAV4 Fig. 5) causes the extra-mass anomaly. This means that the gravitons within the neutron are now penetrating the neutron matter, whereas before these specific neutron gravitons were penetrating free space within the neutron.

 

     The fusion of a proton to a neutron is slightly different from the "fusion" of an electron to a proton and progresses classically. A proton approaching a neutron in our Sun will have its forward (transverse) velocity and its rearward (incoming-transverse) velocity static, i.e. in a specific relation between the proton's travelling-gravitons and the proton's surface-membrane electrons. The proton's and neutron's magnetons, (i.e. at the fusion-approach distance), will be compressed by each other and by the (fixed) vector positions of the gravitons, (e.g. of each particle). The principle of lowest entropy will apply, (from Clausius) and the gravitons of each particle will have to cut through each other's magnetons to reach a new-stable point of lowest entropy (Clausius). The gravitons cutting of the magnetons flight path (at this close range) will force the magnetons to release energy, (i.e. in the form of photons) and this energy will equal the mass-energy of the radiation which is emitted, e.g. which is equal to the "mass-anomaly" (mass-energy radiation-value) commonly found in fusion experiments.

 

     From BRITGRAV4 Figures 1 and 2; for the orbiting electron, from BRITGRAV4 Figures 3, 4 and 5, for the stationary Beta-particles and electrons within the atom, we can see that the inflowing-outflowing gravitons and magnetons must interact with the membrane-surface, e.g. the electric-convection potential of G.F.C. Searle (Cavendish 1897). From Robert Turnbull (Glasgow 1979), we know that the proton binding energy is 1.072229 GeV. This equates to 32,444.608 eV per graviton unit in BRITGRAV4 Figures 2 and 5, e.g. 32,444.608 eV times 18 graviton units times 1836 electron masses equals 1.072229 GeV. 32,444.608 eV equates to 4/63 the rest-mass energy of the ground-state electron, i.e. 511,002 eV. Magnetons are known to lengthen and contract, i.e. in the ionised proton and in the solar-magnetic field. It is now proposed that the lengthening of magnetons can be explained by the conversion of graviton-unit cycle-lengths into magneton-unit cycle-lengths, i.e. through diversion of the Newtonian-corpuscular atomic sub-units through the electric-convection potential of G.F.C. Searle.

 

     Our figures show us what the atom could be like, i.e. for simple Hydrogen and the neutron. So what do Helium, Lithium and the rest of the non-radioactive atoms look like, i.e. in all their elemental Fire and Brimstone, as the good devil no doubt intended? In the 1920s and 1930s it was (classically) thought that the atom consisted of stacks of Helium atoms or Lithium atoms placed upon one another. If you can imagine 2 Deuterium atoms fused together so that the 4 nucleons are equidistant from one another, (all lying in the same plane), with their South poles pointing towards one another, then you can imagine Helium.

    With Lithium, the protons are at the tips of the equilateral triangle and the neutrons are between the protons, all lying in the same plane.

    Beryllium would consist of 2 Helium (Alpha particle) atoms stacked on top of one another, i.e. at right angles to one another.

    Boron would consist of a Lithium atom fused to 2 protons, i.e. 1 proton would lie on top of the Lithium particle and the other proton would lie beneath the Lithium-particle equatorial-plane, towards the centre of the Lithium-particle but on its north-to-south polar-axis.

    Carbon would thus be 3 alpha particles stacked on top of one another, again at right angles to one another. This is evidenced by the glucose molecule where the so-called "carbon chair" molecule predicates that the 4-electronic bonds of the organic-carbon molecule must come from the 4-stationary protons which lie on the top and bottom of the triple-alpha particle-stack, as the central pair of carbon protons are known not to take part in molecular-electron bonding with organic-carbon molecules.

    At this point we can see that Bohr was wrong in thinking that nucleons moved around within the nucleus as we can see that there is no proof of this, i.e. the proton (molecular) bonds in organic carbon do not move (or switch position at Absolute Zero). We can also see why Bohr was wrong, i.e. Bohr did his MSc on surface tension in water molecules and as a professor he also did experiments on water molecules, so the idea for moving nucleons came from this.     We can see that by probing totally-ionised elements with laser photons within the coherence length, (i.e. the length from the end of the laser to where the photons are still in known positions with respect to one another), we can attempt to detect the constant-graviton density between nucleons.

    From Britgrav4 figures 3 to 5, we can hypothesise that the nuclear-binding energies between the static nucleons are determined by multiples of 68 graviton units, For example the energy required to remove the neutron from the proton in Deuterium is 68 times 32,444.608 eVolts. The energy required to remove the neutron or the proton from Helium 3 is 3 times 68 x 32,444.608 eVolts. The energy required to remove the neutron or the proton from Helium 4 is 9 times 68 x 32,444.608 eVolts. The total binding energy of the nucleons in Helium 4 is then 13 times 68 x 32,444.608 eVolts, (i.e. 28.681 Mega-eVolts). 32,444.608 eVolts is the energy per metre cubed, of 1 graviton unit, which was derived classically from "proof by construction" due to classical experiments on the break-up energy of the proton, (e.g. due to hitting the proton with a photon of the Compton Length). We can now move on towards discussing the electron's radius, together with its internal graviton.

 

     The electron radius is one of the most mis-understood, e.g. mis-interpreted measurements in Classical Physics. It was thought to be 2.8179 x 10-15 m from the equation "e2 x The Magnetic Constant per electron mass per 4Pi steradian". This would make it larger than the proton, i.e. an "impossible" idea, since we have just seen from the earlier discussion that the electron must fit inside the proton, (as a neutron (sub)-particle). The electron was also thought of as a point charge, i.e. a point charge has no metric width or diameter, much less 2.8179 x 10-15 m. In 1906 Planck was studying the electron-mass uptake, which increased the electron velocity as mass was absorbed by the electron due to photon aborption (as Walter Kaufmann had proved in 1906). Henri Poincaré pointed this out in 1910 (Poincaré "Dernier Pensées" 1910), but the world refused to take note and went on to follow Bohr with his "Rutherfod memorandum" in 1913. Planck wrote that it would be important to know the ratio of the electron mass times its velocity to its radius. This would give the mass flow of the electron rim and hence by the continuity equation, this would give the mass flow of the electron surface (G.F.C. Searle 1897) and the electron graviton throughout the entire electron, This would be due to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The mass flow times the volumetric flow per metre would give the energy of the electron, "kg s-1 x m2 x s-1 = Energy" in units of Joules.



[ Mec / Eq. 1 ] x h / Me = Me c2 x [ 4Pi x 103 / 17,275 x F.S.C.3]

(Planck Mass-flow Equation)



 

We may now see that the Planck Equation can be set equal to the Poincaré-Energy Equation " energy in Joules = Me x c2 " from Henri Poincaré in 1898. His thoughts are a progression of the work of Lazare Carnot in the 1790s, i.e. concerning "mass times velocity". If we multiply the Poincaré Equation by 2Pi then the energy of the electron radius and spin can be set equal to the energy of 1 graviton cycle, i.e. the force of the graviton (0.212 N) times the length of one graviton-cycle unit



Mec2 x 2Pi = [ Me2 x G0 / PLength2 ] x 2.4263 x 10-12m

(Poincaré-energy Equation)



 

     Equations concerning the electron radius are mostly applied to reality by considering the electron torque, i.e. due to its physical spin. When we consider the electron in the ground-state orbit, e.g. as in Figure 1, we can see it depicted as spinning in the same direction as the 1st shell magneton inside the orbit of the 1st shell magneton. Hence the electron radius and torque are lost within the measurement of the 1st shell radius, i.e. the far greater value of 5.291783 x 10-11 m.

