[Physics] Viscosity

[mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk]

Paul,

For a fuller explanation see my attached paper. But briefly – start with 
Planck volume of nothing. Split it into two spheres of Planck size. One 
has positive fundamental mass and positive fundamental charge – the 
positive ‘meon’. The other has negative fundamental mass and negative 
fundamental charge – the negative meon. When merged, as above which I 
call a zero-mass black hole (ZMBH), there is nothing observable outside 
their radius because they are particle and anti-particle. The meons are 
the only building blocks of everything and when they are vibrating 
together, rotating and moving are the universe itself. I call the ZMBHs 
the ‘background’ because every motion in non-QM environment moves 
through them and acts as a source of friction, which I term viscosity.

The motions of the ZMBHs occasionally cause a point where there is 
enough energy to separate one or more of them into meon pairs. On 
separating, each starts to spin (I call this twist to differentiate from 
what we call spin, explained below) and move. The twist generates 
one-sixth the electron charge. Depending on the screw orientation of the 
motion, the positive meon may generate positive or negative one-sixth 
the electron charge and the negative meon always generates the opposite 
so that the total electron charge generated is zero. The interaction of 
fundamental charges is the same as we observe, similar opposes and same 
attracts. The interaction of the fundamental masses is that same attract 
and opposites chase. The chasing is down to the meons trying to 
recombine but wanting to maintain separation. The result is that the 
unmerged pair will chase in one or other direction.

Each such unmerged pair will catch onto other such pairs and form chains 
that will eventually catch onto their own tails to form loops. Loops 
with three pairs are our fermions. Loops with other number pairs are 
dark matter. The rotational rate of the loop gives us the mass of the 
loop and its spin, both equal to ½ hw (although opposite in sign).
The anti-loop of a loop is simply where the meons in it are each 
twisting in the opposite direction and generating opposite charge. Where 
the loop is an electron, its anti-loop is a positron. Because there are 
more properties to mirror to reverse a particle to an anti-particle in a 
loop system, the anti-particle to a spin + ½ electron is a spin + ½ 
positron. So a photon is a perfect +1 spin particle/anti-particle 
system.

When defining what is matter and what anti-matter, the extra loop 
properties mean that the only difference between matter and anti-matter 
is its charge. So, as the photon shows, matter and antimatter do not 
annihilate on contact, but instead form neutral composites like photons, 
neutrons, atoms, compounds etc. So a battery is a mater – antimatter 
device.

Loops stack, like the photon, and can be longer like protons and 
neutrons. Replacing a muon loop in a neutron stack with a neutrino loop 
produces a proton and is the source of beta decay. Hit a nucleus with 
more neutrino of the right energy will increase the rate of decay. And 
because all of the particles in a loop, loop stack, nucleus etc are the 
meons, they can exist in a nucleus.

Hope that helps

Cheers
Mike









On 2020-05-03 14:39, Paul Stowe wrote:
> What is a loop?
> What differentiates it from a anti-loop?  What are they made of?
> Where do they come from?
> Finally what are all of their properties?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On May 3, 2020, at 5:46 AM, mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> Yes, very much so. I have not gone into detail in the emails here 
>> because it can put people off. In the 'background' as I call it, I 
>> include not just the original merged pairs of particle and 
>> anti-particle, but also the short stack of contra-rotating loop and 
>> anti-loop. This latter, which I call as zeron, is the basis of all 
>> 'pair creation' events. When a particle hits such a zeron (typically 
>> electron and positron) with the correct energy, it breaks the zeron 
>> into its separate electron and positron loops, which then try to 
>> recombine. The zerons exist at every point in space at every integer 
>> Planck radius. They are the source of the pressure that drives plates 
>> together when the plates do not allow the smaller ones to remain 
>> between them, giving a net lack of pressure - the Casimir effect. They 
>> are also the source of zero point energy since each loop has an energy 
>> of 1/2 hw, where w is the frequency/size of the loop.
>> 
>> In addition to the background are all the separate particles. So the 
>> masses of planets, atoms, photons etc. This is the local environment. 
>> Where there are lots of masses, the local environment is denser than 
>> where there are fewer masses.
>> 
>> What this means is that the viscosity at any point will depend on how 
>> much there is of the background and how much of the local environment. 
>> In 'empty' space there will be the same viscosity on average as, for 
>> example, a photon travels across a volume. So the photon will 
>> experience a loss of energy in overcoming the viscosity as it moves 
>> that is proportional to the distance it has travelled (very nearly). 
>> As the photon gets close to a denser local environment, it will have a 
>> lower number for its velocity (since there is more viscosity present), 
>> but that number will still be the local light speed. It will also be 
>> bent in its travels, for instance past the Sun, towards the greater 
>> density volume because of the differential effect of the viscosity 
>> density across each loop - which is maybe the source of gravity.
>> 
>> So you are right that the viscosity will be different in different 
>> circumstances.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2020-05-02 17:40, Tom Hollings wrote:
>>> Mike, as space is not empty, but full of gas at varying temperatures
>>> and densities, and moving in differing directions, would that not
>>> cause the viscosity to vary?
>>> Tom Hollings
>>>>> On 02 May 2020 at 15:47 mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk wrote:
>>>> Arend,
>>>> In my earlier response I forgot to mention that E and (shear) 
>>>> vicosity
>>>> both have the same dimensions, being Y^9. So it could be considered 
>>>> that
>>>> mechanically an electric field is like having viscosity through 
>>>> which
>>>> waves must travel. Equally, from my point of view, adjusting Maxwell 
>>>> to
>>>> include the effects of background viscosity would be equivalent to
>>>> simply adjusting the value of E in any equation - although it could
>>>> equally well be argued that the value of E already contains the
>>>> viscosity effect because we have not yet recognised it.
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mike
>>>>> On 2020-04-30 16:30, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>>>> > Hi Mike,
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:08 PM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The paper shows that SI units actually hide that the strength of mass
>>>> >> and charge fields are the same at the fundamental level.
>>>> >
>>>> > That's very interesting, because I believe the electric field is one
>>>> > and the same as the field causing the gravitational force (as
>>>> > experienced on the surface of a planetary body) via the pushing/shadow
>>>> > gravity principle Paul proposed.   Will take a look at your paper.
>>>> >
>>>> > Greetz,
>>>> >
>>>> > Arend.
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Viscosity Hypothesis M Lawrence JPM.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1021255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200504/08b78ea7/attachment.pdf>