Sure. I haven't had time to go over the material that you have linked,
but from your reply, I can only say that I have stated essentially the
same many times. There are of course many others who share similar
views. The primary difference between all of these people lies in their
particular suggested solutions. As of yet I have seen no full-fledged
alternative model that would be of practical use to those such as
engineers and working physicsists. That includes my own model, since I
have only the fundamental interaction between quanta of charge and some
speculations as to what behavior would result in on a time averaged
basis. In order to track the macroscopic time averaged effects produced
by this interaction we would need a powerful computer and a lot of
time, because even the smallest macrosystem borders on being infinitely
complex. I see the wave equations in the same light that you see them,
i.e that they address only the superficial effects, while ignoring the
fundamental mechanisms and causes. It would be all the same for those
quantum theorists to regard the graph of a sales trend as the trend
itself. Certainly Maxwell never confused the average behaviors of gas
molecules with the behaviors described by Newtonian Mechanics. There
are statistical averages, and there is the underlying activity that
produced those averages. A wave isn't fundamental, it requires
something to be waving.

RP =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0):

Ok.

Every
quantum has ae inner size, which corresponds to its baruc=C3=A8ntre a=

el=C3=A8ctroc=C3=A8ntre and its classic size as a mote, and ae outer =

which corresponds to its domain and range.

Then you believe the barycenter to occupy a non-zero volume? Evidence
thus far suggest strongly that it does not, down to the limits of
measuability. It is a singularity.

Sorry, dear Richard, but here, just as in the post of Autymn, the idea
of barycentre clearly is irrelevant to the problem which we suggested
to discuss. :) This is rather like Feynman=E2=80=99s puzzle play when one
takes from different areas of physics some flowery scientific-like
terms to make from them an infernal cocktail. :)

When one thinks of the path
of your el=C3=A8ctr=C3=B2n, one draws a 1D world line rather than as =

be, a 4D world.. uh.. gline, as in glome.

I can't speak for Sergey's electron, but my electrons are 4D
extentions. The singularity represents the point in time at which we
observe the electron. With the electron at rest its field is described
by concentric isobaric spheres. These isobars represent regions of
constant curvature of space. As we travel radially away from the
singularity the magntude of the curvature decreases. in terms of the
force exterted on another electron lower curvature corresponds to a
smaller force. It is an inverse square field. Additionally the
successive layers of this onion correspond to different points in time,
according to the Minkowski metric.

t =3D sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2)/c

Oh, what a cocktail! First, after Einstein, in one frame the
simultaneity is impossible. It arises as a consequence of passing from
one frame to another. This causes double time in the frame. One time
relates to the frame, it is homogeneous in the whole frame and all
events from the point of this time can be agreed in the view of
simultaneity. The second concept of time arises in passing from one
frame to another. Here appears just the mythical non-simultaneity which
factually is nothing else as incorrect inclination of the plane of
events which arises in the Lorentz transforms. If you admit the
Minkowski construction, you automatically admit Einstein=E2=80=99s postul=

of the constant speed of light in all frames. With it, your objection
to Henry Haapalainen concerning accelerated frames becomes strange for
me.

Second, if we follow the logic which you posted me, stationary fields
are basically impossible. You multiply use the product of your quantum
charge (projection of charge onto the axis). Any statistic work with
this result will give zero in the average in all directions of motion.

From this, such charged bodies like electrostatically charged balls

basically cannot exist. Furthermore, you are operating with the
determined location of charge in space. From the point of QM it is
basically impossible. And the charge as such is absent in QM, there is
the wave function and its properties.

So my opinion is, you would make yourself a great favour if stopping
attempts to join the relativistic and quantum gibberish with classical
formalism. Choose for yourself, in which formalism do you work. If in
quantum and relativistic =E2=80=93 you can better forget the terms with w=

you are operating now. There are no orbitals, no central field, there
you can simply prove that electrons, protons and any other particles
are black holes. You can simply delete your formulas, as you have
introduced them (hopefully) in other premises.