 

     Simple Harmonic Oscillator in Induction orbit

 

     However, when the electron is in the induction-state orbit of 9.1427 x 10-7 m, it is spinning on the outside of the 62,584 magnetons and it is spinning against the direction of the magnetons. The electron radius and its spinning torque, i.e. due to its self-gravitation, become very important here mathematically.

 

    The electron, named for Electra, the daughter of Agamemnon, i.e. for her amber hair, and known from the ancients, onwards, to electrify men, their thoughts and science, may be solved finally by us, e.g. by breaking the riddle of the Fine Structure Constant and the proof by construction, (by experiment), of the electron radius, orbit as well as its thickness.

 

     If we multiply the electron radius by the electron-self-gravitating force, we have Newton-metres in Torque. This value should be equal to the force of the 62,584 magnetons and their electron-orbit radius of 9.1427 x 10-7 m. Instead of their 1:1 ratio, we find a coupling constant whose value is equal to the electron charge divided by the 1st-shell radius-squared per unit length, i.e. e/1st shell radius2 times unit length. There is also a small (coupling) co-efficient involved, i.e. 1.000082877. This coupling co-efficient is equal to: 1 + ( 19 divided by the Fine Structure Constant divided by Pi, divided by 107 ).



When attempting to insert the electron radius into any equation, i.e. in order to test what to see can happen to atomic relationships, simply insert the following term



er x 1.000082877  x   1st shell radius2 x unit length x e-1 = 1.29620937 x 10-18 metre

(1)





and proceed with your physics equation.

 


The derivation of equation one.pdf

 

 


     This new term, (i.e. Eq. 1), might be the term for describing the actual-veritable thickness of the electron surface, e.g. the thickness of the "electric-convection potential", which G.F.C. Searle described in his 1897 published work; On the Steady Motion of an Electrified Ellipsoid. This means that the surface thickness is the next all-important classical-atomic factor which we muct discover. We can say this because if the electron is hollow (as G.F.C. Searle states that both he and Heaviside agreed that the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H must be zero at the electron centre), then the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H must also be orthogonal to each other, i.e. for Maxwell's Laws to apply at the atomic level. If the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H must be zero at the electron centre, then the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H must flow through the electron surface. This occurrence indicates that the Gravitational-field vector must be orthogonal to both the the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H and the Gravitational-field vector must flow through the electron centre. This occurrence would make a great deal of mechanical sense.

 

     If we look at BRITGRAV4 Figure 2, we can see that the the Gravitational-field vector must be orthogonal to both the the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H, i.e. for the bound electron and the free electron. If we look at BRITGRAV4 Figure 3, then we can depict the magnetons in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4 and the gravitons in BRIRGRAV4 Figure 5 flowing into the constellation of electrons in BRITGRAV4 Figure 3. The magnetons must flow vertically downward into the electron surface and the gravitons must flow more-or-less sideways into the constellation of electrons in BRITGRAV4 Figure 3. BRITGRAV4 Figure 5 depicts the neutron centre, but the static electron depicted at the centre of BRITGRAV4 Figure 5 could equally well depict any of the static electrons in BRITGRAV4 Figure 3. The arrows emanating outwards from (and going into) the central static electron depicted in BRITGRAV4 Figure 5 represent the binding energy of the gravitons' mechanical interaction with the surface of the electric-convection potential-membrane, i.e. they constitute the binding energy of the proton (e.g. 32,444.608 eV x 18 graviton units times 1836 static electrons equals 1.07222 GeV.


 

     The gravitons depicted in BRITGRAV4 Figure 5 must flow sideways, i.e. orthogonally into the electric-convection potential-membrane as well as flowing orthogonally all the way into the centre and out again if the gravitational-field vector is to remain orthogonal to both the Electric-field vector E and the Magnetic-field vector H. The natural expansion cycles and contraction cycles of the proton's magnetons, (i.e. the proton ionisation cycles), predicate that some graviton flow must emanate from the electron surface and orbit/return to the same static-electron surface, in order for conservation of mass to be upheld. The proton does not change its mass when it expands and contracts its magnetons, (e.g. only the loss/gain of a bound electron changes the proton mass), so we know the mass needed to expand a magneton must come from within the proton. Only the absorption of part of the graviton mass can account for this phenomenon according to our model, so that is why the gravitational-field vector must flow partly through the electric-convection potential (i.e. that is why we say that the mass is convected through the surface) and part of the gravitational-field vector must flow orthogonally through the static electrons and bind the proton together internally.

 

     Since atoms (other than Hydrogen) have ionisation potentials which change according to the number of atomic protons which are actually ionised at any one time, the model depicts why the different atomic protons have sequentially higher and higher ionisation levels, i.e. the graviton flow between protons via their commonly-bound neutrons allows magneton expansion in sequentially-ionised intra-atomic protons to be accounted for. Graviton flow intra-atomically is the only manner by which intra-atomic magneton expansion can be accounted for, i.e. according to the conservation-of-mass law of the First Law of Thermodytnamics. The contracting magneton, e.g. imagine the six magnetons in BRITGRAV4 Figure 4 are contracting from the molar radius as the proton captures a free electron, must return their excess mass/length to the gravitons, which must in turn allow proportional expansion and contraction of intra-atomic protons to return to their appropriate mass/length variations within the atom. Further to this phenomenon; the returning/contracting magneton must flow entirely into the outgoing gravitons for this appropriate magneton-mass/length variation within the atom. We can now state; that according to our model, mechanical-magneton flow must integrate with outgoing mechanical-graviton flow, i.e. in order to account for the phenomenon known as successive-proton ionisation.

 

     For example, if one multiplies 4Pi times the electron radius squared, by Eq. 1, then one has the hypothesised volume of the electric-convection potential, i.e. which the graviton must flow into and out of again. If one then divides the volume of the hypothesised graviton-unit cycle, e.g. Pi times the Planck Length squared times 2.426316 x 10 -12 m, then one gets a value of 4.506313734 x 10 31. This value can be factorised to give: the electron mass, the velocity of light squared, the reciprocal of the electron radius, the electron charge, the reciprocal of the electron mass, 10 -7, the Fine Structure Constant squared and the frequency of the proposed graviton (c/2.426316 x 10 -12 m). The only coefficient involved is the square of the term in Eq. 1, i.e. 1.000082877.


G. F. C. Searle.pdf

 

  er = electron radius = 7.415649545 x 10-17metre
  1st Shell radius = 5.291785381 x 10-11metre
  e = electron charge volume = 1.6021917 x 10-19Coulumb

 

     Let us look at a few examples. Voltage = force divided by area. The force of 1 magneton divided by the electron radius squared (e.g. in Figures 1, BRITGRAV3 and BRITGRAV4) should equal the electron (rest mass) voltage of 511,002 eV (its energy per electron-charge volume). The force of 1 magneton is found from the classical equation:

Force of magneton = e x c x (number of magnetons in Amperes per metre) x magnetic constant /4Pi
Force of 1 magneton = e x c x (1 Ampere per metre) x 4Pi x 10-7kg m-5/4Pi = 4.803249 x 10-18N
Electron radius squared = eq. 1 squared
Electron (rest mass) voltage = 511,002.576 eV = Me x c2/e


Engineering Terms in Classical Physics.pdf

 

    





4.803249 x 10-18N/Eq. 12 = 511,002 eV x F.S.C.-5 x 2 x 106/17,275

(2)






George Gabriel Stokes.pdf

 

     This compares well with the proton rest-mass voltage equation

1836 magnetons x 4.803249 x 10-18N / [ 1.40897 x 10-15m ]2 = 938.200 Mega-eV x 17,275 x F.S.C.-1 x 2

Proton radius = 1.40897341 x 10-15m
Proton rest mass = 938,200,727.7 eV

 

     The value given by Eq. 2 on the left-hand side equals 2.8588 x 1018 Volts. This depicts how the magneton melts (i.e. flows) into the electron surface and the electron surface becomes the "Electric-convection potential" of G. F. C. Searle (a Cavendish Laboratory presenter at Cambridge University in the 1890s). If we multiply this value by Eq. 1 and divide by the electron-charge volume, then our units are Volt-metres per Coulomb. These are the reciprocal of the units of the Electric Constant.

