Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did We Miss an Interstellar Comet Four Years Ago? (arxiv.org)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the lost-in-space dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader RockDoctor writes: A paper published on Arxiv last week reports on a project to redetermine the "orbits of long period comets... We recently attempted to check, whether the assumption of a parabolic orbit for hundreds of comets discovered after 1950 is fully justified in all cases." The full work by Królikowska & Dybczynski remains in preparation (which is perfectly normal), but this intriguing result deserved early attention.

During this research we found an interesting case of the comet C/2014 W10 PANSTARRS.

(that's the 10th reported comet in fortnight W of year 2014, source : the PANSTARRS team)

After discovery on 2014-11-25, fourteen observations were made over three days, giving a first-estimate orbit with an eccentricity of 0.6039453. So far, so boring — as the temporary designation suggests, these get found on most days. But that orbit is subject to uncertainty so some more measurements were made on 2014-12-22 from a different observatory. When all of the data is considered, it becomes impossible to clearly assign an orbit to this object (this is possible if, for example, there is a fragmentation of the object between observations), but many of the solutions which can be obtained have a hyperbolic orbit — that is, the object is extra-solar.

If correct, this "post-covery" would double the size of the catalogue of interstellar objects known.

Unfortunately, the quality of the original data remains poor — estimates of the orbital eccentricity vary between 1.22 and 1.65 — which is in contrast to the prompt recognition and intense observation campaign for 'Oumuamua. The report's main conclusion is that

Our main purpose is to show that similar cases should be treated in future with greater care by more reliable preliminary orbit determination and alerting observers about the importance of the object to initiate more follow-up observations.

Which is exactly what happened with 'Oumuamua.

59 comments

  1. Re: No interstellar bodies in FEDERAL PRISON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please keep posting. Because as everyone knows, repetition is funny! And the best form of humor is when you are no where near on topic like a bot. I find your posts humorous, convincing, deep, meaningful, and you really know how to tell a story and keep the audience engaged.

    Bravo!

  2. Re:No interstellar bodies in FEDERAL PRISON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't they have to wait for it to actually orbit to document if its really a comment?

  3. Interstellar travel by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    The may have serious implications for interstellar travel, if it turns out there is a lot more debris out there and space isn't as empty as we thought. A chunk of ice can do a lot of damage when you are going 0.2c.

    1. Re:Interstellar travel by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I think getting to 0.2c is the first problem to address. Then the problem of a 20-year voyage in a closed ecosystem with no resources you didn't accelerate to 0.2c (caveat : you might catch up with stores you dispatched 5 years ago at 0.18c - read any book on the logistics of "Expedition" style mountaineering for examples).

      Actually, my first guesstimate is that if confirmed, this second pre-covery would generally agree with the estimate that there are of the order of 10000 such objects within the orbit of Neptune at any one time. The estimate of the number of interstellar objects hasn't changed much - just your knowledge of that flight hazard.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Interstellar travel by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      there are of the order of 10000 such objects within the orbit of Neptune at any one time.

      This comet was about 800 meters in diameter. If there are 10000 that size, then there are likely millions or billions of smaller objects, the size of a refrigerator or a baseball. At 0.2c, even a pebble or grain of sand can cause enormous damage.

      We may want to delay any interstellar colonization voyages for a few years, until we get a better understanding of this problem.

    3. Re:Interstellar travel by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I still think that developing an idea for a technology that would get a probe large enough to carry a vonNeumann machine and a fistful of gametes & bacteria at more that 0.1c is a more immediate concern. After all, if you've got a 0.2c propulsion technology, you can launch several robotic prototypes ahead of the actual probe with the expensive equipment (or even people) aboard.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Why the hyperbole? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If correct, this "post-covery" would double the size of the catalogue of interstellar objects known."

    Yes, we already know of one object and this would be two but to say that the catalogue of known interstellar objects has been doubled, while technically correct, sounds ridiculously overhyped.

    The number of known interstellar objects has been doubled!! Surely this will resolve the Fermi Paradox as a plethora of alien civilizations are now heading towards our solar system to consult the Great Catalogue. Look upon our works, ye mighty, and despair!!!

    1. Re:Why the hyperbole? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Have you ever worked in the discovery phase of an observational science? Obviously not.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's been decades since I studied this, and most of the neurons I used to store the details have long since been recycled, but I do remember a little bit about orbital mechanics. If an object's velocity is lower than escape velocity, it's in an elliptical orbit, and if it's above, the orbit's hyperbolic. You only get a parabolic orbit if it's traveling exactly at escape velocity. OK, yes, I understand that there are limits to how precise our measurements are and that leads to a margin of error in the calculated orbit, but I can't help but think that there's something wrong when there are hundreds of comets discovered since 1950 with calculated orbits at exactly escape velocity, as close as we can calculate it. What I wonder is why it took astronomers this long to start checking their figures and finding all of these mistakes. Of course, they might just have been too busy to recheck all of those figures, but still, I'd like to find out.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Apparitions of "first appearance" comets didn't all produce eccentricities of 1.0000. - I recall for example reading papers by Opik (grandfather of the MP who promoted the UK actually investing money in planetary protection. Before getting "involved" with a pop starlet and losing his seat.) from the late 40s or mid-50s when for plotting and comparison purposes he worked on the semi-major axis of the reduced orbits because it made the small differences more obvious. That's what gave evidence for the Oort cloud - which we're still at the very edge of being able to directly observe.

