return to homepage the _{0}/2, where ε_{0} is the permittivity of free space. Yes, ε_{0} is normally written as 8.85 x 10^{-12}C^{2}/Jm, but that can also be written as 8.85 x 10^{-12}kg/m^{3} or 8.85 x 10^{-12}/s^{2}. See my paper on charge for more on this, where I show that the so-called permittivity of free space is mis-assigned and misnamed: it is actually gravity at the quantum level.We are now in a position to use our new number for acceleration to explain a current experimental mystery. Using the new number to do this will also act as proof of my theory, since it gives us a sort of experimental confirmation. If the proton has a fundamental spherical acceleration,* then in any one direction it will have a velocity at any given time. If we suppose that the age of the proton is on the order of the age of the universe, then we can estimate the current velocity of the shell of the proton. "Velocity relative to what?" you may ask. "If everything is expanding, then what is our background?" The velocity we will find must be relative to two things. It is relative to the velocity of the radius at t _{0}, which we define as zero. And, it is relative to the speed of light, c. Einstein defined the speed of light as the universal background, and I continue to accept that definition.
If we accept (one of) the current estimates for the age of the universe as around 15 billion years, then the current velocity of the proton's shell would be 2.1 x 10 ^{6}m/s. v = at = (4.44 x 10 ^{-12}m/s^{2} )(4.73 x 10^{17}s) = 2.1 x 10^{6}m/sThat seems ridiculously large at first, except that we have experimental confirmation of that number from accelerators. As I have shown in my paper on accelerators, there is a limit to the speed achieved by the proton. This limit is a final energy of about 108 times the rest energy. Using gamma, this translates to a velocity of .999957c, which is 1.2 x 10^{4}m/s short of c. If we theorize that the gap between c and the limit in velocity is caused by a residual velocity or velocity equivalent that the proton already has, then the limit is explained. That is the link between this paper and my paper on the accelerator (last secton). But there is more. My correction to gamma and to the mass increase equations predicts a limit in velocity for the proton of .9930474c, which is 2.1 x 10^{6}m/s short of c. This is an exact match, as you see. If we plug the current form of gamma into my acceleration equation above, we get an age of the universe of only 85 million years. But my correction to gamma gives us an age of 15 billion years. We know that protons must be older than 85 million years. The earth is almost 60 times older than that itself. Now let me address the first outcries. Some will say that my equations above give us a current radius for the proton of 5 x 10 ^{23} meters, assuming the proton was at zero to start with (using d = at^{2}/2). But all such calculations are pointless. Any distance some point on the surface of the proton may have traveled in an absolute sense will not tell us a current radius, since that is not what we mean by current radius. The current radius of the proton is measured relative to other radii of other things existing now, and current equations such as d = at^{2}/2 are used for that. You cannot use these equations to claim that the proton radius is now 5 x 10^{23} meters, since that would imply the original radius was 1, not zero. Or, you can use the equation if you like, but you have to use the number as a proportionality. Meaning, if the current radius is 3.17 x 10^{-13}m, then the original radius was 2 x 10^{-49}m. That may be interesting to some people, but since everything was smaller back then, the proton was NOT relatively smaller than it is now. To some god existing outside the universe, yes, the universe and the proton might look much smaller 15 billion years ago; but to everything inside the universe, both the proton and the universe would not have changed in size (due to gravity, anyway). The next problem concerns my claim that velocity is constant. A velocity, such as the speed of light, will remain constant in an expanding universe simply because time is a function of distance. What I mean is that we define time in relation to distance. If this definitional distance increases, as everything expands, then the definitional period of time will increase proportionally. Distance gets larger, time gets "larger". So the ratio of the two stays the same. Which means that all relative velocities will stay the same. As an example, we now use the cesium atom to define time. The baseline data in the cesium atom is an oscillation from one energy level to the other, or an atomic wobble. This oscillation is a motion, and all motion implies a distance. If the cesium atom gets bigger, then the distance increases, and the time period increases. Time is dependent on distance. This is even clearer with a pendulum clock. If all material lengths increase, then the length of the pendulum will of course increase, which will increase the length of the second. Time is connected definitionally and operationally to distance, therefore any increase in universal length will cause a proportional increase in universal time. Since velocity is defined as one over the other, velocity will not change. The numerator and denominator both get bigger at the same rate. Of course there are many other questions that have to be answered, but I have answered them in another place and will not repeat myself here. The purpose of this paper was to connect my use of Maxwell's hint and Newton's constant G to the number 108 in the particle accelerator. I believe I have achieved that, and I will recommend the reader to my theoretical papers on universal expansion and gravity for further explanations. Go to my second paper on G, explaining not the dimensions, but the number. As it turns out, the number of G is actually a field transform. For a different derivation of the number 108, you may now go to my newest paper on the photon, at the end of which I discuss 108 briefly. *In another paper I have found the current estimate of 10
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many |