Electric Constant = ε0 = 8.854187816 x 10-12Coulomb Volt-1m-1

    



L.H.S. Eq. 2  x  Eq. 1 = [ e / Electric constant ] x 103 x F.S.C.-3 /4Pi

(3)



 

     We can now depict how the magneton might flow (solidify or condense) into the outgoing graviton. The value given by Eq. 2 on the left-hand side equals 2.8588 x 1018 Volts. If we multiply this by the electron radius and the electron-radius coupling-co-efficient and the unit length, (but without using the electron-radius coupling-constant), we find the force of the graviton in milliNewtons.



L.H.S. Eq. 2  x er x  1.000082877 x unit length = 103Me2 G0PL-2 mN

(4)





Gravitational Constant = 6.662031411 x 10-11m3kg-1s-2
Graviton force = Me2x G0 x PL-2 = 0.2120166946 Newtons
PL = Planck Length = 1.61478412 x 10-35metre



     We have depicted how the magneton flow might operate in the static electron, (i.e. the proton's electron). This phenomenon would occur as the magneton flows through the electron surface and onward out into the proton's outgoing graviton. We can now depict how the inertial force of the orbital-electron magneton-rim equals the gravitational force of the orbital-electron. Inertial force is equal to mass multiplied by velocity squared divided by the radius of spin.

Velocity of spin  = c x F.S.C.  ms-1  = 2,178,691 ms-1
Inertial force = Me v2 /eq. 1   =  Me2x G0 x PL-2 x 2000 x F.S.C.-1 x 17,275-1



Me v2 / [Eq. 1 x 2000 /  F.S.C. x 17,275 N ] = Me2 G0 x PL-2 x  = 0.21201 N

(5)



 

     The force of the electron can now be related to the Coulomb Force of the 1st shell of Hydrogen, i.e. other than by multiplying the electron-self-gravitating force of 0.212 Newtons by the cube of the Fine Structure Constant.



     The electron radius (Eq. 1) multiplied by the electron-self-gravitating force of 0.212 Newtons, multiplied by 4Pi x 103 times the electron ground-state mass, times the velocity of light, divided by Planck’s Constant and the ratio of the induction radius to the 1st shell radius, (i.e. 17,275) equals the Coulomb Force.



Eq. 1 x 0.21201 N x 1034PiMec / 17,275 h = 8.2388 x 10-8 N

(6)





The Coulomb force = 8.238837117 x 10-8 Newtons.

The Coulomb force is the mechanical force (i.e. magnetic-electronic screening force) due to the interaction of the orbital electron at the 1st-shell radius of the Hydrogen Atom. It is the force which is needed to be overcome, by any particle, in order for the Hydrogen atom to be ionised so that the Hydrogen atom will break its simple electron-proton bond and bind to a new atom or molecule. The particle might be another electron, proton, neutron, magneton, graviton or photon which can contribute sufficient energy to initiate the proton-electron break-up interaction.

     From the earlier discussion on a particle sub-unit of matter which was a fibre-like coil-shaped particle, we can test if this unit of matter within the magneton could contribute to the known force of the magneton, i.e. 4.803249 x 10-18Newtons = (ec4Pi x 10-7kg m-5/4Pi steradian) Newtons. If we multiply this unit of mass ( 7.3726 x 10-51kg = 1 Hz x h c-2 ) by the velocity2 of the ground-state magneton (c x F.S.C)2 and divided by the electron radius (Eq. 1), we get the force of one magneton and some of our scaling factors (4.803249 x 10-18Newtons).



[ 7.3726 x 10-51kg ] x [ c2 F.S.C.2 ] / Eq. 1 = 4.8032 x 10-18 N x [ 17,275 x F.S.C. x e / {Me 4Pi x 1010 } ]-1

(7)



 

     All of the variables in brackets on the right-hand-side of eq. 7 are dimensionless. This may be because the term "e/{Me 4Pi x 1010}" can be substituted by the electron charge to mass ratio times the magnetic constant, times Unit Area times 1/1000. This dimensionless ratio can be found in many of these new equations, i.e. especially when the ratio is a large number or involves gravitational phenomena. It is interesting to see that the electron charge to mass ratio (the specific volume of ionisation of the hydrogen atom) again shows up as a scaling factor. It will doubtlessly show up again, i.e. in other forthcoming equations.



The Coulomb Force of the 1st shell of Hydrogen divided by the electron-self-gravitating force of 0.212 Newtons equals the cube of the Fine Structure Constant. This last equation shows how, mathematically speaking, the electron radius has been lost, physically speaking, (in past history). The electron radius multiplied by 4Pi x 103 times the electron ground-state mass, times the velocity of light, divided by Planck’s Constant, divided by e/1st shell radius2 per unit distance and the ratio of the induction radius to the 1st shell radius, equals the cube of the Fine Structure Constant.



eRadius x emass x c x 4Pi x 103 x 1st shell radius2 x Unit Distance/( h x e x 17,275) = F.S.C.3





     Since 4Pi times the electron ground-state mass, divided by Planck’s Constant (times Unit Amperes per metre), equals the ratio of the induction radius to the 1st shell radius, the above electron-radius equation simplifies to


eRadius x c x 103 x 1st shell radius2 x Unit Distance/H x e = F.S.C.3




where H is Maxwell's Magnetic-field vector "unit amperes per metre" and the electron-radius coefficient 1.000082877 is multiplied by the electron radius, i.e. to make the equation balance.



     So where do these last seven equations come from? The first one is the electron radius. It is derived by "proof by construction" from BRITGRAV4 Figure 3 and by the discovered coupling constant/correction co-efficient. Equations 2 and 4 depict how the force of the magneton (returning to the electron) must equal the (outgoing) force of the Graviton. The incoming-graviton force must equal the force of the static-electron surface and the force of the outgoing magneton. This is due to the volumetric-flow law of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. if no volumetric flow is lost (from the magneton, static-electron surface or the graviton), then no force can be lost. This is also true because the magneton, static-electron surface and the graviton are all basically orthogonal to each other.

     For the incoming magneton the force per metre is one-dimensional. For (half) the electron surface, the force per metre squared is two-dimensional. For the outgoing gravitons the force per metre cubed is three-dimensional. The force per metre cubed (in classical physics) equals the Volts per metre. The Volts per metre value is the value of the Electric field (E). From Maxwell's current displacement law, [J = Amperes m-2 + ε0E/d(t)], we know that the electric field is a magnetic field with electrons in it. We hypothesise (we can test for this) that the electrons (travelling more-or-less parallel to the magneton lines of force) travel in a magnetic field due to the electron's gravitons wrapping themselves around the protons' magnetons mechanically. This phenomenon is due to at least two occurences; firstly, the helical nature of the electron's gravitons (e.g. as depicted in BRITGRAV4 Figure 2), would make the gravitons mechanically wrap themselves about the proton's straight-parallel magnetic field lines, (i.e. an electrical field is a magnetic field with a charged particle in it). Secondly, the proton's straight-parallel magnetons cause the electron's polarised gravitons to be deflected and turn away from the magnetons in a counterclockwise-helical spiral-flight, i.e. when the electron orbit is orthogonal to parallel megneton lines of force. This deflection causes Theta pinching, e.g. the phenomenon whereby an electron orbiting within a magnetic field actually contracts the magnetons within its orbit so that the magnetons are closer together (pinched).

