Sorry to disappoint you that this hasn't been put online yet.

It is written for a 12-14 year old or younger with basic scientific understanding. The original version talked a lot about naming rights (of sub atomic particles, and parts of the electron, and the nature of which, which it described, and co-ordination compounds and measuring the cross-sectional flow), but I only sold one copy, for $10, and my aunt only bought it to be polite.

The key to it is relative density, or the nuclear forces which force one atom to be bigger than another, and to therefore take up more space and be lighter. Imagine a helium balloon with a basket beneath it.

It is all written but it is rather mixed up in my computer, so I'm rewriting it.

The illustrations, essential to understanding it are not done yet but I think I'll do them freehand rather than try to get a drawing program which will do it.

There is little of no mathematics. Einstein described his theories of General and Special relativity brilliantly, but I challenge a high school student to understand the mathematics. You would have to trust him, and any jokes he makes may be lost or taken seriously. He did struggle to have his ideas accepted at the time, but now we believe E=MC2. Can Ever be =MC3? Is space finite or infinite. How many dimensions are there is string theory, 21 or more? What are they? What does two dimensional space look like, is it just black or white?

My quest began (in 1982) with looking for prime numbers, for unique components of atoms in mathematics, but when I realized that there were none, that all elements were unique in their own rights, my quest was forced to turn elsewhere. By 1983 I had done it. The solution is beautifully elegant, and beautifully simple. P=MV. My only explanation as to why nobody thought of it before me, is that this idea had my name on it from the beginning of time. How else could it have waited for me to discover and describe it?

In mathematics, all shapes are ellipses. There is also proof, that all shapes are not ellipses. Which is it?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If there is anything new, and if I am proved correct, that my description is the correct one, then fame will follow. This is not a collaboration it is the work of one person.  If it is like the Emperor's new clothes, a lot of fuss with no substance, then I will look like a fool. I'm confident. Buy the book, (make me a realistic off to finish it)  or wait for the free version here. 

The other point to make, is that I don't think that protons and neutrons are literally atoms. It is natural and logical to assume that protons and neutrons are much smaller than atoms. What I am proposing is a shape, or natural arrangement in groups of things which are like atoms, that is the hydrogen atom which has one positive charge at its centre, the helium atom, the lithium atom, and so on. I will illustrate these atoms for those who don't know what they look like.

A proton is probably a group of these things, and a neutron is probably a group of these things. Their number is probably three or five, that is there will be a group of three or five entities in the centre of the proton and the neutron. I'm saying that at least, in the most simple atoms at the beginning of the periodic table, all protons are the same as all other protons, but not necessarily so, and that all neutrons (in the periodic table) are the same. I believe I have devised three experiment to quantify the energy locked in these atoms, (the first five of the periodic table) and encourage others to try to devise an experiment themselves.

To shrink what is a Hydrogen or Helium atom (with this new model of protons and neutrons at its centre) to the size of a proton or a neutron, requires a great deal of energy, which eventually comes from photons, so a description of a photon is necessary (it looks like a taurus or donut and spins) and so is a fuller description of an electron (which looks like a cloud of quicksilver or mercury) with new named parts and a description to say why it behaves as it does (and remains about the charge of a proton (at x distance from the proton).

These tiny little things we will never see are enities in themselves, and may behave rather like boiled eggs, wobbling and rotating around one another in a complex harmony, positive charges repelling positive charges, with energy coming in and leaving at certain quanta. We already know that in certain circumstances (an atomic pile for example), free neutrons can leave a nucleus in a concentrated, however we have not yet fully quantified the full amount of this energy, and just how this can form a nuclear chain reaction, (if it is not absorbed by graphite rods).

www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/fermi/pile.html

All will be explained.



The idea that to get the concept across quickly before explaining it with rational argument and logic by naming my book Protons and Neutrons are Atoms was a novel one. It was not the original title, and of course we all know that protons and neutrons are not atoms, however we do know roughly what atoms are and so we have a basis for our attempt at understanding what sub atomic particles are.

In my thesis, because this is an original attempt at understanding more about matter, I have theorised that all protons, and all neutrons are the same. I do not mean that all protons are the same as neutrons, because protons and neutrons are different, but it could be wrong to assume that the proton in a Helium nucleus is the same as the proton in an atom of any other element, Gold for example, but if we start with the first, say ten elements of the periodic table of elements, let us assume that at least they (all protons) are the same as each other.