      But these days we're spending a lot more time observing with a lot bigger "light buckets", and reducing the data astrometrically to orbits a lot faster - which makes the recent discoveries (putative) much less surprising. We can look forward, on this basis, to seeing yearly or more frequent discovery of interstellar objects - exactly as we did with pulsars when I was a school kid and we've done with gravity wave astronomy in the last couple of years.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    2. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by pz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm just an astronomy fan boy, but if something's coming in from the Oort Cloud, isn't that far enough away that all orbits are going to look parabolic to the limits of measurable accuracy? I mean we can barely determine orbits in the Kupier belt, right?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    3. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Either you didn't understand what I meant, or you explained the situation poorly. I've no problem whatsoever with there being large numbers of interstellar visitors, or with recalculations of the obits of old comets revealing more of them. What bothers me is the large number of observed comets with velocities close enough to escape velocity to have a parabolic orbit; I'd expect most, if not almost all of them to have hyperbolic orbits.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that any comet that originates in the Kupier belt will be in a highly elliptical orbit, and that by the time we can get clear enough observations to calculate that orbit, the comet will be much closer, possibly even within Pluto's and/or Neptune's orbit, but like you, I'm no professional.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by careysub · · Score: 2

      You only get a parabolic orbit if it's traveling exactly at escape velocity. OK, yes, I understand that there are limits to how precise our measurements are and that leads to a margin of error in the calculated orbit, but I can't help but think that there's something wrong when there are hundreds of comets discovered since 1950 with calculated orbits at exactly escape velocity, as close as we can calculate it.

      Hang on. In other papers these same researchers use the term "near-parabolic" for this same class of comets, this short paper needed an editor. In some cases the observational errors (particularly in the earlier comets) are large that we cannot distinguish them from parabolic orbits. Nothing mysteriously wrong.

      FWIW there is no great discovery revealed by this paper. It shows that a recent comet has a sufficiently poorly known orbit that it could be significantly hyperbolic. Or not. The data isn't available. This paper is a plea for more systematic observation procedures.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    6. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      In other papers these same researchers use the term "near-parabolic" for this same class of comets...

      OK, thanx. That clears everything up for me. It was just a case of sloppy reporting by somebody who didn't quite understand the article enough to see how much of a difference that one word makes.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    7. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by careysub · · Score: 1

      I'm just an astronomy fan boy, but if something's coming in from the Oort Cloud, isn't that far enough away that all orbits are going to look parabolic to the limits of measurable accuracy? I mean we can barely determine orbits in the Kupier belt, right?

      Bingo.

      Not really to the "limits of measurable accuracy" but to the "limits of accuracy measured", sure. Accurate orbital determination requires lots of observations of very dim objects, and telescope time is limited. Not enough observations along a long arc, and it becomes insufficiently determined.

      But we do know which are comets are closest to being true parabolas. It is easy to determine. They hit the Sun.

      This is not rare, in fact about 100 comets a year do this. In 2010, a good year for sun-diving comets it was 200. In fact, most comets that are being discovered now hit the Sun. Partly this is because we have SOHO in space doing the observations, and lots of small comets suddenly brighten as they approach the Sun as they vaporize all at once under the super-spot-light that is the Sun, kind of like seeing lots of moths near a light. They do cluster there, and mostly can't see them at all unless they are near the light. Such observations were hard to do from Earth's surface due the scattered glare of the Sun.

      The little ones that don't hit the Sun that are dim, we never see them at all.

      The body of near-parabolic comets we know of are relatively large, but many are still dim enough that observations far from the Sun are difficult.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    8. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Nope. Ever since Gauss's work on the determination of the orbit of Ceres (the discoverer Piazzi only got 41 a day long arc of observations before Ceres got too close to the Sun - turning those data into an orbit was suddenly urgently necessary to "recover" the object when it came back out of the Sun's glare. As a part of that calculation, the eccentricity of the (calculated) orbit pops out. The maths goes over my head, but there is no shortage of descriptions of it (e.g. http://sce.uhcl.edu/helm/Space...) and there are commercial and freeware packages for doing the calculations for you (e.g. https://www.projectpluto.com/f... which includes other useful stuff too).

      In practice, it is sufficiently automated that, for example, if you do Mike "@plutokiller" Brown's MOOC on the formation of the solar system (harder than your average MOOC ; strongly recommended) you'll be seeing and using plots of thousands of KBOs in "a:e" space. If you've got three observations, you've got an orbit. But if you've got four observations, you've got three orbits and you've got to be looking at the internal consistency of the data sets. Which is why TFP is complaining about the poor quality of the data in the sense of "high residual errors". The intrinsic problems of determining orbits in the Kuiper Belt are as they'll always be - faint objects (meaning noisy data) and slow movement (because the longer the arc between your first and last observations, the more accurate your orbit). But if you stick at it, and in particular, if your first orbit is good enough to collect the object a year later (when it's next in a good position in the night sky for observation - far from the Sun, far from your observatory's horizon at midnight), you'll get a reliable orbit. Unless of course, there is something like fragmentation, or gas ejection (propulsion) going on which you don't notice, and there is no single orbit for your object.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    9. Re: Too many parabolic orbits by Xova · · Score: 1

      This is far from my area of expertise but is it not just because objects with orbital eccentricities above one donâ(TM)t stick around?

    10. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure that I understand what you're trying to say then. Why the interest in "escape speed" (nb: it's a speed, not a velocity - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... paragraph 2), which varies at different heliocentric distances, over eccentricity (which is a property of the entire orbit, and doesn't matter where in the orbit the object is when you measure it. If you're interested in the escape speed, then you first need to determine the orbit (boing! you've got the eccentricity!) then work out where on the orbit the object is, and what the heliocentric escape speed is at that distance, then calculate the object's speed at that distance ... several additional steps, increasing the error bars.

