Why 1836?

[AntonioLao]

The rest mass of the electron is 9.1093897(54) x 10¯³¹ kilogram. Its electric charge by international standard of units and measures is negative with an experimental value of 1.60217733(49) x 10¯¹⁹ coulomb. On the other hand, a proton has a rest mass of 1.672614 x 10¯²⁷ kilogram. Its electric charge by international units and measures is the positive value of the electronic charge. To the nearest whole number the proton mass is 1836 times heavier than the electron mass. Although the electric charge for all particles of matter is a relativistic invariance, that is to say it is independent of particle’s speed, the mass of every particle changes according to its speed and increases as the speed increases. The relativistic mass approaches infinity as the particle’s speed approaches the speed of light.

The stability of the atom is described by an atomic configuration where a frame of reference such that the centralized proton in the nucleus is at rest surrounded by high speed orbiting electrons. In a sense, the electron orbital speed must reach a certain value such that its increasing relativistic mass becomes comparable to the proton mass. By temporarily neglecting the dependence of the orbital radius, the electron must move at .999999852 speed of light for its mass to be equivalent to the proton mass. However, since the average drift speed of conducting free electrons in many electrical conductors is merely .0033 of light speed, it can be surmised that increasing orbital radius of the electron is inversely proportional to its orbital speed around the nucleus of each atom. Extending this idea to the sub-nuclear motion of quarks, it is plausible that the compositeness of quarks (the theory that quarks are composed of spacetime charges of H-pluses and H-minuses) implies superluminal local infinitesimal motion of spacetime charges as an alternative explanation of quark confinement.

[Nobody Nowhere]

Is it feasible to rid the nuclei of quarks and replace them with positrons orbiting at relativistic speeds?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

All super-luminal conjecture is thoroughly outside of all known knowledge systems of sound physics and science__Always...

Anything un-measurable is not science__It's Sci-Fi...

CODATA shows zero superluminal__ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/RevModPhys_80_000633acc.pdf

[Nobody Nowhere]

Superluminal is unnecessary if "c" is understood as Celeritas (speed), circumstantially-variable, through a non-zero vacuum.

[Graybeard]

The rest mass of the electron is 9.1093897(54) x 10¯³¹ kilogram. Its electric charge by international standard of units and measures is negative with an experimental value of 1.60217733(49) x 10¯¹⁹coulomb.

Thats a lotta cool Ombs ? So would we be able to shake hands if we had both lost 1% of our electrons ?

coulomb bananas ... greg

[AntonioLao]

Is it feasible to rid the nuclei of quarks and replace them with positrons orbiting at relativistic speeds?

Yes since both quarks and positrons are made of spacetime charges. However, the positrons must orbit at speeds close to lightspeed.

[AntonioLao]

So would we be able to shake hands if we had both lost 1% of our electrons ?

Of course if these are free conducting electrons usually called static electricity. However, atoms can lose electrons only by reaching ionization energy which is different for different material substances. In chemistry, the process of losing or gaining electrons is called redox chemical reactions. A very common phenomenon where a substance loses electrons is called "rusting" that is the metal iron gradually loses electrons and gains oxygen ions by chemical reaction called oxidition to form a variety of compounds of iron oxides.

[austintorn@aol.com]

'1836' is the key to the big bang code, and even the TOE, says DaVinci Fredrick, for it hints of an ensemble that developed as energy compressed inward until there was no more inward left. More later.

That is one approach; another is that the electron is the lightest that the fluctuations can produce.

Either way, we will find that the electron size is the only size that it can be, just as it must be one of the only two stable particles possible.

[austintorn@aol.com]

'1836' will be seen to be the answer to all, not '42'.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Therein lies the TOE.