"Gees, 'louise'!", I was just going to
post an addendum to my preceding
discussion in this thread, but, while
rereading that prior discussion to find
the right place for the addendum, I
saw that I'd 'written' it in my usual
"reckless" way, only moreso.
It's worthy of better-than-that, so I'll
fix the typos and "drop-outs" [which
occurred to the degree that they did
because I was supposed to be getting
ready to go to work while I dashed-
off the post. [Otherwise, I'd've proof-
read this particular msg prior to post-
ing it. It's "Important".] That, and that
my 'heart' was still aching because of
the 'Difficult stuff' I had to discuss in
the other msg I posted earlier this 'day'.
I'll never be "comfortable" pushing-
energy in that way, and 'die' a little-
bit-more whenever it becomes Nec-
essary for me to do so. [I'll not Fail
to do so while Life remains in-me,
however.] So the 2nd post, quoted,
and fixed, below, was written in the
midst of my "Mourning" the little-
'dying' that I'd just had to endure. [It's
'pretty'-much the same =always=,
no matter what I'm discussing. Al-
ways 'dying' because I understand
the Consequences of my "being-on-
the-other-'side' of the understanding
with which others are not, yet, 'familiar'
-- and my "recklessness" is 'just' my
trying to do what Needs to be done,
Anyway, I'll fix the post, and insert
the addendum, below. [I =have to=
do the former because I screwed-up
my 'quoting' of Dr. Gamow.]
"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1UJne.879080$w62.746922 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| It's not what I was looking-for [and
| have found], but in my reading of
| the Gamow Book [Excellent!] that
| I referenced in another recent post,
| I came across Gamow's "enticing"
| discussion of the so-called "fine
| structure constant", and, although
| I'm going to take a side-trip into
| further reading with respect to it,
| I've Resolved it's 'mystery'.
|| Quoting from Gamow [p.324, first
| Published in 1961.]
|| "Let us take the elementary charge
| e, for example. It is known that e ^ 2
| divided by the product of the velocity
| of light c and the quantum constant h
| is a pure number or a dimensionless
| constant, which means that no matter
| whether we express e, c, and h in
| centimeter-gram-second units, in inch-
| pound-hour units, or in any other
| units (provided they are used consist-
| ently), this ratio remains the same.
| This ratio is known as the 'fine struc-
| ture constant' because it emerges in
| the description of the splitting of the
| Balmer series lines into several very
| close components, and it's numerical
| value is given by 1 divided by 137 [*].
| Why 137, and not 75 or 533? In phys-
| ical formulas numerical coefficients
| always have some mathematical mean-
| ing. For example, if one studies the
| relation between the period T of a
| pendulum, its length l, and the accel-
| eration of gravity g, no matter which
| units one uses one always comes to
| the formula:
|| T = 6.283 SQR( l / g )
|| What is this number 6.283? Well, if
| one tries to correlate it with various
| numbers known in mathematics, one
| finds that it is actually 2 * pi. And in-
| deed, using the equations of theoret-
| ical mechanics for the derivation of
| the formula, we find that the coeffic-
| ient =must= be 2 * pi. [which just
| states that the pendulum's motion is
| always periodic, like the motion of
| a 'point' on the circumference of a
as it continuously moves on that circ-
umference -- it arives at the same
"place" on the circumference at 2 x pi
| ] Similarly, deriving an expres-
| sion for elementary charge [**]
| by using the equations of relativ-
| istic quantum theory which contain
| the constants c and h, one should be
| able to come to a conclusion that
| the ratio (h * c) / (e ^ 2) (inverse
| fine structure constant) is given by
| a certain mathematical expression
| which is numerically equal to 137. [*]
| But, nobdy knows at present [~1961]
| =how= to develop such a theory, and,
| whereas it is not difficult to guess that
| 6.283 is 2 x 3.14 ..., it is much more
| difficult to guess what kind of animal
| the number 137 [*] is!"
|| Lord! What a Beautifully-written
| passage! [I encourage folks to pur-
| chase a copy of this Book -- $8.95
| from the Dover Press [at least
| when I purchased my copy 'decades'
| ago. I only got around to reading it
| 'now' -- be-cause I had to put-down
| my reading in Science to work to
| get NDT's stuff across to folks.]
|| The Book is Brilliantly-Written. [I
| mean, it's totally-accessible. No mean
| feat, given that it's a Book covering
| the History of Physics. Way to Go!
| Dr. Gamow.]
|| * The best value that I've found for
| the "fine structure constant" in the refs
| I've on-hand is 1 / 137.0360 .
|| ** I did this in my discussion of the
| "photoelectric effect", earlier this
And that former discussion is =Nec-
essary= for the comprehension of the
stuff [continuous wave dynamics that,
nevertheless, manifest "structure"] that
I'm discussing in this post.
