CHAPTER 2
The Shape of Creation

1. Geometry

Let us suppose that we have a spherical mass object that is given a motion of spin. Further, let us suppose that we are observing along the axis of spin. We find that from the given viewpoint, the spin is to the left. We permit the spin to continue in the same sense, but walk around the object to view it from the front instead of the rear From the new point of view the sphere has a right hand spin. Since a positron is not an electron neither one can have a spherical form.

Now let us suppose we blow a nice, tight smoke ring. It has the shape of a doughnut, but it is a dynamic configuration in which the smoke particles move away from the viewer as they pass through the hole in the center, but recirculate around the outside of the ring to pass through the center again. If we then put a spin on the doughnut it can be either a right hand spin or a left hand spin for the given motion through the vortex.

The above description is the only one that provides a configuration in which a right hand spin can be truly distinguished from a left hand spin. It is also the only configuration that will provide a stable three dimensional particle.

We may reason thus: Consider a spinning sphere under the action of central forces tending to collapse it. Since a rotation can be defined with respect to the space of the object, centrifugal force can be made to balance the central force at the equator, but the polar regions collapse to form a two-dimensional disc. If we put a component of rotation at right angles to the first, the two rotations combine to give a single rotation about a different axis, but the collapse occurs as before.

Now consider the toroidal configuration with its double motion. The centrigugal force of the vortex flow prevents the collapse of the unit into the vortex ring. The centrifugal force of spin prevents the collapse of the ring down to its central point. Centrifugal force is active whether the right or left hand spin applies. There can be no other configurations of stable matter than the two described.

In the creation of stable matter there can exist only the positron and the electron. These are the only particles that can be considered truly fundamental. For a condition of no translation, the internal circulation velocity is the uncontracted velocity of light. If the object is given a motion of translation, the internal energy is reduced. Any part or all of the internal energy may be lost in the form of a photon. It follows that photon emission carries mass out of the system. Then we conclude that a photon has a mass of its own.

The internal energy of the electron or positron can be zero only when the velocity of the particle is the velocity of light. It is necessary to conclude that the particle can exist and does exist in this state. We turn our attention to experimental fact.

When an electron and a positron are brought into proximity a mutual attraction results. The particles are accelerated toward each other and disappear. In the place of the electron a photon of equivalent energy appears. This is also true for the positron. The presently accepted explanation is that matter has been annihilated and transformed into radiation in the process. In fact, the explanation is much too simplistic, and is in error as a result.

There are several points to be observed. There was no mass increase with velocity for either the positron or the electron. Further, each one actually attained the velocity of light since this is the only condition that will permit the internal energy of each to be zero. Also, this condition must be maintained indefinitely unless the particles reappear.

Now we are ready for the next step in the experimental process. Under certain conditions a photon equivalent to two electron masses will disappear and a positron and an electron will take its place. This is termed pair production. Again, the easy answer is the erroneous one. It is said that matter has been formed from radiation. Since this is not the case, let us proceed to the true explanation.

When the positron and the electron supposedly annihilated each other, they disappeared only in the sense of our ability to measure. A system was formed in which the two particles continued to exist as a rotating unit about a common center. Under certain conditions, it is possible that the amount of energy originally lost from the system can be absorbed, and the two particles again appear as separate entities. It is necessary to point out that this constitutes a separation of the original unit and not a creation of matter from radiation.

It seems impossible to take two steps in the field of physical theory without running into a contradiction of some kind. The spin of the electron has been mentioned. It is known that the photon also has spin. When an electron emits a photon there is invoked no necessity that the sum of the remaining spin of the electron plus the spin of the emitted photon must equal the original spin of the electron. In fact, it is assumed that the spin of the electron is not modified by the emission of the photon. Then we may ask by what stretch of the imagination is it necessary to invoke the conservation of spin in case a neutron emits an electron.

The existence of the neutrino was invoked to conserve spin in the case of neutron decay. The neutrino as originally described has no physical existence, but the collapsed positron-electron pair is ejected at the same time. This pair shares its energy with the ejected electron in such a way that the electron may get all or any part of the energy of the pair. The measurement is confirmed, but the term neutrino is used. Since the name "neutrino" is already well established in the literature we state: the collapsed positron-electron pair is the simplest of the existing neutrinos. It may have any velocity from zero to the velocity of light. In case it is at rest, all of its energy has been radiated. In case the unit translates with the velocity of light, no internal rotation can apply and its energy is that of two electron masses. All intermediate conditions between these extremes are possible.

As a matter of terminology, we have described the process of Beta Decay of the neutron. It is accepted that in the process of decay, a neutrino as well as an electron is emitted. The maximum kinetic energy of the emitted electron is that of two electron masses which means that all of the energy of the collapsed pair was imparted to the electron. For our present purposes, the more important physical fact is that not only the ejected electron but also the positron-electron pair in the uncollapsed state existed within the neutron structure prior to the decay. The conclusion is that the neutron structure contains both positrons and electrons.

2. What is Size?

We are mainly concerned with the size of a particle in terms of the extent of its space. Since one half of the particle energy determines that space, there must be some distribution with distance. Since the inverse square force law applies to electric charge, the energy density in the field falls off inversely as the fourth power of the radius vector In this case the effect of the space falls off rapidly with distance from the particle center, but the extent of the field is a mathematical infinity. The manifestation of spin is also a space effect that is felt through a limited distance. The point to be made is that a particle in motion makes its presence known in advance of contact.

The electron translates along the line of its own spin, but it doesn't seem to care whether it is backing up or going forward with respect to its vortex motion. Since the target is composed of matter, it also exerts forces through some distance. In the case of two electrons approaching a target simultaneously, one may have a preferred orientation. Since photons are mass entities with spin, the same facts apply to photons.

It seems that every scientist in the world is determined to make two plus two equal five whether it wants to or not. The present concept of the neutron as an amorphous glob of uncharged mass is another case in point. Since the process of neutron decay produced an electron, solemn statements are made to the effect that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that the electron didn't exist before emission, but was ''created'' in the process. How this explains the positive charge left on the parent particle is not made clear.

To arrive at some reasonable concept of neutron structure, we return to the positron and electron. These can form chains with positrons and electrons alternating. Further, under certain conditions of stability, these chains can form closed rings. As a matter of mathematical analysis, the neutron consists of 930 electrons and 930 positrons alternating around a closed ring. The mass defect applying to the formation of the particle amounts to 20 electron mass equivalents. In this case the neutron mass is measured to be 1840 electron mass equivalents.

We have stated that in the process of neutron decay, an electron and a positron-electron pair is lost. In this case the mass of the proton is less than that of the neutron, being about 1837 electron mass equivalents. This is confirmed by experiment. The limit of stability of the structure is narrow, but the possibility of neutron and proton Isotopes appears.

There remains only one slight problem. The size of the proton and thus of the neutron is much less than that of a single electron. Then we must explain how it is possible for the group to be smaller than any one of its units. The answer is that of mutual contractions imposed by proximity.

The spin of the neutron may be positive or negative, but it is equal in magnitude to that of the electron or positron. The combination of particles in a group automatically requires that the spin of a group should be maintained no matter how many particles are added. Then we find that particles of zero spin are compound particles.

The size of a particle is also determined by the quantum condition applying to the group. As an example. it is found that the quantum number 7 applies to the proton and neutron. If a neutron is broken up, we may expect the formation of seven more or less equal units. These are identified as the -Mesons. General confirmation of this fact was found at Berkeley in the case of proton-antiproton disruption.

We find that neutral matter is neutral only by charge proximity. A neutron shows charge neutrality only because of the close association of positive and negative charges. Since the mass-energy form has nothing to do with the energy of electrical charge, the measure of the total energy as given by it is in error. Since the energy of mass increases as the number of mass particles in the group. while the energy of electrical charge increases as the square of the number of charges, it is found that the present estimate of universal energy is low by a factor of ten to the eighty second power. At this point, the members of the Golly Gee school of science writers can say, "Golly Gee!"

The shape of the neutron or the proton is that of the toroid. Electrons and positrons in the ring combine their spins in such a way that the required vortex flow is established. The orbital motion of the electron in the ring in one seventh that of light as required by the quantum number seven which applies. In view of the reduced velocity, we consider that protons and neutrons are matter wave toroids. Again we observe the fact that the only stable units in nature are toroidal in shape. In view of the fact that they are com posed of fundamental particles, they themselves cannot properly be classed as fundamental.

Neutrons and protons form atomic nuclei. Proton-proton repulsion limits the number of particles to form a stable unit. The measure of mass defect indicates that a quantum number of 10 is about the limit of stability. Stabilizing forces are those of particle spin. This appears to be the nature of the "Strong Force" of unified field theory.

Now we consider the possibilities of different unstable units of matter composed of positrons and electrons. In the formation of chains of positrons and electrons, there is indicated no saturation limit. Then we can speculate that an infinity of random possibilities exist. Each one of these can exist in at least ten different quantum states, with quantum unity applying to the neutrino. There is only one Very narrow region in which these can be stable as the neutron and the proton. All of the other groups have various decay times in the microsecond range. The point to be made is that the wildest speculation concerning the existence of any particle whatsoever must be confirmed as a matter of random chance.

We have all of the elements necessary to create the perfect Boon-doggle. The supercollider can be followed by the super-supercollider, and so ad-infinitum. Just another ten billion dollars and we will know the final secrets of creation.

The worst thing in the world for a scientist is that of solving a problem, because he then has to scrounge for another. The ideal situation is that where the answer is always approached but never quite resolved. If he shows progress, added funds can be found, but if the problem is solved, the funds stop. Not only is it fatal to a scientist to solve his own problem. If someone solves his problem for him, the culprit had better beware of dark alleys.

3. Fundamental Units

It follows that time is a comparison of motions. We may say that a particular event took place during an interval in which the earth rotated so many degrees on its axis. Being a comparison of events it is of the nature of a ratio. A ratio consists of a numerator and a denominator in the form of a fraction. In any comparison of events within our own system we must assume that any contraction which may apply to the numerator of the fraction must also apply to the denominator. Then we conclude that time is an invariant form within any given system. Since it is a convenience rather than a physical quantity, no contraction forms may apply.

In terms of the transmission of signals, let us suppose a tall tree on a mountain top and the sun in the act of coming above the horizon at dawn. The rays of the sun form a shadow of the tree and then head toward infinity at the velocity of light. A gremlin riding the first sunbeam keeps pace with the shadow. In theory, the tree can wither and die while the gremlin rides the shadow. The question is which is the reality, the tree or its shadow?

In terms of relativity theory, we ask the question: Which is the reality, the signal or the event? The philosophy that the event does not occur until its signal gets to the observer is not even first class idiocy. Second or third class, perhaps, but not first.

Consider a race of beings depending exclusively on sound for the transmission of signals. They finally develop air travel and exceed the sound barrier. Since their time signals depend on sound only, does the pilot return to the past as he outruns his own time? As a matter of fact, sound as a legitimate carrier of signals is just as fundamental as that of light. We conclude that relativity is in error because it mistakes the signal for the event.

Lengths are contracted by mutual proximity in the case of particles, the size of the unit being proportional to the quantum number of the group, but inversely proportional to the number of fundamental particles forming it. It would appear that we are somewhat at a loss to define length in the far reaches of interstellar space. If length can not be defined, neither can velocity. In this case we must state that no velocity barrier exists in outer space.

The velocity of the photon is determined by the! space in which it travels. Since it carries mass of its own and has an energy configuration of its own it can cross the regions of near zero energy density between the stars. A space ship can cross the energy void as well, but it is capable of accelerating and decelerating at will. Since it determines its own local space, there appears to be no limit to the velocity it can attain. Since time is undistorted the increased Velocity would be manifest only in the reduction in the time of travel to any remote destination that may be chosen. A sample calculation for the future of space travel shows that twenty million times the Velocity of light is possible by the use of a fuel based upon the meson drive. The writers of the Golly Gee school of science are now permitted to faint.

We have stated that the mass of the electron can be increased by the absorption of radiation. Also we find a mass reduction in the case of photon emission. In the case of free fall in a static field, the mass remains constant. It follows that there are three mass transformations instead of one. The mass increase occurs if the particle is accelerated by a collapsing field which drives it to exceed the velocity of free fall. If the electron is retarded below the velocity of free fall, radiation occurs and the mass of the particle is reduced. Since a rocket ship in outer space remains in a condition of free fall as long as it does not enter the field of any large mass object, no mass transformation applies to it.

As a matter of fact, since the ship determines its own space, it remains at rest with respect to that space as long as a constant level of thrust is maintained. In this case, the crew will experience no inertial effect of acceleration unless the level of thrust is changed too rapidly. This will cause a rate of change of acceleration which in the field of mechanics is termed "Jerk". We are now in a position to give the warning: "Look out for that Jerk in space!" (There may be a little humor there).

There is no manifestation of inertia in the case of an object in free fall in a static field. Further there is no manifestation of inertia for an object in the zero gravitational field of outer space. In this case it appears that inertia is a field effect imposed by the presence of other mass objects. Shades of Ernst Mach! This conclusion is nothing more than the Mach Principle.

To this point we have found two authors who have given principle which are vital to the future of space travel on a practical basis. The Mach Principle states that inertial acceleration is not a limiting factor in outer space. The principle stated by Leibniz that space is determined solely by matter requires that there can exist no velocity barrier in outer space. Under the circumstances we suggest the Einstein theory must be discarded.

The trouble is that once an idea gets into the literature it is practically impossible to get it out. Erroneous works are cited by authors to support their own errors, and both of these are cited in support of a third error until there seems no end. The fact of publication the goal, and content is a minor consideration. The truth is of no interest at all. With these facts in mind, the author has generated the following suggestions on writing a science article:

• If you have the perfect answer, but you just can't make it fit.
• Do what all the experts do, and fudge a little bit.
• The Factor of Finagle is the very thing to use,
• To make the reader think you have all your p's and q's.
• The Confusion Coefficient will prevent it being known
• That the space that ought to be your brain is filled with solid bone.
• Of course it wouldn't hurt a bit to name some well-known name
• If you want to be a scientist you must learn to play their game
• Cite every work that ever was since Hector was a pup.
• The thicker you can lay it on the more they lap it up.
• If you would claim undying fame just follow my suggestion
• Generate an answer to which there is no question.