If we also take the structure of the proton, I am saying let us assume that it is a group, or bunch of objects, perhaps three of them, perhaps five, we don't yet know for certain, and can only know if we can devise an experiment which will prove it one way or the other. That in itself is a difficult challenge, and I think I have thought of some, but let us see if there are any other scientists who can devise an experiment also which will help to establish their own scientific reputations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford

We all know, or should, of Rutherford who thought that the atom had a nucleus and was first to "split" the atom. It was his model of the atom which is accepted today as the right one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model



?




Before we do this, we must solve the problems in Sudan, the millions of Africans who have starved in the last 30 years, and what caused the problem to move to Europe, to Yugoslavia. Economics is a lot more simple than physics, so solving it should take very little time. It is just a matter of the world's biggest and strongest economy, USA, even now that Japan has lost second place to China, who will stay in second place for another ten year or more, putting its mind to the problem.


The way I see it, it is logistical. The Army has the skills and resources, if not the political will and authority yet, to distribute the food, and the permanent housing. People can donate the food, or people can buy it using their welfare payments the government will guarantee. New markets mean new customers. Supermarkets, schools and hospitals. And as long as people keep getting paid for their work, the system will continue to prosper.
 ECONOMICS 101

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea#Plato

In the most narrow sense, an idea is just whatever is before the mind when one thinks. Very often, ideas are construed as representational images; i.e. images of some object. In other contexts, ideas are taken to be concepts, although abstract concepts do not necessarily appear as images.[1] Many philosophers consider ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being.

The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings.

In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflex, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place.


 


Here is something to think about.

P=MV, that is Momentum is equal to Mass times velocity. I prefer, and usually think about mass as weight, when it isn't, it just happens to be on this planet, because mass is dependent upon gravity, which is dependent upon mass. For example, the gravity on earth means a 1 kilogram weight weighs 1 kilogram. On the moon, which has a mass much smaller than that of earth, the same mass would weigh 1/6 of a kilogram.

So what is gravity? Is it like an electromagnetic force, such as an actual electromagnet which will pull a ferrous mass against gravity? Some scientists would say so. They are looking for a "gravity particle" (which does not exist) which "communicates" with another particle and magically draws matter together through space. However we already know that everything has mass, so everything weighs something. This is not the same as charge. We know that like charges repel, and unlike charges attract, but gravity is not (electromagnetic) charge. We know that atoms have protons, neutrons and electrons, and I know what these are and will describe them in simple terms you will be able to understand.

Gravity is most like angular momentum. So can we say that gravity is momentum? Not yet.

Think about Momentum in terms of Newton Metres (joules); the amount of work which is required to move  one kilogram, one metre in distance. Stay with me please, because those of you who are not scientists may skim through the definitions below, as I do when something is too complex for me to understand it, however you will have to understand it in order for it to make sense, not just rely on my conclusions.

Understanding what gravity is and why is important, because without a complete understanding, we cannot say that anything else makes sense. What we must do is remove time from our equations, because time is not a physical thing, so it cannot be exchanged for mass or velocity, it is merely a way of defining and describing them.

Likewise, gravity, the amount something weighs, can be thought about as its "density" or "relative density"; the amount of buoyancy it has, (compare helium to oxygen) relative to other atoms. Density is dependent upon two thing; the mass, and the size, (of the amount of space it takes up.

There is one other thing to consider. Newton is considered the father of gravity. He was a brilliant mathematician, but could he have been wrong in his calculations? Not possible you say, his gravity has been checked by thousands of brilliant minds ever since he published his work, ad his measurements checked. However, if he had deliberately fudged some of his calculations, how would we know? All we are doing is measuring what exists, not applying our knowledge of the theoretical laws of nature to the system we observe. How do we explain the acceleration of a mass from rest, with gravity? The first second is the critical one, after it gains some momentum it is easy to calculate. But would travel of a 200 tonne rocket into space against gravity really be possible if Newton had been wrong? It is something to keep in mind as we continue investigating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_metre

Newton metre is a unit of torque (also called "moment") in the SI system. The symbolic form is N m or N·m,[1] and sometimes hyphenated newton-metre. One newton metre is equal to the torque resulting from a force of one newton applied perpendicularly to a moment arm which is one metre long.

It also used less commonly, as a unit of energy, in which case it is synonymous with the more common and standard SI unit of energy, the joule.[2] In this very different usage the meter term represents the distance traveled or displacement in the direction of the force, and not the perpendicular distance from a fulcrum as it does when used to express torque. This usage is discouraged by the SI authority, since it can lead to confusion as to whether a given quantity expressed in newton meters is a torque or a quantity of energy.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

The joule (play /ˈl/ or /ˈl/); symbol J) is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818–1889).[1][2][3]

In terms firstly of base SI units and then in terms of other SI units:

\rm J  = {}\rm \frac{kg \cdot m^2}{s^2} = N \cdot m = \rm Pa \cdot m^3={}\rm W \cdot s

where N is the newton, m is the metre, kg is the kilogram, s is the second, Pa is the pascal, and W is the watt.