| Funny story -- back in the early 1990's,
| in discussions posted in Compuserve's
| "Science Forum" in reply to my discus-
| sions of "Tapered Harmony", the "fine
| structure constant" was brought-up, in
| queries to me, but I could say nothing
| because I'd never before encountered
| =the words= "fine structure constant".
| [I was working at the 'level' of the ex-
| periments upon which "quantum mech-
| anics" was founded, wanting only to
| Correct the Error upon which qm was
| founded. So I was focused on that
| Foundation stuff, leaving higher-'level'
| study to "sometime in the future".
|| What's funny is that I'd, already resolved
| the =Nature= of the "fine structure con-
[before the CSi "Science Forum" discus-
sions took place, but I didn't understand
what folks were asking of me in those
discussions -- "language"-interface differ-
| I became able to "translate" between my
| own work and the standard view only
| after reading Dr. Gamow's Excellent
| Book :-]
|| I'll, briefly, reiterate the significant stuff
| in the remainder of this post. ["Reiterate",
| because, in long-former posts, I've al-
ready reiteratively discussed all that's
| 1. The splitting of the spectral lines that's
| correlated to what's been referred to
| as the "fine structure constant" is due,
| =solely= to the wave dynamic that's
| set-up within an SSW<->UES harm-
| onic [within an 'atom'] when the 'atom'
| is subjected to a "magnetic field".
|| 2. "Magnetic fields" are =just= locally-
| Directed UES-flows.
[Lengthy long-former, reiterative dis-
cussion that I can reiterate, again, if
folks don't have access to it. [I don't
think it's within Google's [tm] news-
group "cut-off" date.]
| 3. When such a local UES-flow en-
| couters an SSW<->UES harmonic,
| those harmonics alter in a way that Rig-
| orously-reflects it's intermingling with
| that locally-Directed UES-flow
which is what "magnetism" physically is.
| [Remember that it's the action of the UES
| [the Universal Energy Supply; "aether"-
| like =energy= that =flows= in Rigorous
| accord with the one-way flow of energy,
| from order
|, that is what's =described=
| by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T] throughout
| the Universe.] So the harmonics behave
| in a way that's =Exactly= analogous to
| waves in an ocean -- having amplitude
| and period that's Determined by their
| local flow of energy. [You can see the
| same-stuff by gently rocking a cookie
| sheet with a quarter inch of water in it.]
I insert a better analogue below.
| What happens is that the locally-Directed
| energy-flow that is what the "magnetic
| field" is, exhibits physical inertia that's
| reflected in a distortion of the SSW<->
| UES harmonics in an "inertial" way.
|| The "splitting" of the spectral lines act-
| ually constitutes a sub-harmonic that's
| =Exactly= like the SSW<->UES
| harmonics, including the 'trapping' and
| 'holding' of energy in 'confined' regions
| of 3-D space.
=except= for the Geometries inherent.
The "fine structure" stuff occurs, relatively-
locally, within an 'atom' [within an SSW
<->UES harmonic] in the realm of the
"shelling nonlinearity" that I discussed in
my "photoelectric effect" posts. So, while
it's Geometry is biased with respect to
Spherical Geometry, it's only a partial
"spherical Geometry", and, for the pur-
pose of this initial discussion, can be
treated as being "planar" -- so folks'll
be able to See it.
| What the "split" spectral lines are are
| actually little pilings-up of energy that're
| 'maintained' by the local energy-flow
| that is what the "magnetic field" is.
[Here's the "addendum" that I wanted to
insert into the prior discussion:]
A better analogue of the locally-Directed
energy-flow that is what "magnetism" phys-
ically is can be seen on any rainy 'day' if
one has a decently-paved street, with a
gentle incline, nearby [and one doesn't mind
getting wet :-]
As the rain-water flows, under the
'force' of what's been referred to as
"gravity", one observes it forming wave-
distributions that're =Exactly= analog-
ous to the "pilings-up" that I pointed-
out in my earlier 'version' of this post.
That is, variations in the flowing-rain-
water's height ["amplitude"] form rel-
atively "periodically" =BE-CAUSE=,
as the water flows, it alternates between
not being able to "get-out-of-it's-own-
way -- which results in its "piling-up" --
and flows of increased velocity that
result from the fact that the water's
"piling-up" establishes an augmented
energy-gradient that's "centered"-upon
the 'point' of maximum-amplitude, and
which act as "sources" of the higher-
It's =Extremely= -Simple, but it gives-
rise to Truly-Awesome "Complexity"
that can be observed in all instances
of the rain-water-flowing "experiment"
As a Young Child, I used to be so
fascinated by the obvious order in
such rain-water drainage, when it
was raining, I used to routinely walk
up the gentle incline that was on my
way home from Elementary School
=in the gutter= :-]
Racing little 'boats' [twigs and such]
through the miniature "rapids". So I
came to be =really= 'familiar' with
the "flowingnesses" inherent.