    



4.8032 x 10-18N / Eq. 13 = [ 13.605eV / 1st ShellR ] x [ 8 x 109 / 17,275 2 x F.S.C.11 ]

(8)






Force of 1 magneton = e x c x (1 Ampere per metre) x 4Pi x 10-7kg m-5/4Pi = 4.803249 x 10-18N
Electric Field = 13.60578693 Volts/5.291785381 x 10-11m
(see Table 2 in "Maxwell's 150 Years PDF" on the link above for the tables on the application of Maxwell's Laws to the atom)

     Eq. 1 can be considered as the electron radius or the part of the electron radius which contains matter. Eq. 1 depicts the mathematical-electron radius which includes the real thickness of the electron-surface membrane which the mathematical and virtual-electron radius passes through. We can see from Eq. 8 that for every time that one has divided the force of the magneton by the electron-radius equation, one has multiplied the electron radius by



F.S.C.-3 x 103

(9)





     By doing this one has the velocity of light reciprocal in units of metres. To get the specific relation between the velocity of light and the electron radius (Eq. 1), we divide Eq. 9 by Planck's Constant/[4Pi x Me] and by the scaling factor 17,275.

 

     One can now see how Maxwell's equations, e.g. the curl functions, are applied at the atomic level. The curl function equation is when one makes a change in the function by dividing the equation by an atomic length, i.e a length which is involved in the equation. The opposite is Stokes' equations. In Stokes' equations one multiplies (integrates) the equation by a length which is involved in the equation. These multiplications and integrations change the dimension of the equation field from a line to a square to a cube and back to a square and a line, i.e. just as the magneton does when flowing into the electron surface, then into the electron inner volume, then out to the electron surface again and out into the outflowing magneton (or outflowing graviton).

 

Let us look at one of Maxwell's 4 great equations, i.e. one of the equations which Heaviside has translated to us from Maxwell's archaic Gothic script to the Clarendon font. The equation should read: The Electric Field voltage per metre square equals the difference in magnetic flux density (i.e. the difference between the maximum flux density at the pole of the magnet passing at 90 degrees to the wire and zero flux density when the magnetic pole is not passing the wire), divided by the difference in time between the magnetic pole passing the wire the first and second times. The negative (-B) term means that the magnetic field ( i.e. the voltage field ) induced into the conducting wire when the magnet passes close by it, is in the opposite direction to the magnetic field direction coming out of the magnet. This is explained by Newton's equal and opposite-reaction law.



curl E = -B/dt

(10)



 

 

         The Electric Field of the atom = 13.60578693 Volts / 5.291785381 x 10-11m, i.e. from Eq. 8. The curl of the Electric Field means the division of the Electric field by the length of the 1st Shell radius again, i.e. by 5.2917 x 10-11m again. Maxwell was trying to develop Stokes' Equations from some work that Kelvin had given Maxwell.

 

     When Maxwell described what he was trying to explain, he wrote that by using the word "curl", he did not mean swirl or twirl. So he did not mean constant movement. However, he did mean a rotation of a geometrical plane about one of the X-Y-Z axes was occurring once only. His first equation was "curl A = B". He was trying to make an electromagnetic alphabet using the gothic-script letters A to K. One thing which I have found is that when you are trying to introduce something to people, do not introduce a new alphabet or a language as well. A is the magnetic field which always emanates and returns to a conductor when you apply a voltage to the conducting wire. If you curl a straight piece of wire into a circle, you have the magnetic field emanating out of the wire into the circle, back around the outside of the wire (and eventually going back into the proton which the magneton emanated out from). The magnetic field going into the centre of the circle has a magnetic-flux density which is labelled the "B-field". It is measured in units called Tesla and the dimensional metric dimensions are kg per metre cubed per second (Volt seconds per metre square). The "A-field" is measured in metric dimensions of kg per metre square per second. It is called the "flux rate" in the 20th century and can measure any particles as they pass through a square metre in a second. It is derived from the pressure (e.g. the voltage) divided by the velocity. The pressure (e.g. the voltage) divided by the frequency gives the flux. It is measured in Volt seconds and gives the Voltage per cycle of a single particle, (e.g. the number of cycles on a single-linear particle stream). It is Planck's Constant divided by the electron charge. It is measured in units of kg per metre per second, So, the flux is used to measure the cycle number of a single particle passing down the line that forms the edge of a cube ( at right-angles to the square base of the metre-square cube ) and the curl of the flux measures the total number of particles passing through the square-metre base of the cube each second.

 

     Why did Maxwell bother to try to set up an alphabet for us? It is because Kelvin formulated the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. the law which states that mass flowing into a junction must come out of it at some point and time. Kelvin and Clausius were trying to make a formal explanation for heat and energy. Clausius and Kelvin were colleagues and Clausius was Planck's teacher. Clausius and Kelvin credited Sadi Carnot with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, i.e. the law which states that you will get a little friction and heat loss when you apply energy (heat) to any working machinery. Clausius developed the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, the law which states that there is a maximum amount of work which you can get out of any process (machinery). This law also means that you must apply energy (heat) to any machinery to get the machinery to work. Carnot was trying to define the amount of energy which must be applied to the machinery process (e.g. the heating of water to make steam), so that French engineers could do what Trevithick had done for Cornish mines. Together these three laws form the grand-unified field theory. Heaviside then decoded Maxwell's equations and simplified them into 4 useful equations (the first of which is Eq. 10). Maxwell's second-most important-equation involved the Amperage per square metre at the ends of a conductor. His term J, which symbolises "Amps per square metre", symbolises the number of electrons per second emanating out of the cross-section of a conducting wire (and a capacitor plate if you discharge static electricity).

 

    



J = Amperes m-2 + ε0E/d(t)

(11)



 

     If we integrate the left-hand-side of Eq. 10, (with respect to length in order to think of the voltage per length of conducting wire instead of the voltage per metre square), we have to integrate the R.H.S. (if we wish to keep Eq. 10 balanced), while we are making changes to show how Eq. 11 was derived. The integration of Eq. 10 (deriving the integrated length) gives

E= ∫ - [B/dt ] d (length )

    This gives

E = -V/m

    Multiplying the E = V/m by the Electric Constant gives

ε0E = -ε0V/m

 

        This gives us the ability to find the Amperage in a conductor, (e.g. because Eq. 3 shows that the Electric Constant is equal to the electron charge divided by the product of the Voltage and the metric length).

 

    The number of Coulombs (of static-electricity electrons) per Volt (applied to a capacitor plate) per metre square of the capacitor plate (at right-angles to the wire that it is soldered to), equals the number of Coulombs (of dynamic-electricity electrons) per square metre of the cross-section of the current-carrying conducting wire (for every moment that we pass a magnet passed the conducting wire). If we divide the equation by a difference of time, (e.g. 1 second from now), we get



ε0E/d(dt) = -ε0V/m(dt) = Amperes per metre square

(12)



 

    ε0E/d(dt) = D. D is Maxwell's term for the electric (electronic or protonic) charge stored on a capacitor plate. The R.H.S. of Eq. 12 now becomes Coulombs per metre square per second (or Amperes per metre square) per cross-section of wire. We now have Maxwell's 2nd-most important-equation, i.e. the total current is equal to the current being discharged by a capacitor plate and the current flowing past a cross-section of the conducting wire.