      There were numerical techniques used back in the days of slide rules and log tables where you could shorten the calculation by initially assuming an eccentricity of 1 (if you thought your object was a comet) or 0 (if you thought it was in a circular orbit). But once you've got your initial orbit you need to do a couple of rounds of refinement of the orbit to improve the quality of fit - and you'd get to a true estimate of eccentricity then. If your orbit wasn't converging to a valid solution with each round ... you've got trouble. But that excuse was dieing by the end of the 1950s - you might have to wait a week or two to get your printout back from the computing centre after you set up the observations onto cards (hint : the standard format for reporting observations is still 80 columns wide!) and drop the cards into the internal mail, but you'd still get your computer-calculated orbit back while you're typing up your paper.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    11. Re: Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Yes, because orbits with eccentricities greater than one have hyperbolic orbits. However, orbits with an eccentricity of exactly one have parabolic orbits and also don't stick around. My concern had to do with the fact that there looked like there were an unreasonable number of comets with parabolic orbits, but another poster explained that the paper's authors used the words "nearly parabolic," which is far more believable for me.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    12. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      It is possible to get a fair-quality orbit from one night's observations - at least, good enough to know where to point the CCD for follow-up observations the next night. And the industrial-scale data pipelines will be back to photograph (well, "CCD") the same regions of sky repeatedly over the next few nights. So if the body is large enough (or bright enough at some points in it's light curve - which you're already starting to record), you'll know about it a long long way out. IIRC, comet Hale-Bopp was discovered when it was somewhere out near Saturn's orbit. But that was 40-80km diameter, compared to Pluto's 2400km diameter.

      The inner boundary of the Kuiper Belt is typically taken at Neptune's orbit. But it is rather fuzzy. Once a body evolves to high enough eccentricity(*) to start crossing Neptune, then it's increasingly likely to come close to Neptune, which is pretty unlikely to result in the eccentricity decreasing. Things start to happen rapidly then, and within mere tens of thousands of orbits it's likely to meet Jupiter. SL-9 did that in about 1970, did about 10 orbits of Jupiter, fragmented under the tidal stress in 1992, and impacted in late 1994. Comets evolve fast once they start to reach the inner Solar System.

      (*) It's average kinetic energy, proportional to it's semi-major axis "a" changes much more slowly, because that energy has to go somewhere. Which is why a-e diagrams encapsulate so much about a population of bodies.

      I'm no professional in these matters - just an interested amateur.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    13. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But we do know which are comets are closest to being true parabolas. It is easy to determine. They hit the Sun.

      "A chance no astrophysicist could pass up."

      "I am sorry, Louis Wu. I do not understand."

      "The opportunity to study the underside of sunspots."

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    14. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      My concern is (or was, by this point) that the eccentricity of the orbit depends, in part, on the object's velocity. Unless it's travelling at least at escape speed (to use your pedantry) the orbit must be elliptical, with an eccentricity of less than one; if it's greater than escape, the orbit will be hyperbolic, (greater than one) and if it's exactly at the escape speed/velocity, it will move in a parabola. (exactly one) Given that TFS states (wrongly) that there were at least 100 comets in parabolic orbits, the idea of so many comets having exactly the right velocity/speed for that seemed improbable. Now, of course, I know that TFS misquoted the paper, which explains the oddity.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    15. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      IIRC, comet Hale-Bopp was discovered when it was somewhere out near Saturn's orbit.

      I'm not sure, but that sounds about right. In any event, though it wasn't discovered while it was still in the Kuiper Belt, when it would have been too faint to get accurate enough data to calculate the orbit very well.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    16. Re: Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Look at it from the other point of view. If something has an orbital eccentricity of more than 1, then we get one chance to see it (one "apparition"). But if something is perturbed into an orbit with an eccentricity of 0.96 (eg Halley's Comet), we'll get multiple chances to see it (30, so far, for Halley).

      To have lower eccentricity and be close enough to the Sun to be seen through much of it's orbit ( e.g 67P/Churyumovâ"Gerasimenko, eccentricity 0.64, perihelion 5.7AU, aphelion 1.2AU) required multiple interactions with Jupiter. It's not got a long life expectancy either.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re: Too many parabolic orbits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that is exactly what happens. The Oort Cloud is FAR from the sun -- starting around 2,000 AU (Astronomical Units) and extending out to over 2 light years from the sun. (Pluto is around 40 AU.) The Oort Cloud is spherical in shape and home to billions of icy objects. Occasionally one of those objects is dislodged and begins the long, slow fall into the inner solar system becoming a comet. It follows exactly the gravitational path you would expect -- an ellipse with a major axis of near infinity -- in other words, a parabola.

      These long period comets have eccentricity close to 1 (near parabolic) or slightly elliptical. Comets are not inert. As they near the sun, their orbit undergoes changes due to dynamic out-gassing, solar wind, and gravitational perturbations from the major planets. Their post-perihelion orbit could be slightly hyperbolic (>1) meaning they would be one-time visitors to the sun and ejected from the solar system.

    18. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      I'm still not getting your point.

      the eccentricity of the orbit depends, in part, on the object's velocity.

      That's .... well, a ... tautology would be a polite way of putting it. Since orbits are all about the interplay of velocity with position and gravity field. Of course, the velocity varies somewhat between periapse and apoapse - if the latter has any meaning. Actually, reading up on the messages announcing the realisation of the importance of 'Oumuamua, the humans who looked at the machine-generated orbital solutions paid more attention to the V_inf (velocity at infinite range - velocity at apoapse for a hyperbolic orbit) as more indicative of an interstellar origin than the eccentricity. Several examples were discussed of records of objects of undisputed solar system origin being ejected on hyperbolic orbits (after interacting with Jupiter.