And, it's 'funny', here I am Seeing
the same-stuff within 'the atom'.
[Still [fascinated] after all these years",
and "tak[ng] it to the limit one more
time" [The Eagles]].
I Encourage folks to do the "experi-
ment" -- preferably, with your Young
Child at your side. "Race" some
'boats', and have Fun, but pay atten-
tion to the flowingnesses -- the "wave
dynamics" -- the "pilings-up", -- the
velocity-gradients -- etc.
And you'll literally See the 'atomic'
wave dynamics that I've discussed
above -- I mean, you'll literally See
the "splittings" altering in Rigorous
accord with flow-rates' alterings.
The UES-flow? Same-old, same-old,
only, in the case of the locally-Dir-
ected UES-flow that is what "magnet-
ism" physically is [and which is the
analogue of the continuous-flowing
of the rain-water, above], one can
Calculate all manner of stuff in Physics.
Like "ephemerance" [energy's freedom
to move], and how all of the so-called
"physical constants" all derive, Rigorous-
ly, in it, and how and why it all traces-
back, also Rigorously, to WDB2T.
You see, the "pilings-up" have disting-
uishable "mass" -- just as the "pilings-
up" of the rain water do -- and, from,
that, =Everything= else within physical
reality becomes 'easily'-Calculable.
It's all 'just' the One, Continuous energy-
flow that is WDB2T. [I long ago discus-
sed 'gravity', and how it reduces directly
to WDB2T via differential flow-orders
into, and out-of, the SSW<->UES harm-
onics. If anyone wants what's 'gravity'
reiterated, I'll do that too.]
|| So what the so-called "fine structure
| constant" is is a "weighing" of the in-
| ertia inherent in the intermingled ["en-
| tangled" :-] UES-flows, one Directed
| in Rigorous accord with the SSW<->
| UES harmonics [discussed ad nauseum
| in former posts] and 'the' other [there're
| myriad "other" energy-flows always acting
| Continuously upon 'atoms']
occurring in the locally-Directed UES-flow
that is what "magnetism" physically is --
in a way that's =Exactly= analogous to
the dynamics of the "rain-water's-flowing
| And this "weighing" is =NOT= "con-
| stant", but, rather, varies with Universal
| WDB2T [as do =ALL= so-called "con-
| stants" within physical reality] for the
| same Reason I've reiteratively-discussed
| with respect to 'the speed of light' --
| relative "ephemerance" [relative energy's
| freedom to move; roughly, relative energy-
| density, and how and why the energy-
| gradients, inherent, Direct the flow of
| energy at any 'point' in 3-D space.]]
|| So "1 / 137.0360" is, itself, only an
| "ephemerant". We 'see' it as "constant"
| only be-cause we haven't looked-at-it
| long enough. It alters, as do all of the
| so-called "physical constants", in Rig-
| orous accord with the variation of
| Universal WDB2T.
|| 4. If my PCs were not 'monitored',
| I'd write a little QBASIC[tm] app
| that'd Nail-down a =lot= of stuff that's
| Worthy of being-Nailed-down.
|| This's a =really-easy= calc that I've
| reiterated many 'times' in long-former
| posts here in b.n.
|| But I can See that it'd Unlock =every-
| thing= within physical reality.
|| So, if folks won't meet with me, in-
| person, I encourage folks to reread
| my long-former discussions of SSW
| 'containment', and to cross-correlate
| that stuff with what's above, and with
| ~"1 / 137.0360".
|| Can folks See it?
|| It Needs to be Done so folks'll have
| Reason to stop Ravaging one another
| [which folks do, in large part, be-cause
| of the sense-of-haphazardness" that's
| been Coerced upon them by The Error
| inherent in 'quantum mechanics' 'seeing
| randomness' when all there is within
| physical reality is =Continuous, Deter-
| ministic= energy-flowing.
|| Folks'll stop Killing one another
and otherwise Ravaging one another
| when they See how =everything= is
| Rigorously-Connected via this Contin-
| uous-Deterministic energy-flow.
|| Get it?
|| It makes no "sense" to Kill
or otherwise Ravage
| others because, in so doing, one Directs
| the energy-flow back-upon-one's-self, in
| commensurately-Injurious 'ways'.
|| You know -- "Do unto others as you'd
| have them do unto you" is in-Truth.
"The Golden Rule" in the context of "the
K. P. Collins