The Spinning Charged Ring model of the electron


Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin


Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: The Spinning Charged Ring model of the electron

Unread post by rangerover777 » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:25 pm

Beautiful idea. Science made for people not only for scientists.
Beside that, who said science have to be so complicated ? Does it
make it more righteous ? Or just shield itself from ordinary people
who seek exploration through simplicity, naturality and common sense ?

As expected it require some knowledge, calculation and understanding,
especially when you start to build. But exploring and understanding nature,
should be done by high school students.

I just hope they teaches the right things, since I don’t see them around yet.


User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Spinning Charged Ring model of the electron

Unread post by junglelord » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:10 pm

Thats why children should play with Zome models which have the same relationship as Atomic configurations. When they start to play with blocks/cubes, then they are ready for Zome. Our Right Angle friend the box teaches us a Law of the Universe, the Law of Right Angles. And it teaches us the basic construct of Dimensions at Right Angles, where Length, Area, Volume, are 3 Dimensions all in the one box and hence represent Space. They don't call them building blocks for nothing and thats very embedded, LOL. It is much simpler then high school since its Kindergarten toys and I see it all over, you just have to look for it. Zome is so simple its profound and Zome is available for children of all ages. Zome is the toy that is the Language of Nature and Embedded forms. What could be more fundamental then the language of nature and atomic molecular structure?
Made for children by an artist, loved by scientist. Secret to the universe in the palm of your hand. Watch light, shadows, bubbles and rotation show you the secrets of Natures Language with Zome.
Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything/E8

So simple a Kindergarten student can do it....forget smarter then a fifth grader. Lets just get people through the Kindergarten stage properly when they are ready for Zome. We would could learn a lot from a childrens toy and an artist. Hey, would that not make learning fun and with both sides of the brain due to the nature of the toy instead of dull boring thick physics books in college? Whole brain thinking...MegaBrain from the start. Imagine leaving Kindergarten with the knowledge of the universe at your disposal and thinking with both sides of your brain (hemisphere synchronization) ? Who says it cannot be done?
— Nikola Tesla
— Junglelord.
— Junglelord

Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: The Spinning Charged Ring model of the electron

Unread post by Alphane » Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:06 am

I think this model of fundamental particles deserves some serious attention from the EU crowd. Thier work does a lot to expose the shortcomings of quantum theory in much the same way as the EU researchers expose those of gravity only astronomy. They have achieved a simple and elegant model of fundamental particles that is based entirely on electricity and they insist upon the scaleability of these forces. I encourage everybody to read some of the articles and papers on thier website and hopefully we can get some discussion started on this new theory that parallells, in many ways, the EU theory. In my opinion the Spinning Charged Ring is doing for particle physics, what the EU is doing for cosmology.

Some excerpts from the Common Sense Science newsletter -

Observations of the Properties of Physical Entities
Part 1—Nature of the Physical World
David L. Bergman ... S_V7N1.pdf

Concept #3–Existence of Fundamental Entities. There is strong disagreement on the
identification of fundamental physical entities. In Common Sense Science, the fundamental
entities are electrical charge and electromagnetic fields—an identification that
reflects an informed assumption (axiom) that the universe is fundamentally electrical in character.
In Common Sense Science, for example, inertial mass is a secondary property
derived from the fundamental entities which are electrical charge and energy fields [6].
But in Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, inertial mass is an inherent (fundamental)
property of particles. By applying the laws of electrodynamics, Common Sense
Science successfully explains and predicts the properties of particles, atoms and molecules
with the existence of only electrical charge and fields. The Common Sense Science
theory is built upon the existence of positive and negative charge plus electric and magnetic