      Given that TFS states (wrongly) that there were at least 100 comets in parabolic orbits

      No it doesn't - and I wrote the damned summary, not just copy-pasting the article from some pre-digested pap website. I quote the paper about the assumption of parabolic orbits for hundreds of comets since the 1950s, and the context of that has the clear expectation (written by the paper's authors, not me) that at least some of these parabolic solutions would be found to be wrong, or at least, unjustifiable with today's better computational tools.

      Now, of course, I know that TFS misquoted the paper,

      Go to the paper - the published PDF, not just the abstract. Page 1, section 1, paragraph 1. Compare the paper with my alleged misquote. How have I misrepresented the authors?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:Too many parabolic orbits by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      TFS says that over a hundred comets are traveling in parabolic orbits, implying that they're all moving at escape velocity, the most common term for the concept. Another poster in this thread explains that the paper says nearly parabolic, meaning that they're moving slightly faster than needed to continue back into interstellar space and never be seen again, which sounds much more reasonable because it suggests a range of speeds, not one specific one. If you wrote TFS and left that word out, I wouldn't be bragging about it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  6. Thought Experiment: I3 Anti Particle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.
    This one takes you through anti-particles as dipole donuts with a differing spin mode.

    --------------------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I: Donut Particles
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles, are hoops of dipoles
    Postulate I2: A Donut particle is itself a big dipole
    Postulate I3: An anti-particle has opposing spins
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J:
    Postulate J2:
    Postulate K: Why does gravity propagate faster than C?
    Postulate L:

    ----------
    Postulate I3: Anti-particle is Particle with a counter phase spin

    Consider the donut particle.

    Note we have two spins here, the dipole spin (across the section donut), and the phase change spin (circling around the donut

    circumference).
    Cut the donut in half and orientate it so the phase change spin exits the right side and enters the left side...
    Now look at which way the dipoles in cross-section are spinning,

    up-in-the-middle = particle,
    down-in-the-middle = anti-particle.

    So particles can have the same spin frequency, and be dipolar and try to bind together.
    They orient themselves so their spins are in phase and move together.

    Both donuts have the phase-spin exiting at the right and entering at the left side.
    They spin in phase and in the correct direction, and can merge (overlap)...

    *But*, the dipoles inside the donut1 are up-in-the-middle, and the dipoles making up donut2 are down-in-the-middle. Oops.

    THEY HAVE OPPOSING SPINS... the closing spin rate is 2F, which is lights spin rate.
    The particle collapses into a cloud of spinning dipoles and flies off as light, aka the photon from Postulate A.

    This is why a particle and an anti-particle cancel out to form a dipole cloud.

    Side note:
    The donuts don't need to be the same size, the remaining donut is the difference between donut1 and donut2, or donut1+donut2
    depending on whether they are both of the same spin type or are from different spin types.

    This is how donuts grow or shrink till they propagate an {elliptical spin} of some multiple of F.

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12870718&cid=57604074
    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478
    Postulate E & E2: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615516
    Postulate F: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615700
    Postulate G: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615906
    Postulate H: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57616274
    Postulate I1: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620872
    Postulate I2: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620930

  7. No momentum at C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming we invent some sort of magic warp engine that can take us across interstellar space... flying at C.

    It's the model of matter and light I'm pushing out (my Thought Experiments)

    There's no momentum at C, it's like being stationary at 0.

    Speed of light is W, dipoles spin at frequency F, W is the length of the wave they trace out in one spin.
    Light spins at 2F and travels at W per spin. So its tracing out a wave of 1W long... the same as matter.

    Momentum is trivial to understand

    A thing moving has velocity and is bound to the matter of the earth at harmonic 1:1
    To slow it down, you have to act against that binding force.
    i.e. you need to put energy in to slow it down. i.e. this is where momentum comes from.

    Momentum is you working against the binding force. Which is why it takes energy!

    C is the same as zero, its like standing still. There is no momentum at C, 2C, 3C, 4C

  8. Re:weird measurements by RockDoctor · · Score: 3
    I take it that you didn't actually read the fucking paper? They're fully aware that the data set is poor. But that doesn't mean that the data is invalid. You might, for example, have done the two bouts of observation on either side of a large lump (but still too small to show up in the telescopes) falling off from a rotating and warming up body. There isn't enough data to decide, and there never will be. Which is the reason for stressing the need for prompt reporting of orbits and the prompt targeting of unusual orbits for additional follow-up.

    No wonder you're an AC. I'd be ashamed to put my name to such an admission of incompetence.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. Thought Experiment I3, Bigger particles twist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.
    This one explains why all particles must be waves of multiples of F, and why they're special sizes.
    We're getting there. K deals with how gravity propagates through space. But I need to get you through light and diffraction first.

    --------------------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles
    Postulate I2: Donut Particles are themselves dipoles
    Postulate I3: Anti-particles
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J:
    Postulate J2:
    Postulate K: Why does gravity propagate faster than C?
    Postulate L:

    ----------

    Postulate I4: Big particles twist on themselves, twists are Prime numbers?

    You have a donut, made of dipoles, that itself behaves like a big dipole. (Postulate I2)
    And that donut has a twist travelling around it at frequency F, 2F, 3F, depending on size.

    Dipoles spinning at F attract dipoles at F..... including themselves.

    In other words, larger donut particles, (e.g. propagating a phase change spin of 10F, 11F, 12F) can twist on themselves.