One joule can also be defined as:

1 N = 1 kg·m/s2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_%28unit%29

The newton is the SI unit for force; it is equal to the amount of net force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second squared. In dimensional analysis, F = ma, multiplying m (kg) by a (m/s2), the dimension for 1 newton unit is therefore:[1]

{\rm N = kg~\frac{m}{s^2} = M~\frac{L}{T^2}} (see Dimensional analysis)

Momentum (total energy) (in newton metres) = mass x speed of light squared.

Why?

Einsteins logic was simple. The speed of light in space is constant. Gravity is not constant. The mass of the sun is many times that of the earth or moon, so mass as it is measured, varies.

He deduced that a photon, a particle of constant mass, passing a gravitational body, (the sun) must deviate as its mass is affected by the gravity of the other body. We know that a body will accelerate as it approaches (falls towards)  a mass, and will in some circumstances maintain that increase of velocity (momentum or energy). We also know that a photon cannot increase its velocity.

The best way to understand how velocity overcomes gravity is the illustration of a mass fired from a gun, parallel to the earth's surface. It will fall to earth. However if the point from which it is fired is high enough, and the velocity is sufficient to fire it past the natural curvature of the earth, it will remain in orbit. If it has sufficient input (energy) it can escape from earth's gravity, and will continue on its given track into space.

There had to be a directly proportional relationship between the known constant, the speed of light in space and mass, but what was it? 

continued on next page

 Who am I?

Well I don't really have an academic record as such because I appear to have failed at school. I did do well at primary school, especially in woodwork and maths, thanks mainly to my teacher Ron Bruce, and I did score well in an IQ test (147) which put me into the top stream (3L1) at Hamilton Boys High School in 1969. That was the year Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. If you haven't seen the film The Dish, you should. The space project inspired me, but the actual walking on the moon I thought was a bit ho hum. Just the way I felt at the time although everyone at school was listening to it on their transistor radios.

However, my marks weren't as good as they should have been, mainly due I think to my decision, which I failed to confide to anyone, not to learn either French or Latin. I wasn't doing well in Maths and English either, actually I was waiting for science to start, and that didn't happen until the fourth form, at which stage everyone I remember was getting excited that the text book had a diagram of the periodic table of elements, something I hadn't heard of if I recall correctly. We had done some basic science at primary school, using hydrogen peroxide to make oxygen, and burning a candle to discover what percentage of the air was oxygen and so on, but not a lot.

So I was sent off to the psychologist to retest me and try to fathom why I wasn't doing well in English. It disappointed me as well but perhaps it was just the stress of being away from home for the first time, and living in a hostel (boarding school) where we had to get up early and go for a run. There was a lot of routine which didn't suit me.

The psychologist was impressed with my results. He told me that some were the best he had ever seen. He said my best developed skill was logical thinking. I knew that already. It is also important to have a good memory, preferably a photographic one, because you don't know in advance what question they are going to ask you, and you have to be observant as well as remember what you have learned. I remember in one test where you had to copy pictures by moving red and white blocks, that the challenge wasn't just solving it, but actually moving one's hands quickly enough, and making sure one hand didn't block the movement of the other one. I found out when I later transferred to Te Puke High School, that they had measured my IQ at 167, putting me into the "bright to gifted" category. It was only recently that I learned that 167 could put me into the top 1% of the population. I don't know if that is true. I assumed that I am in the top 5% at least and that is good enough for me.

Parenting is very important, and so is play. I love my free time and I love to play, sometimes just doing mundane things with my hands, that requires little concentration, while in fact I'm miles away thinking about other things. My mother always worried about nutrition, and as a consequence I was a little overweight until I started boarding school. The main thing for children however I think is books. I had encyclopedias when I was little and loved reading about everything from mechanics to art to stories, and when I discovered books (novels) I was reading every spare minute of the day.

Most of what I know about science I learned from reading. I did sixth and seventh form physics, and found it easy. I regret a little not doing chemistry, especially as the chemistry teacher I could have had was excellent, however that is the past and it is no good regretting it.

Everything important is P=MV. Momentum is a marvelous concept. Gravity is a bit harder and still has some work to do on it. Isaac Newton was a true genius. In fact many scientists did exceptionally well considering the information they had to work with. It wasn't until about 1997 that the Scientific American magazine published the first pictures of atoms (here I'm sketchy on teh details) which had been put together using a multiple of techniques. What we are trying to learn about is so small it is difficult to correctly imagine the scale.

 

 

Make a free website with Yola