J = D/(dt) + Coulombs/m2(dt) = Amperes per metre square

(13)







     We can make Eq. 10 work for the Hydrogen atom now.



curl 13.605 Volts/ 5.2917 x 10-11m = -17,275Pi [13.605 T / 1.5198 x 10-16 s]

(14)





    
1st Shell Orbit time = 1.519833811 x 10-16s
1st Shell radius = 5.291785381 x 10-11m
Electric Field = 13.60578693 Volts/5.291785381 x 10-11m
B = Flux density = 13.60578693 Tesla



     Now we can try to apply the Heaviside-Maxwell equation to the electron. The Electric Field per metre square on the L.H.S. of Eq. 14 is 511,002 Volts per electron radius squared (511,002 Volts/ Eq. 1 squared). The R.H.S. is 511,002 Tesla divided by the time it takes 1 magneton to move 1 electron radius at the velocity of (light times the Fine Structure Constant).






curl 511,002 Volts/ [ Eq. 1 ] = - 511,002 T / [5.92501 x 10-25 s x 2 x 10-3 x F.S.C.4]

(14a)





    
Electron radius travel time = 5.925011083 x 10 -25s
Electron radius = Eq. 1
curl Electric Field = 511,002.575 Volts/ [ Eq. 12 ]
B = Flux density = 511,002.575 Tesla



     If we look at Stokes' Equations (Theoretical Concepts in Physics Longair), we can see how Maxwell developed his equations, i.e. from the laws of mass-fluid flow. If we look at Heaviside's books (Electrical Papers Heaviside), we can see how Heaviside applied Maxwell's Equations to electricity, light, magnetism and gravitation. If we look at G.F.C. Searle's 1897 paper on the "electric convection potential of the electron surface", then we can see how mass flows into the electron surface from the magneton current (which both Heaviside and G.F.C. Searle mention) and out of it again. The important observation to note is that G.F.C. Searle knew both Heaviside and J. J. Thomson and that Maxwell, Stokes, Joules and Kelvin were all colleagues. No-one except us has bothered to put their work together until now. We can see that we can now formulate gravitation according to Maxwell's Laws and make a grand-unified field-theory, i.e. one which will allow space travel by classical magnetism and classical gravitation. We shall see more about this later.

 

     If we now look at Heaviside's equation for gravitational-energy dissipation, (i.e. Eq. 26 in Maxwell's 150 Years.pdf), we see 3 terms. The first term symbolises "the divergence of the acceleration times gravitational flux times the sine of the angle between the flux and its acceleration", i.e. the inertial spin of the electron surface is at right angles to its forward velocity (and its incoming graviton).

m s-2 x kg m-2 s-1

The second term symbolises "acceleration times the density of the electron (the force per metre cubed), times the velocity of the gravitational flux", i.e.

[acceleration x mass m-3] x m s-1

The third term symbolises "acceleration of the ground-state electron times the acceleration of the upper-state electron divided by the Gravitational Constant and by the cycle-time of the Hydrogen-minimum photon-length", i.e.

m s-2 x m s-2 x G0-1 s-1

Heaviside is explaining matter accretion (e.g. on a star) using Maxwell's equations. We can attempt to show how photon accretion by an electron can be partially explained by using this equation, (i.e. as we did with Eq. 22 in Maxwell's 150 Years.pdf, when describing the power per metre squared of the Hydrogen atom with the electron in its ground state). The third term in Eq. 26 is the inertial acceleration of the ground-state electron times the inertial acceleration of the electron at the molar radius, divided by the Gravitational Constant and the cycle-time of one photon length of the Hydrogen-maximum frequency.



a x d(a)/ [ G0 d(t) ] = - [ c2 x F.S.C.2/ 1st ShellRadius ] x [ c2 / MolarRadius ] / [ G0 x (3.03966 x 10-16 s) ]

(15)



 

     The answer to Eq. 15 is 5.63125737 x 1074 Watts m3. The negative answer symbolises that the photon-emission direction is opposite to the electron forward-orbital direction, i.e. as the cosine of 180 degrees is = -1.

The second term in Eq. 26 symbolises the gravitational force of the ground-state electron times the graviton's velocity



F x v = [ Me2 x G0 / PlanckRadius2 x Eq. 13 ] x c

(16)



 

    The answer to Eq. 16 is 2.918537616 x 1061 Watts m-3. The ratio between the third term and the second term is 8 x 108/17,275.943893x F.S.C.8.

     The first term in Eq. 26 involves the divergence of gravitational-inertial acceleration times the gravitational flux, i.e. the phenomenon of electron self-gravitation (when the graviton enters the orbital electron). This means that one half of the incoming-graviton mass-flow gains centrifgal-spin momentum while losing one half of its component of forward momentum as half the graviton splits off from the origial incoming, (i.e. forward-moving) graviton half. This is hypothesised because the graviton must flow into the electron hemisphere and form the electron hemisphere (due to the continuity equation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics). The spin velocity goes down to c x F.S.C. by the time the graviton half reaches the electron rim and the forward velocity goes down to zero (though the electron momentum still carries the electron itself forward at c x F.S.C.. The graviton diverges orthogonally from itself (temporarily), i.e. at the point of contact where the graviton touches the electron surface. The graviton consequently moves backwards up the hemispherical rim until the graviton loses all of its centrifugal, (e.g. radial) momentum. The graviton half must now change its form as it flows through the magneton rim of the electron, i.e. the graviton sub-units must now change into magneton sub-units. The graviton/magneton sub-units continue to rotate around the hemispherical rim (before returning down the front of the electron hemisphere until the graviton converges with the outgoing-graviton half). This latter-hypothetical phenomenon is due to surface-tension forces within the electron hemisphere, (i.e. those forces which must change the graviton/magneton sub-units back into graviton/electron-hemisphere sub-units and finally back into the outgoing graviton sub-units).

 



    

The divergence of gravitation times the cosine of the angle that it makes with the cross product of the electron's inertial acceleration and gravitational flux gives Eq. 17





GDivergence (Gacceleration X Gflux )= [c2 / Eq. 1] x [ Me / Eq. 12] x [ c / Eq. 1 ]

(17)



 

     The answer to Eq. 17 is 8.694760963 x 1066 Watts m-3. This forms a ratio of 4 x 105/17,275.943892x F.S.C.5 with the third term in Eq. 26.

 

     The electron magneton must have some mathematical equivalence to the proton magnetons. The protons’ magnetons, i.e. the 62,584 magnetons which ionise the Hydrogen Atom (and the H2 molecule), are easily found. 13.605 Tesla ionise the Hydrogen proton. 13.605 Tesla are defined as 13.605 Webers per metre square. 13.605 Webers per metre square are defined as 13.605 x 108 Maxwells per metre square. A Maxwell is 1 magneton. 13.605 Webers per metre square x 4.5998 x 10-5 m2 = 6.2584 x 10-4 Weber. A Weber equals 108 Maxwells or 108 magnetons so 6.2584 x 10-4 Weber x 108 magnetons = 62,584 magnetons.

 

     A Coulomb is a unit of static electricity (electrostatics), e.g. 1 Cb per second = 1 Ampere. The current flowing past a Hydrogen proton when it is ionised (not the ground-state bound-electron current), orbits the magnetons made up of several ionised Hydrogen atoms (see Figs. 2 and 3). A Coulomb is the volume which contains the 62,584 magnetons together with the ionised-Hydrogen proton and the orbiting-ionised electron. It is the 62,584 magnetons flowing past the 1st-shell area, i.e. the proton charge per metre square, (e/1st-shell radius2). If we get this value (57.215 metres), which is our electron radius coefficient, divided by the induction orbit radius of 9.1427 x 10-7 metre, we get 62,584 magnetons (with a scaling factor of 103). These 62,584 parallel magnetons (travelling at the velocity of light), constitute the proton charge per metre cubed e/ [1st-shell radius2 x 9.1427 x 10-7 m], i.e. the phenomenon which occurs when we ionise the Hydrogen proton.




     Induction of Electron




     Fig. 3 depicts the induction of the electron from the 1st-shell orbit in the Hydrogen atom into the induced-state orbit, i.e. when 62,584 parallel magnetons (13.605 Volts), are applied anti-parallel to the north-south polar axis of the Hydrogen atom. The magnetic current of the electron rim, multiplied by the magnetic force of the 62,484 magnetons, equals the gravitational force of the self-gravitating electron, multiplied by the electric current of the electron in the induced-state orbit.

 

 

    Fig. 3 depicts the famous experiment, i.e.

"Bev = mv2/r"

where B symbolises the 13.605786 Volts per square metre applied to an atom when a magnetic-flux density of 13.605786 Tesla is applied to a conductor in a cyclic manner, "e" is the electron-charge volume of 1.6021917 x 10-19 m3, "v" is the velocity of the electron orbiting within the applied voltage field at 2.18761 x 106 metres per second, "m" symbolises the electron-ground state-mass of 9.109534 x 10-31 kg and "r" symbolises the orbit radius of the electron within the applied B-field at 9.142058 x 10-7 m.

From figures 1, 2 and 3 one can see the depicted differences between an electron orbiting the proton in the “ground sate” (Fig. 1) and an electron which has just been pulled from the proton in the ground state (Figs 2 and 3), i.e. in order to orbit the 62,584 magnetons in the "induction-state" orbit.

Fig. 1 depicts an electron spinning and orbiting on the inside of a magneton “shell” (e.g. a virtual tube of force), while Figs, 2 and 3 depict an electron spinning and orbiting on he outside of a magneton shell. The difference between the two states, e.g. the inside-spin state and the outside-spin state, is that in the inside state (Fig. 1), the electron’s electrical and magnetic forces would cause the proton’s magnetons to shorten their overall length of travel and become wound in, thus building up the proton-magneton internal-potential energy, (i.e. its spring-constant energy). In Figs. 2 and 3, the electron spin is depicted going against the spin direction of many protons’ magnetons, e.g. thus forcing the protons’ magnetons inward, due to the electron’s spinning-magnetic rim as well as the electron’s hypothetical graviton. This latter phenomenon is the so-called well-known "Theta-pinching", e.g. the "Larmor-frequency" phenomenon.

Since both the electron’s "ground-state" orbit and "induction-state" orbit are stable, i.e. both orbits are at lowest entropy and permanent, the forces and volumetric flows are stable, permanent and counter-balance one another. It is obvious from observing the "Theta-pinching" phenomenon, that their must be a circular force which is involved in “pinching in” the B-field magnetons (see Fig, 2). It is not obvious what this force is, however our hypothetical graviton offers up the numerical solution. The force of the graviton, i.e. the electron’s self-gravitating force,
" m2G0/PL2 ",
divided by the force of the "induction-state" magnetons,

62,584 Amperes per metre x e c x µ0/4π = 3.006084657 x 10-12 Newtons

must equal the ratio of the electron’s magnetic-rim volumetric flow to the volumetric flow of the electron in the "induced-state" orbit, i.e.

(6.102061 x 10-8 Amperes).

 

 

     The magnetic current is defined by the electron-charge volume multiplied by the frequency of spin of the effective-electron radius, i.e. e x [c x F.S.C./2Pi x re.e.]. The magnetic force is defined by the 62,584 magnetons x Unit Amperes per metre x the Magnetic constant x e x c/4Pi. The Gravitational force is defined by the electron mass squared x Newton's Gravitational constant divided by the Planck length squared. The electric current in the induced-electron orbit is defined by e x c x F.S.C./2Pi x InductionOrbit Radius.



The force of the graviton, divided by the force of the "induction-state" magnetons, equals

0.212016694 Newtons/3.006084657 x 10-12 Newtons =

7.052918271 x 1011

which equals 2000/F.S.C.4

   The volumetric flow of the electron in the "induced-state" orbit, (6.102061 x 10-8 Amperes), multiplied by this ratio, i.e. 2000/F.S.C.4, must equal the magnetic current in the electron rim.

6.102061 x 10-8 Amperes x 2000/F.S.C.4 = 43,037.34 Amperes

43,037.34 Amperes is equal to the electron-charge volume, "e", multiplied by the electron-spin velocity, (i.e. c x F.S.C.) and divided by the electron-rim length, which is 2π x the electron’s effective radius, (Eq. 1).

43,037.34 Amps = ecF.S.C./2π x 1.296209367 x 10-18 m

   Our “Bev” equation divided by the Fine Structure constant cubed and multiplied by the electron “ground-state” current of 1.054 mAmps, will equal the product of

43,037.34 Amps x 3.006084657 x 10-12 Newtons

as well as the product of

6.102061 x 10-8 Amperes x 0.212016694 Newtons

Their product gives

1.293738942 x 10-8 Newton Amperes

e.g. torque x Amperes per metre.

 

     This makes classical sense as the electron’s magnetic current density, i.e. the graviton’s classical mechanical force which is turned into the electric force as the electron’s graviton pulls the electron around the proton, must equal the proton’s magnetic density (the magnetic force). This is proposed to be due to the graviton’s sub-units (discussed earlier) being converted into the electron’s magnetic rim via the electron’s membrane in a classical-mechanical manner. This is why the Coulomb force is twice the electric force and twice the magnetic force in the simple-harmonic oscillator-equation.

 

     It is hypothesised that when the graviton enters the electron surface membrane, (which it is proposed to do as a helical coil, e.g. a spring under tension), that (one-half of) the graviton, (e.g. the outer graviton core), loses one of its three degrees of freedom, (i.e. the z-axis of forward-axial velocity). This outer core then is proposed to spread itself and its sub-units, out in an expanding two-dimensional spiral, i.e. expanding and spiralling outwards (within the electron's surface) in the same direction as the electron spin (see Fig. 1). This is Stokes first equation, i.e. the integration (multiplication of) 1/m3 by length to give 1/m2, It means that we can tell what is going on (i.e. what forces are occurring) inside an electron (a sphere) by studying its outer surface,

 

    

     The expanding and spiralling two-dimensional sub-units, will eventually interact with their neighbouring, (i.e. 9) graviton units. These 9 graviton units are proposed to be 40 degrees apart and have their centres located at approximately 4.0139 x 10-17 metre out from the centre of the electron. The 9 graviton units define their position within a steradian mathematically by being equi-distant from each other and the electron centre. The pressure of the collision between the neighbouring gravitons' sub-units would force the graviton sub-units out towards the electron’s magnetic rim. The sub-units would join the electron’s magnetic-rim sub-units by losing another of the three degrees of freedom, (i.e. the x-axis degree of radial velocity). The surface tension between the outgoing inner-graviton units’ cores, (i.e. the half of the graviton which did not lose its axial degree of freedom and join the electron-membrane surface), would now have its effect. Surface tension between the outgoing-graviton's sub-units would pull the sub-units from within the electron's outer-surface membrane into the outgoing gravitons. Surface tension from the outgoing sub-units within the electron's outer-surface membrane would pull sub-units from within the magnetic rim of the electron into the outer surface of the electron's surface membrane and thence into the outgoing gravitons. The two lost degrees of freedom would be regained as the sub-units moved from the electron rim into the outer-electron surface (i.e. first the negative-radial velocity-component and secondly the outgoing axial-degree of freedom). This is proposed to occur as the sub-units re-join and merge with the outgoing graviton. This process would then be cyclic, i.e. it would follow the continuity equation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

     The graviton would now have all of its mass and volume back, i.e. as they were before the graviton split into an inner and outer core, whence the outer core entered the electron-surface membrane.