    When they twist, there is the more complex {spin spin} induced, with another spin component (at frequency FD2)
    Given the correct topolgy the donut can break and reform into two separate donuts to remove that FD2 component of the spin.

    -------

    Unproven hypothesis: The donuts must be some magic (Prime??) multiple of F

    You can make every donut from frequency 1F, 2F, 3F.... to frequency nF
    But not every value of n can be made before it twists and breaks into smaller donuts.

    e.g. 1F, 2F, 3F, 5F, 7F.... i.e. the lower prime numbers

    I think that for a particle to stay together the FD2 component must be less than the {ellipse spin} component.
    Otherwise the FD2 spin component can twist it apart (acting against the elliptical spin twist).

    I think a 1F cannot twist on itself at all.
    I think 2F twisted on itself is 1F+1F and 1F is too tight a twist, and stays together
    I think 3F cannot twist apart because 2F+1F again has a 1F twist which it too tight.
    I think at 4F, breaks into two parts, because FD2 component is equal to {ellipse spin} component to become 2F+2F
    I think at 5F, thats a double twist at 1F+2F+3F and doesn't break because again it contains a 1F.

    At some point the twisted hoops become twisted-twisted hoops double twisting on themselves. This is where I think it happens.

    I think at 6F, that's 2x(2F+1F), i.e. its a twist of a 3F twist. This breaks in two 3Fs.
    I think at 7F, that's a triple twist at 2F+2F+2F+1F, and stays together because the 1F twist is too tight.

    Because 8F as a triple twist of 2F+2F+2F+2F, but you could do that with a lesser FD2 spin component by 2x(2F+2F)
    i.e. a twist in a donut that is then twisted over again.

    So 8F breaks into (4F + 4F) which in turn breaks into (2F+2F)+(2F+2F), breaking at the double twist, then at the inner twist.

    9F = is 3x(2F+1F), so it breaks into three lots of (3F+3F+3F)
    10F = 2x(1F+2F+3F), it can be double twisted, so it breaks into (5F+5F) at the double twist

    and so on....

    In other words, multiples of the prime numbers are particles, 1F, 2F, 3F, 5F, 7F...
    At other sizes the particles can twist on themselves and break apart into smaller hoops.
    (These happen to be prime numbers, but I think that's coinincidence.)

    -------------

    Summary of I1 to I4:

    A big particle behaves like a big strong dipole.
    Matter is made of these.

    An anti-particle is a donut with an opposing twist spin.

    Big dipoles merge

  10. Getting to 1C is a lot easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do it everyday when you turn on a torch, you turn stationary matter dipoles into light dipoles travelling at C.

    i.e. Light is a spinning dipole with kinetic energy. It binds to the matter around it via dipoles spinning. Which is harmonic. Light spins twice for each spin of a matter dipole. A dipole traces out a wave of length W. Light travels at W per spin (= the speed of light), and traces out 2 waves, each of length W.

    It binds to matter because it is at the resonant wave frequency just like matter.

    To turn light into matter, absorb it into something (a black body), it now spins at 1F and stationary and becomes part of the matter.

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I: Donut Particles
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles, are hoops of dipoles
    Postulate I2: A Donut particle is itself a big dipole
    Postulate I3: An anti-particle has opposing spins
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J:
    Postulate J2:
    Postulate K: Why does gravity propagate faster than C?
    Postulate L:

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12870718&cid=57604074
    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478
    Postulate E & E2: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615516
    Postulate F: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615700
    Postulate G: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615906
    Postulate H: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57616274
    Postulate I1: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620872
    Postulate I2: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620930

  11. Note something here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have two dipoles with opposing spins trying to merge. Each spins at F, the magic resonance frequency for the universe.

    Their spins are counter spins, the closing spin is 2F.

    Each is made of two monopoles, the fundamental particles from postulate D.
    +ve from dipole 1, forms a new dipole with -ve from dipole 2.
    -ve from dipole 1, forms a new dipole with +ve from dipole 2.

    i.e. they form two dipoles at spin 2F by exchanging their spin partner.

    To trace out a wave of length W, the same as everything else in the universe, and the same as the matter they are binding to, means they have to travel at velocity 1W per spin. Which is the speed of light, which is why they shoot off as photon dipoles at the speed of light.

    That's how simple everything is.
    We can travel at the speed of light, its almost trivial to do so.

    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478

  12. Thought Experiment J2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets skip J1 for the moment, I can explain diffraction with easier to understand language I think. I'll reword it.

    This is J2, it explain why light travels at C relative to the observer via the binding wave between it and the matter around it.
    It also explains why light bends in glass, and around planets, and around slits in a slit experiment.

    --------------------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: The spin of light is along the vector of travel
    Postulate I: Everything is just spinning massless dipoles
    Postulate J: Diffraction is just net binding effects
    Postulate J2: Gravitational lensing is just diffraction
    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?
    Postulate L:

    ---------------
    Postulate J2: Gravitational lensing is just diffraction

    I've posted this before, its an explanation of why Gravitational lensing is really just binding in the same way diffraction is. But it's worth a re-read at this point

    Hypothesis:
    Light passes through the vacuum *between* atoms, interacting with the fields of the atoms only.

    Justification:
    Diffraction does not depend on thickness of glass. If it was bent by the interact with atoms,
    the thicker the glass the more it would bend because the more interactions would happen. There would be zero bending in thin glass,
    and lots of bending in thick glass. Instead of the observed constant bending.

    Hypothesis:
    The velocity of the light is relative to the glass. Not absolute. If the glass is in motion, and the slower velocity is, for example, 0.9C then its always 0.9C RELATIVE TO THE GLASS its moving through.