But if you are trying to operate with classical formalism, it is
strange when you agree with Autymn concerning psi-function. The more
that she is also incorrect in this sense, she demonstrates merely
formal approach to the wave function and illegitimately interrelates
the idea of wave function with the idea of orbitals. There are no and
basically cannot be orbitals in QM. Furthermore, if we consider your
solutions in frames of classical formalism, we will find few important
objections related to the forces of interaction between the charges
incorrectly equalised to the gravity interaction:

[ -3 k q q' ( v_q - v_q' )^2 ] / ( 4 c^2 d^2 ) =3D [ m m' ( v_m -
v_m' )^2 ] / ( m + m' ) d

Even in your formulas, when changing the sign of one of your quanta (q
or q'), the resulting force will change its direction to the opposite.
Or does your mass change its sign? And in the left part you have a sign
=E2=80=98minus=E2=80=99, while you haven=E2=80=99t it in the right part; =

values of quantum charges (both positive either both negative), the
equality will be true with accuracy to the sign. Finally, in the left
part you have used the dielectric constant, while in the right part the
gravity constant is absent. If you account it, you will see that with
the known experimental values of charges, the right part never will be
equal to that left but will be well less. Due to your equalisation, the
gravity interaction between these particles will change to the
opposite.

Thus, as to me, you can be sure: we don=E2=80=99t play with the absurdity=

Minkowski space and with smeared electrons of QM, and don=E2=80=99t advice
you to play with them. :) There are no solutions, as it is impossible
to join incompatible things, combining the phantasmagorias of modern
physics with the basis of classical physics.

Sergey

The electron's field is a rigid structure when viewed from the 4D
perspective. But against the backdrop of 3D space plus time (Galilean
spacetime) that we are accustomed to think in terms of, the field is
only inverse square so long as the electron remians at rest. In this
special case the field strength at r at times t and t' remains
constant. But when the electron is in motion this no longer holds, or
in other words the field appears to lag behind the electron, which in
turn produces the observed finite speed of interaction, which occurs at
c. This constant thus defines the relationship between 4D spacetime and
our Galilean perspective.

However, in the context of 4D spacetime the isobars are perfectly
fixed wrt the singularity, and I would say "at all times" but for the
fact that there is no time in 4D spacetime there is instead a ct axes,
which is dimensionally another spatial extention. Interactions occur
directly between electrons with no medium of propagation, nor even with
the help of mediators, because they don't actually occur. Instead these
are just regular patterns in a rigid 4D block manifold.

For all practical purposes we can dispense with the field altogether as
a physical entity and say simply that all electrons are related one to
the other by a set of values that represent some unkown relationship,
and which share an ordering between them. The field can be considered
to be a mathematical entity only, with points not occupied by an
electron being just a prediction of the mathematical relationship that
would exist with any electron that might happen migrate into that
position. What the substance of these relationships might actually be,
we cannot know, but we are designed by nature to interpret them in a
practical way, fit for our functioning and survival.

The most natural interpreation of space is of some invisible physical
substance separating visible objects. This hypothetical substance was
given the name space, and later assumed to be something similar in
nature to matter, in the form of the Aether. Einstein, and especially
with the help of Minkowski, showed by logical argument, that our
perceptions were not trustworthy. We are only looking at shadows on the
wall.

With his box-within-a-box argument, he quickly concluded that if we
were to retain the notion of space as a substance, then a different
space must be rigidly attached to each and every frame of reference in
the universe. There would have to be an infinite number of aethers, all
in motion wrt each other. Thus bringing to an abrupt end the notion of
space as a singular entity distinct from the objects within it. Space
isn't something that objects move relative to. Motion can be defined
only in terms of objects changing position wrt each other.

In my view there are indeed an infinite number of aethers, and these
are what we call electrons, whose fields are these many spaces that
Einstein referred to and simultaneously the substance of those
electrons. Space, matter, and field are all one and the same thing.
I'm speaking of electrons of both the positive and negative sort, and
thus am implying positrons as well.

As there are no regions at
absolute zero, there are none with no E or M or S fields (Google my
strofsis and strofic) because, by definition, the universe and its
coordinates only exist where they and their corollary forces exist.

Aha!! I should have made reference to your statement here, when I said
as much above. I'm happy to find that you've been paying some
attention. :)

Size and distance are the same.

-Aut

Richard Perry