 

     This fascinating world of the sub-atomic units leads us back to the exciting world of atomic-level physics-equations, (which is the whole point of the study). With the rigorous proofs of the Laws of Thermodynamics to guide us, we can explore hypotheses and posit possible hypotheses, (i.e. hypotheses without experiments to constrain their positing). The purpose of such actions is to find experiments which can uphold some of our hypotheses, (e.g. by a chi-squared test), so that our use of hypotheses without experiments can lead us onto new hypotheses which can have experiments which will lead us further on.

 

     For example, we know well that Volts x Amperes equals Watts, so we can posit that Joules per metre cubed x volumetric flow equals Watts.

 

     The power of the induction-state electron, (e.g. the volumetric flow of the graviton x the 13.605 Volts of the electron in the induction-state orbit where B Tesla x e Cbs x v m/s = m kg x (v m/s) 2 /r induction-state orbit-radius), should equal the power of the free electron when it is orbiting within the last magneton shell at the molar radius, i.e. 1.022005 x 10 6 electron Volts multiplied by e x c/ 2Pi x 7.347 x 10-10 metre = 10633.37685 Watts.

 

     The power of the induction-state electron is derived from the product of the volumetric flow of the graviton multiplied by the pressure of 13.605 Volts of the electron. The volumetric flow of the graviton can be defined by the cross-section of the graviton,

Cross-sectionGraviton = Pi x PL2

This multiplied by 2Pi x the graviton-orbit radius of one graviton unit to give the volume of one graviton unit.

Cosmic orbit volumeGraviton = Pi x PL2 x 2Pi x 1.178497606 x 10 56 metres, to give one graviton unit a volume of 6.06579 x 10 -13 m3.

This is now multiplied by the graviton frequency.

FrequencyGraviton = c/2.426316079 x 10 -12 metres = 1.235586989 x 10 20 Hz.

This equals the volumetric flow of the graviton.

The Volumetric FlowGraviton= 7.494811459 x 10 7 m 3 s-1

     The volumetric flow of the graviton, as we said earlier, should equal the volumetric flow of the magneton, i.e. as it was postulated that the graviton flows continually into the magneton via the electron surface membrane (the electric-convection potential of G.F.C. Searle), The volumetric flow of the magneton for both the orbiting electron and the proton's magneton, is known to be 3.3118316 x 10 -3 Amperes. If we divided 7.494811459 x 10 7 m 3 s-1 by (e/Me x 10 7) and multiplied it by the cube of the Fine Structure Constant and 2, we do in fact get 3.3118316 x 10 -3 Amperes (see the "G.F.C. Searle pdf" and the last 2 paragraphs of the "Engineering Terms in Classical Physics.pdf" for more equations depicting 3.3118316 x 10 -3 Amperes).



The volumetric flow of the graviton multiplied by the voltage of the electron in the induction-state orbit, (i.e. 13.6 Volts) gives

7.494811459 x 10 7 m 3 s -1 x 13.60578693 Volts = 1.019728078 x 10 9 Watts

 

     The volumetric flow of the graviton-helical coil multiplied by the ionisation voltage of the electron in the ground-state orbit, ( i.e. 1.019728078 x 10 9 Watts ) divided by ( the volumetric flow of the free electron at the molar radius multiplied by the voltage of the free electron ), e.g. 10633.37685 Watts, gives a ratio of

191,797.5996.

This ratio, when multiplied by 8Pi x F.S.C. gives the electron charge-to-mass ratio times 10 -7 in dimensionless units, i.e. 17588.07535. This last ratio, when divided by 20Pi and multiplied by the 62,584 magneton number (i.e. which create the induction-state orbit of the electron), gives us the exact ratio between the natural area of the 62,584 magnetons (when they emanate from a magnet of 13.605 Tesla-flux density) and the area occupied by the 62,584 magnetons when they are orbited by induction-state electrons.

4.599836136 x 10 -5 m2/2.625656364 x 10 -12 m 2 = 1.75188048 x 10 8

 

    If we look at the discussion which immediately precedes the Planck Mass-flow Equation and the Poincaré-energy Equation, we can see that the volumetric flow of the graviton sub-unit, ( e.g. Newton's corpuscles ) per metre (e.g. the graviton-unit cycle-length), multiplied by the mass flow of the graviton sub-unit, i.e. Planck's constant (divided by c squared and multiplied by the Graviton frequency squared) should equal the energy of the electron, Mec2, i.e. the Poincaré Equation.

     From the preceding paragraphs the Volumetric Flow Graviton sub-unit per graviton-unit cycle-length

= [Planck L2 x Pi/ Graviton Frequency as a dimensionless number] x 2Pi x Graviton Orbit Radius x Graviton Frequency per graviton-unit cycle-length

= [PL2 x Pi/ 1.235586 x 10 20] x 2Pi x 1.178497 x 10 56 m x 1.235586 x 10 20 Hz/ 2.426316 x 10 -12 m

Amperes per metre = 0.25 m2/s

(18)



Note that this is 1/4 of Maxwell's unit of magnetism, H, i.e. H = the metric definition of 1 Magneton or the areal velocity of 1 square metre per second. One can use the scaling terms "16Pi per steradian" to make Eq. 18 work, as H = 1 Magneton per steradian and then use one's scaling factor of 17,275, (i.e. the quotient of the electron's induction-orbit radius to the electron's grouind-state orbit-radius), to derive mc2 (See Eq. 20). This means that we can now derive a couple of equations, e.g. Maxwell's term for magnetism, H (the magnetic-field vector) in mathematics and one can derive the specific enthalpy term of the second law of thermodynamics as well, i.e. a change in the magneton-areal flow per unit time change gives the specific enthalpy of matter. One can now say that the energy of the electron is proven by its internal energy plus the product of the electron pressure and volume.

The mass flow of the graviton sub-unit is derived from Planck's Constant divided by the energy of matter (c2 Joules per kilogram), multiplied by the Graviton Frequency2

the Mass Flow = [ h / c2] x 1.235586 x 10 20 Hz 2

Mass Flow = 1.125562171 x 10-10 kg s-1

(19)





The volumetric flow of the graviton sub-unit per graviton-unit cycle-length, Eq. 18, multiplied by the mass flow of the graviton sub-unit, Eq. 19, times 16Pi/17,275

= mec2

(20)






How to classically describe conjectures.pdf

 


The Experiments.pdf

 

    From the 6 preceding equations, (Eqs. 15, 16, and 17 concerning photon emission and absorption by the electron, as well as Eqs. 18, 19 and 20 concerning magneton and graviton emission and absorption by the electron), we can hypothesise, (i.e. classically one can say), that from Isaac Newton's famous 'Query', "Is it not obvious that matter and light are interconvertible?", that as soon as the electron emits light, it must have an equal and opposite reaction. The electron, we have hypothesised, emits light because when the free electron is decelerated into the ground state orbit, the free electron is at that point at twice its normal ground-state rest-mass, i.e. so it cannot accept any more mass from the incoming graviton (which is still at the velocity of light). The free electron is decelerated from the velocity of light to the velocity of the Fine Structure Constant times the velocity of light, and the incoming graviton is still travelling at the velocity of light, so the energy-conversion rate must be changed. If the incoming graviton is still travelling at the velocity of light and it is now forced by the decelerated electron to travel through the G.F.C. Searle electric-convection potential-surface of the electron hemisphere, i.e. instead of travelling straight through the decelerated electron, then this change (of direction) in the incoming-graviton half would cause the electron to spin proportionately faster (as the electron is proportionately decelerated). This is hypothesised to be where the application of shear forces overrides the application of surface-tension forces. The interaction between electron-surface membrane surface-tension forces (shear forces) and viscosity forces will make the outer-graviton half shear off from the incoming graviton, e.g. in a half-mass times velocity-squared energy-reaction.      The central core of the incoming graviton might now travel straight through the electron-surface membranes and emanate out of the front of the decelerated electron. The central core of the (half-mass) incoming graviton will now have the capacity to absorb matter from the surface membrane at the front of the electron, i.e. as it is now at this point in space an outgoing graviton. The former (as we call it) incoming (now-outgoing) graviton will pull the Newtonian corpuscles out of the front of the decelerated electron, i.e. due to viscosity forces overriding shear forces. This viscosity-force phenomenon will now cause matter, i.e. the so-called Newtonian corpuscles, (from the back of the electron where the incoming photon was absorbed) to be pulled through to the front of the decelerated electron and into the outgoing graviton. This classical phenomenon, i.e. involving the forces of shear, viscosity, equal and opposite reactions and the Newtonian Law of the reversibility of light, will now cause the excess mass of the free electron to flow towards the centre of the decelerated electron inside its inner hemisphere, i.e. where the forces of shear stress will dominate over the forces of viscosity. The excess mass will now be forced to leave the decelerated electron in the form of a photon (with its direction and internal spin already well established). The decelerated electron will now remain in the ground-state orbit with half of its full mass, e.g. as we now know it as the neutral electron-proton pair, i.e. The electron-proton pair will now follow the Coulomb-force equation of G.F.C. Searle (see Fig. 1). The electron-proton pair will also follow the first law of thermodynamics, i.e. in regards to lowest entropy, as the electron-proton pair is now at Absolute Zero, so the divergence of material flow will also be zero, (after J.C. Maxwell).

    So we see that Newton's and Kepler's ancient-classical laws can be applied to the atomic-ground state. Together with the modern-classical laws of Kelvin, Carnot and Clausius (which influenced Maxwell and Heaviside, causing them to draw up their mathematics classically), the laboratory experiments remain to be proven so that the modern-day Hydrogen-atom no longer remains lost in the mythical mists of Time. (Please see the portable-documents file on The Experiments if you have time).

Perpetual Motion (GB2410770), Anti-gravitational Force Engines (GB2368910), Free Energy and all that remains for future studies

 

     So where does all of our classical mechanics and classical physics lead us? It leads us to experiments to test for an anti-gravitational force-engine (British Patent number GB2368910). British Patent number GB2368910 is a spinning gyroscope with spiral-horiontal arms. By D'Alembert's Principle, a stationary object which spins at the Earth's escape velocity (11,181 metres per second), will de-couple from the Earth's gravitational acceleration, (Newton's Second Law), just tha same as will an object which travels past the Earth with a velocity which is greater than the Earth's escape velocity (Newton's First Law). What would occur is the following; the Earth's gravitational-acceleration field would be moved outward from the interior of the spinning gyroscope, compressed at the exterior perimeter of the spinning gyroscope causing increased-downward gravitational-acceleration and would permit an object to have decreased-downward gravitational-acceleration, (i.e. if the object were placed over the centre of the spinning gyroscope). This is probably due to the Devil, (various gnomes) and the Devil and the gnomes would probably say "It would have to be energised by a perpetual-motion machine".

 

     This study leads us to near-100% efficient electricity-generators. Patent GB2410770, (by the author), describes how the Maximum Power Transfer Theorem can be applied to a less-than atmospheric-pressure liquid-boiler, i.e. water at room temperature in a near-vacuum. The Maximum Power Transfer Theorem states that to have maximum efficiency of electrical-energy transfer between an electricity generator and its load (the output, e.g. a lightbulb), the resistance of the (generator-winding) wire that the magnet passes across must equal the resistance of the generator-output load, e.g. a wire filament in a light bulb.

 

     At room temperature, resistance in a wire that the magnet passes across, will always produce heat. The heat produced is always measured in Watts as I squared times R, (where I is the current in Amperes and R is the resistance in Ohms). The heating is known as Joules heating and the power of this heating is always equal to the power produced by the electricity generator, (i.e. which the light bulb uses) and power is also commonly known as energy dissipation per second.

 

     The heat produced by an electricity generator is normally very low, e.g. it is slightly warmer than room temperature, hence the power is dissipated as low energy dissipation per second, compared to the power of a 100 Watt light bulb (a light bulb is high-energy dissipation at a high temperature). The trick then to produce useful electrical energy is to lower the atmospheric pressure around the magnet passing across the wire (the magnet and the wire are now placed underwater). Water will start to boil at 20 degrees Centigrade if the atmospheric pressure is reduced to approximately 1% of atmosphere pressure.

 

     If a heated fluid at 30 - 35 degrees Centigrade flows under the boiler base and the working fluid inside the boiler is at 20 degrees Centigrade, then the water will boil and the water vapour will push the water up a tube, e.g. much like a geyser. A propeller placed at the top of a shaft will rotate due to the geyser pressure and a magnet placed at the bottom of the propeller shaft will rotate across the generator-winding wire (at the bottom of the shaft within the boiler tube) and produce electrical power, i.e. 100 Watts. The generator-winding wire will also produce 100 Watts of Joules heating at ~30 - 35 degrees Centigrade and this heating will produce extra water vapour, which in turn will produce extra geyser motion. This extra geyser power will produce extra dynamo power, i.e. at 100 Watts (considering the efficiency of the dynamo). The propeller will rotate the shaft ever faster (until the cooling ability of the coolant fluid at the top of the propeller-shaft tube is exhausted). The coolant fluid must be able to condense all of the vapour which is pushing up the water or the pressure within the propeller-shaft tube will rise and hence the temperature that the water will boil at, will rise above 20 degrees Centigrade. If the pressure rises within the propeller-shaft tube, then a higher and higher-temperature heat-source will be required, until the pressure within the propeller-shaft tube is at normal (outside) ambient pressure and we will have lost the ability to boil water at less than 100-degrees Centigrade. If we can maintain the pressure within the propeller-shaft tube at ~1% of normal-ambient pressure, then the efficiency of the electricity generator will be raised to near 100% and if waste heating is available from other appliances, (i.e. from other heat sources above 20 degrees Centigrade), then perpetual motion can be achieved and perpetual-free electricity-generation can be achieved. A 100-Watt tungsten-filament lght-bulb produces 10 Watts of visible-white light and 90 Watts of infra-red heat. If you place the 100-Watt light-bulb, i.e. a motorcycle/bicycle headlight bulb, back into the inside of the vacuum container, then you wll get 90% OF YOUR POWER BACK!!! This patent is obtainable at £20,000,000 per licence (from The Hague). For maximising optimal profit from developing a nano-technology product to obtain cheap-electrical energy from renewables, I will provide a consultancy for up to £2 million a year, i.e. for a guaranteed return from a patentable item.

Please feel free to send questions to Dunstan Dunstan at dunstand123@gmail.com