    Justification:
    If the glass was SLOWING DOWN the light, the longer it travelled in the glass the slower it would be.
    So the glass *sets* the velocity of light at this slower value by interaction with the field, and must be relative to the glass
    since the field of the atoms move relative to the glass.

    Hypothesis:
    The glass is not bending space and time.

    Justification:
    There is no correlation between the tiny piece of glass and the amount of slowing/bending.

    Hypothesis:
    There is no difference in principle between light travelling through the vacuum between atoms in the glass, and between
    the vacuum in a measuring equipment, and the vacuum between planets.

    Justification:
    A vacuum surround by matter is a vacuum surrounded by matter. The light is not sentient and cannot tell the difference.

    Conclusion:
    So light's velocity is set by its interaction with the matter around the detection equipment.
    NOT by bending space and time. In the same way it is during diffractions (and other events where it passes through a vacuum past some matter, e.g. slits, single edge slits in a vacuum etc.). They are all the same mechanism.

    Experiment:
    If the light's velocity is relative to the glass as it travels through the glass, you can send a piece of glass with velocity measuring experiment hurtling through space and measure the speed of light as it travels through the glass. The velocity
    will be relative to the glass not to us.

    To wrap up:
    The lights velocity is a function of its interaction with the matter around it.
    The speed of light is always RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER whose matter it is interacting with, because the interaction is setting
    the velocity. None of the above needs you to believe my dipole model, it's all self contained thought experiment+ testable.

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.p

  13. Miss it? by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    Yes, I do recall a sort of emptiness and longing as it swooshed by.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. Thought Experiment J0, light binds to matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A thought experiment

    OK, lets break J into two parts. First this one explains how light binds to the matter it is travelling past via its wavelength.

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.

    --------------------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles
    Postulate I2: Donut Particles are themselves dipoles
    Postulate I3: Anti-particles
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J0: How light binds to matter
    Postulate J2:Gravitational lensing is just diffraction
    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?
    Postulate L:

    ----------

    Postulate J0: How light binds to matter

    Case 1:
    Imagine a flat surface with a wave of W propagating in the X and Y axis like ripples in a pond.
    Consider light spinning at 2F, velocity W per spin, also tracing out a wave of length W.
    The light dipoles are flying over this surface.
    The light is travelling along the X axis, and lines up nicely with the the matter wave.
    It is travelling with the opposite phase to the matter wave.
    It will be attracted (its +ve is the -ve of the matter wave), and will be pulled and crash into the surface.
    i.e. it will bend and crash into the pond.

    Case 2:
    Now consider the same wave travelling along the X axis, but with a different phase.
    The light is oscillating up and down, in {basic spin} tracing out its wavelength of W.
    The difference in phase between the light wave and the matter wave, results in a spin normal to the direction of travel.
    Which turns the lights spin from {basic spin} into {elliptical spin}.
    Which shifts the phase of the light by moving it left or right (a component of the spin becomes normal to the direction
    of travel causing the light to move left right till it travels along an X path that is in phase.
    So again, it binds to the matter and crashed into the surface of the pond.

    Case 3:
    Now consider this same wave travelling along a diagonal over the matter.
    The wave length along this diagonal is across a ripple.... surely that isn't the same wave length?
    It *is* the same wavelength. It's the same wavelength with a phase shift spin!
    The matter below has a phase shift spin resulting from the X wave and Y wave merging!
    i.e. we have Case 2 again, all that happens is light experiences a phase shift spin, and shifts left or right
    and crashes into the surface again.

    In other words, the binding of light to matter is what bends it.
    When light travels through glass, it jiggles left and right as it experience phase spins, but its always bound to the glass around it.

    Diffraction is bending from the bind wave, so is gravitational lensings, it all the binding wave.

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12870718&cid=57604074
    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478
    Postulate E & E2: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615516
    Postulate F: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615700
    Postulate G: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615906
    Postulate H: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57616274
    Postulate I1: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620872
    Postu

  15. Think of an elastic band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twist an elastic band and the more you twist it, the more it double and triple twists.

    In that case, the elastic band is rubber, and rubber is bound together at string Rubber_bind_force
    The twisting force you're applying is twisting_force

    The elastic band stays in one piece as long as Rubber_bind_force> twisting_force, as long as the rubber is stronger than the twist it won't break apart.

    In the dipole model, the force holding the dipoles together is the same as the force causing the twist. i.e. twisting_force = Rubber_bind_force

    So here, given the correct topology, these hoop/donut rubber band particles twist and break apart.

    Which is why particles are this magic prime number of multiples of F, the universal resonant frequency from which the speed of light and time come from.
    (Postulate F & Postulate G).

  16. Thought Experiment K, how do force propagate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.

    This explains why forces appear to propagate at the speed of light, and how force propagate through space with almost no dipoles, also at the speed of light.

    I'm probably at my posting limit for an AC now. So I'll leave the Warp drive, faster than light computer, time machine, etc, explanations till later.
    I've already covered them, and probably been modded down to -1.

    It is what it is.

    --------------------
    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles
    Postulate I2: Donut Particles are themselves dipoles
    Postulate I3: Anti-particles
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J0: How light binds to matter
    Postulate J2: Gravitational lensing is just diffraction
    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?
    Postulate L: Warp speed, Time machine, Fast than light computer

    ---------------------

    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?

    There is only one force, electric, and it propagates at infinity. From Postulate E2.

    When it travels through dipole wave stuff, it slows to C.

    Think of four dipoles d1, d2, d3, d4, they form points along the wave. d1 phase = 0, d2= 90, d4=180, d4=270 degrees phase

    I apply a phase change to d1 instantly, now d1 is phase 30 degrees.
    The force from the phase change of d1 instantly propagates to d2, it feels the electric force immediately.
    (Because the force is electric and it propagates at infinity).

    d2 is at 90, it needs to be at phase 120 degrees to account for the change I made to d1.
    At 90 degrees it applies no force to d3.
    At 91 degrees it applies a tiny tiny force to d3.
    At 92 degrees it applies a slightly bigger force to d3.
    It's only when its completed the 30 degree phase spin, that its applying the full effect of the change of D1 onto D3.

    Likewise D3 propagates the force onto D4 taking a quarter spin the process.

    Spins are time, from Postulate G.

    Which is why forces that propagate through dipole matter do so at the speed of light. Its the linkage between the two.
    (Speed of propagation of forces through matter, and speed of light).

    ----------
    Gravity propagates through dipoles

    Gravity propagates through dipoles interaction, gravity is the same wave binding force I've talked about endlessly.
    It's the same thing.

    In matter it is easy to understand, it propagates at C, just as other effects of electric force propagate at C, above.

    In space it propagates through dipoles in space.

    What if there are not enough dipoles in space, what happens?

    Imagine 4 dipoles d1,d2,d3,d4, further apart than W, the universal wave length we're propagating over.

    d1 is phase 0, wave front 0
    d2 is phase 30 wave front 1
    d3 is phase 60 on wave front 2
    d4 is phase 90 on wave front 3

    I apply a phase shift of 30 degrees to d1.
    Which pushes d2.
    D2 pushes d3, 0, 1,2,...degrees, as it spins.
    d3 experiences the force propagating at C exactly the same.

    IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THIN THE MATTER IS. Space is just really really thin matter.

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12870718&cid=57604074
    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478
    Postulate E & E2: https://hardware.sl

  17. Consider the special case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I forgot this case:

    Dipoles d1, d2,d3,d4 are more than 1 wavelength apart.

    Now we're skipping wavelengths, the force is no longer propagating at phase_change per spin.

    So gravity through space must be faster than C if the dipole stuff is really thin.

    I know you have a gravity wave experiment showing it travelling at C, but I assume you've done some 'relativity' fixup there. Which is unnecessary. Space doesn't bend, from Postulate J2.

  18. Fourier is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider the pond ripple again. Draw a long line across the pond, any direction, any position.

    Draw the wave. It doesn't look like a wave with a Wavelength of W, but it really is.
    Run the wave through a Fourier analysis, see the W wave component and the none-zero phase component?!

    It's difficult to visualize, but its easier if you've ever done wave analysis.

    You are a bunch of dipoles spinning along at frequency F. All the matter around you is also the same. Dipoles spinning at F.
    Light is dipoles spinning at 2F.
    As you walk, your dipoles are phase shifting, i.e. the binding to the matter around you induces a phase spin in your dipoles.
    All Newtonian mechanics that you know is the result of the energy put into that phase shift. NOT MASS.

  19. Thought Experient J1, Slit is a phase sorter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.

    This one takes you through the what happens in the two slit experiment, and begins the explanation of charged dipole particles like
    electrons and why an electron cannot be a fundamental particle..... J3 deals with what an electron actually is and why it can bind with energy levels.

    --------------------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles
    Postulate I2: Donut Particles are themselves dipoles
    Postulate I3: Anti-particles
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J0: How light binds to matter
    Postulate J1: A Slit is a phase sorter
    Postulate J2: Gravitational lensing is just diffraction
    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?
    Postulate L:

    ----------

    Postulate J1: A slit sorts by phase

    Imagine two flat surfaces making a slit, on on the left and one on the right, with light dipoles travelling between this slit.

    The surfaces are propagating waves at W in X and Y axis along their surface, where the X and Y wave components re-infornce, you get an oscillation left-right, where they cancel, you get a flat spin (like a CD spinning, aka {elliptical spin}).

    The light dipoles experience a net phase from the left plate and the right plate. The dipoles making up the light are bound to the surface at left and right.

    Our light dipoles are spinning at 2F, and travelling at W per spin (the speed of light), so light is propagating the same wavelength W. The phase difference between the two plates and the light causes a spin component left or right, nearer the left plate or right plate.

    As the light spins, it moves left or right depending on this lateral phase shift component (lateral between the plates), the spin moves it a little left or right because there is a component of the spin due to the binding to the plates.

    As it moves through the slit it jiggles left and right as its phase shifts to compensate for the effect of the phase of the matter either side.
    In other words the slit induces a phase in the dipoles and also sorts by this lateral phase component as the light moves through the slit. Shifting the light left or right.

    As light's dipoles exits the slit, the last phase it had, matches the last left-right position it had.....

    Now the edges of the slit, splay out the dipoles and you have an interference pattern based on this lateral phase component.

    It's that simple.

    -------
    Dipoles going through two slits

    This shouldn't be a surprise, but a photon is a cloud of dipoles, so light's dipoles go through both slits. A photon is a cloud of coherent dipoles, it is not
    a single wave or single packet. It just splits and goes through both slits. Nothing magic.

    Each slit sorts the dipoles by phase, and they cross over and interfere at the exit.

    Interference is the net phase shift lateral to the slit between the dipoles leaving each slit.

    The reason you detect a photon or not, is because you are using an electronic detector that can only see photons if it promotes an electron to a higher energy level. If the phase shift isn't enough to shift a spinning electron up to the next level, the electron does not get promoted and no dipoles are detected.

    -------
    Electrons are dipolar too.