Concept #6–Physical Unity. The scientific principle of unity declares that the entire universe
operates under one set of natural laws and one set of fundamental particles. This
operation maintains the existence of physical objects and their processes of interaction. A
determined consistency is assured for every location in the universe without variation for
the scale or time-of-occurrence regarding events and processes. By the principle of unity,
natural laws will be the same today as they were yesterday, and the structure of matter will
not be any different on earth, the moon, or a distant star. Furthermore, the natural laws
will be the same inside an atom or outside an atom, i.e. natural laws do not change for size,
scale, or domain. The scientific principle of unity means, first of all, consistency in the
physical world.
There is a closely related aspect of the principle of unity attributed to William of Occam
who looked for simplicity in physics. Simplicity expects and hopes for one universal
force law that applies in all domains, over all ranges, and over all time. (The order
observed in the universe would be absent if we encountered a new force law or needed a
new model for every physical event and process.) Likewise, by the expectation of simplicity,
we search for a credible theory of matter than minimizes the number of fundamental
physical entities. When the accepted theory-of-matter was composed of 36 particles
of ordinary matter and 24 force-carrying particles (bosons), Lederman and Teresi
As a compact summary of everything we know, the Standard Model has two major
defects: ...there are too many particles, too many forces [16].
The Common Sense Science Theory of Atomic and Nuclear Structure needs only electrons
and protons to produce the observed phenomena listed in Table 2—satisfying the
scientific principle of unity [17-20]; but Quantum Theory fails when tested by the principle
of unity.
The electrical nature of the fundamental identities (Concept #3) and the laws of electromagnetics
have been developed into a universal force law [21] by Common Sense Science
(with on-going research underway to complete the derivation by including additional
terms that incorporate gravitation). In contrast, the Physics Establishment currently identifies
five forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, gravitation, and a new force from dark
The universe has recently been commandeered by an invisible energy field, which
is causing its expansion to accelerate outward.... The bulk [content of the universe]
is a ubiquitous “dark energy” with a strange and remarkable feature: its gravity
does not attract. It repels...causing the universe to accelerate to ever larger rates
of expansion....
Where does this energy come from? The best-known possibility is that the energy
is inherent in the fabric of space. Even if a volume of space were utterly
empty—without a bit of matter and radiation—it would still contain this energy [22].
Clearly, the Physics Establishment has not produced a universal force law. Furthermore,
all efforts have failed in attempts to integrate Quantum Theory (based on the discrete
nature of energy or matter) and Relativity Theory (based on the continuous nature of space
and energy) [23]. Many physicists are working with multi-dimensional String Theory to
resolve these issues in spite of a widespread belief that unification of QT and RT is impossible.
In Common Sense Science, the same Ring Model used for the electron is successful as a
real physical model of the proton [24]. But the fifth model of the proton (described in
1999 by the Standard Model of Elementary Particles) consists of a “sea of particles” that
are present in the proton by the “power of particles to create other particles”[25]. In this
fifth model, complexity prevails over the scientific principle of simplicity.
The principle of unity also favors the complete integration of matter and fields (identified
by Concept #3 as fundamental identities). As described in reference [23], “the Ring
Model provides the unification of matter (charge) and forces (from self-fields) by the consistent
laws of electromagnetism.” In contrast, integration of fields and material particles
defined by the Standard Model is impossible under the current insistence upon point-like
particles [23, see “Failure of Quantum Models” on page 3]. ... S_V7N1.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Spinning Charged Ring model of the electron

Unread post by junglelord » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:38 am

What you have presented in raw form is the basic template of Structure,Function,Embedded Relationship.
Like Ed Whitten pointed out so cleverly, Five String Theory Models were actually five ways at looking at one M Theory.
Now that I have the basic template down and understood I can see it in a second. You have it dear sir.
You can call it Electron Ring Theory, you can call it APM, you can call it what you will, the basic template is the same in its attempts to distance itself from the classical mess of modern physics and the standard model.

The universe does not speak english, but she does have a language. All you need to do is learn it. Once you do, you can make sense of how English attempts to explain Nature and how these different methods of terminology in english are one Basic Template in the Language of Nature. Like Ed Whitten pointed out, because everyong was stressed cause they had 5 String Theories....Ed showed very elegently that they were five ways of looking at the same thing (MTheory)....yet no one saw it but him. He saw the template. Once Ed pointed it out it became clear to the String Theory models. I see the Tempate. Do you? If not go back and review my most recent post. Its there in black and white, dispite the fact it is in english. Translate it into the Language of Nature and the Template is revealed.
— Nikola Tesla
— Junglelord.
— Junglelord


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests