(Was just going to send this to answer your last letter, so this answers BOTH your letters. . . Zeus)

 

Milo,

I knew how non aligned vector waves were producing space between all these space resonances and that this space was being produced at a minimum where these vector waves could be aligned in phase whenever the closest sides of these resonances were going in phase (in the same direction) - like gears meshing.

I also knew that same frequency surroundings were involved and while no mathematical method was available to calculate this, an adaptation of Ampere's long wire law gave a suitable approximation, provided one completely forgot all present physics and simply saw force as Einstein saw it - a distortion of space-time.

But I did not know how time was produced until you showed me and I will be forever grateful to you for that.

For two entities to be on a Minkowsky light cone the scalar wave frequencies of BOTH must exactly match.

Now for the quantum numbers:

Quantum numbers are important because they represent the energy involved to change a position of something.

The quantum spin number of the neutron is not its actual spin - as we see spin in our world - but it is the energy involved in its change of orientation.

In fact when you see that Helium 2 holds to the fixed stars, this is telling you that the quarks inside each neutron are acting like tiny gyroscopes and holding each neutron to the fixed stars preventing it from actually spinning - in relation to the fixed stars - at all.

A thing that spins exerts vector forces along its spin axis.

Things like quarks and electrons, that spin, exert such vector forces not only along their spin axes but also between their closest sides and along their axes of precession. They do this by producing more or less space between them. Space, by the way, is frequency conscious.

You see a certain space because you are resonating at some quark-electron harmonic frequency.

Since the neutron is not really spinning we can plainly see that the quarks inside the neutron are binding with far away quarks on the fixed stars causing this resistance to change, or inertial mass, that we have.

So the neutron, itself is more or less out of the picture as far as vector forces are concerned and we can concentrate simply on both the electron and the quark.

The electron also has a quantum spin number, which in turn denotes the energy necessary to change its orientation from spin up to spin down. So it must also be offering a certain resistance to change or it also must have inertial qualities. But these inertial qualities are not at the quark spin frequency - our mass - but at the electron's spin frequency.

BUT since this is a quantum framed world, in which energy can neither be created nor destroyed but transferred in quanta, then the quantum frames from the quark realm - neutron - must exactly correlate and match the quantum frames in the electron's realm.

And they do.

This is the picture I was trying to get across to you.

Zeus



Milo Wolff <milo.wolff@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 06:14 America/Los_Angeles, Zeus wrote:

> I will never breathe a word to Murray Gell Mann that you called his
> quarks theoretical.
> He and I both know they are as real as we are and will, in fact, last
> longer than we will.
>
Zeus,

What is the meaning of 'real'' for a quark?
>

Milo

> "If at first, you don't succeed and try again, and again, and again.
> You probably don't understand the problem."