    If the dipoles can induce electrons to move phase, then electrons must be dipolar. They are donuts. But what type?

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&

  20. vs Standard Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Standard model has electrons as a fundamental particle, but if you can induce a phase shift, it cannot be true.

    To have wave properties it must be dipolar, and to have a charge it must have a captured monopole.

    J3 explains what it is and why it is and where its energy level comes from. And as a side effects also describes the Positron.

    Also J1 breaks the 'photon as a single particle' basis for the Standard model. But we've already created photons as coherent clouds of spinning dipoles in I3 (the particle, anti-particle thought experiment), and already postulated that there can only be 2 particles if there is no mass, in Postulate C. So this should not be a surprise.

  21. Though Experiment J3, Electron is donut sandwich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've missed any, please step back and read the earlier ones first.

    An electron must be a dipole donut because it has a wave, and you can move it with a phase change. So there must be spin.
    And it must have a capture monopole, and there must be a balance of forces.....

    -----------

    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate A: Mass isn't real
    Postulate B: the energy in light is also 'kinetic'
    Postulate C: Light bind force must be cyclical
    Postulate D: only 2 fundamental particles are possible
    Postulate E: the only force is electric
    Postulate E2: The binding force (Postulate C) is electric
    POSTULATE F: The speed of light is obvious
    POSTULATE G: Time is measured in spins
    POSTULATE H: All dipoles are equal, matter,even red and blue light
    Postulate I1: Donut Particles
    Postulate I2: Donut Particles are themselves dipoles
    Postulate I3: Anti-particles
    Postulate I4: Bigger particles twist and break
    Postulate J0: How light binds to matter
    Postulate J1: A Slit is a phase sorter
    Postulate J2: Gravitational lensing is just diffraction
    Postulate J3: Electron is a Donut Sandwich
    Postulate K: How fast do forces propagate?
    Postulate L:

    ----------

    Postulate J3: Electron is a Donut Sandwich

    If Postulate J1 is true, then an electron has a wave component and must therefore be dipolar.
    If it didn't have the wave component, then you could not induce a phase shift in it, and so light dipoles could not promote an electron through energy levels.

    It must a donut, but what type?

    Consider I4, our donuts must be prime number in size, 1F, 2F, 3F, 5F, 7F....

    And if the electron isn't ejected, it must have symmetry in all axis. Only 2F can ever provide symmetry, and then only across a plane. There are no other symmetric planar particles.

    A single donut will not work, how would we get symmetry in the up-down axis if 2F can only provide planar symmetry?

    Re-examine I3, the anti-donut.

    An electron is a sandwich comprising, 2F donut, captured -ve monopole, and 2F anti-donut.
    The captured monopole keeps the donut sandwich from collapsing. It keeps the donut and anti-donut apart.

    Cut a donut in half and orientate it so the phase change spin exits the right side and enters the left side...
    Now look at which way the dipoles in cross-section are spinning,

    up-in-the-middle = particle,
    down-in-the-middle = anti-particle.

    Layer the 2F donut on the bottom, on top of that a captured -ve monopole, ontop of that a 2F anti-donut.

    The donut and anti-donut try to bind together, based on their phase spins around the circumference.

    The 'up-in-the-middle- donut' tries to push the electron upwards, pushing itself down and away from the anti-donut in the process.
    The 'down-in-the-middle-donut' tries to push the electron downwards, pushing itself up and away from the donut that forms the base of our sandwich.

    A positron is identical, it just has a +ve captured monopole instead of a -ve captured monopole.

    Postulate A: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12866516&cid=57598384
    Postulate B: https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12869268&cid=57599376
    Postulate C: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12870718&cid=57604074
    Postulate D: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615478
    Postulate E & E2: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615516
    Postulate F: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615700
    Postulate G: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57615906
    Postulate H: https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12877158&cid=57616274
    Postulate I1: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620872
    Postulate I2: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=57620930
    Postulate I2: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12881348&cid=5

  22. 2F is key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consider this for a second, there is a stable sandwich of anti and normal donut, a push and pull.

    And this sandwich has a definite orientation.

    If the nucleus is also some sandwich, then there are combinations of pushes and pulls for any atom that
    constitute all the energy levels of an atom. And the orientation of the electron relative to that must be fixed.

    Once an electron is in place, the force that took it there is zero, so the next electron cannot then bind at that place. Pauli's exclusion principle is hiding a very simple effect from electric forces.

    2F is the only even donut particle, if the particles have to propagate waves of multiples of F, and those numbers have to be prime, there is no other particle it could ever be. because none of them could ever by symmetric.

    This is also true for a proton. A proton must be a sandwich which, has a middle layer of a 2F donut and a 2F anti-donut. And it too must be symmetrical.
    This sandwich will also have energy levels. Since it must be symmetric along the z axis, that limits what the layers of the nucleus sandwich can be.

  23. IMPERSONATING me AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Hope you're RIGHT (considering I'm only sure hosts stop portsmash vs. Spectre/Meltdown) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    I pity c6gunner caught impersonating me (his name's the submitter signing "APK") https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    * He tried to INSULT me & so I made him a COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE he couldn't meet or beat by showing me he's done better work in the past prior to his impersonating me there.

    (You shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house boys - especially vs. me: RIGHT, ZIP? https://developers.slashdot.or... )

    APK

    P.S.=> Hosts stop portsmash (by blocking download sources of its mailcious exes doing it) https://it.slashdot.org/commen... not Spectre/Meltdown AFAIK @ least - & YOU FAIL THIS PORTFILTERING TEST liar https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... (my program won't allow that error) so cut your lies as you IMPERSONATE me you pitiful loser... apk