Thread: Fundamental Forces solved by layman

GRAVITY SOLVED BY LAYMAN

Called spacetime, or aether, a substance fills space.

With the addition of energy, this MEDIA condenses and spins to form quarks which form matter (pair production).

This motion of spinning increases dynamic pressure, which causes a decrease in static pressure; Similar to "atomization" applied in carburetors and perfume atomizers.

The "decrease in pressure" of matter is a pull on the surroundings, i.e. GRAVITY.

After all, spinning of spacetime is like curving of spacetime...

It requires some force to remove protons from a nucleus. It requires much less force to remove electrons(negative pions). It is theorized that carrier particles exert fundamental forces holding the protons and electrons to the nucleus.

These fundamental forces are called the strong force and the weak force.

In reality, the gluon that binds quarks is not a fundamental particle between the quarks holding them together.

The gluon binding quarks to form protons is a bubble of concentrated spacetime/aether SURROUNDING the quarks.

In larger nucleii, protons are all within the same bubble, with electrons(negative pions) roaming freely converting protons they encounter into neutrons.

The energy required to remove a proton from a nucleus is falsely attributed to the unneccesary strong force and corresponding carrier particle. It is the binding force of the gluon bubble.

The same is true for the electrons(negative pions); it is easier for them to escape the bubble as it requires a smaller hole.

Could you show us the maths?

You are going to have to show the formalism before you can claim to have "solved" anything. Where is the mathematics?

Math describes some relationship. Which relationship is it that needs math?
This is a unification, making all that we know work together, not an alternative which requires major changes....
I can make predictions that could not be made before.
An alpha particle contains 2 P's and 2 N's.
By the particles sharing the same bubble, an alpha particle would weigh less than the 2 separate P's and 2 separate N's, each in separate bubbles.

When a single neutron expels an electron, it should create an EM disturbance.
In larger nucleii, a neutron expels an electron and no disturbance.
This would be because in larger nucleii, the expelled electron remains in the same bubble. In a single neutron, the electron must push through the bubble, which is what creates the EM disturbance (light).

This and many things are observed, but not predicted or well explained by standard theory.

Originally Posted by Eleven

Math describes some relationship. Which relationship is it that needs math?
This is a unification, making all that we know work together, not an alternative which requires major changes....

No. What this is is bullshit that belongs in Pseudoscience.

bullshit that belongs in Pseudoscience.

Skeaking of which....
Can you offer explanations for the two phenomenae that I mentioned ?(google if you need to).

Heres another one:
Standard theory states that gloun bind quarks by a force of attraction.
Bubble theory states that gluon binds quarks from the outside.
Forces of attraction become weaker with distance(less energy). Bubbles become tighter when stretched(more energy).
The further quarks are stretched apart, the MORE ENERGY is required.

Study pair production, gluon-quark relationships(the bag model), an Higg's theory.
See the observation that the proton is "surrounded by virtual particles that blink in and out of existence"
See the graphic representations(like a picture...) of quarks. Studt the natue of electricity, mainly the way it travels on the outer surface and not through the center, (as the bubble does...). and realize there is a media[ no matter how hard BB theorists deny that Spacetime is a Media] you will see that I HAVE SAID NOTHING NEW, in pieces. I am just the only one who correctly connected all the dots.

I think the real question for the theory should be this:

Please use your theory to calculate the perihelion advance of Mercury.

Referring to Bernoulli's equation in the special case of incompressible flows, the theoretical pressure drop at the constriction is given by:


P1-P2={Density}/2(v1^2-V2^2)
this shows the relashionship between a change in velocity and a change in pressure of baryonic matter, When density is constant.

Applying this to non-baryonic matter, AKA Spacetime/Aether/the MEDIA, The change in velocities squared would be replaced with the square of torque energy of the spinning quark, as the beginning value is zero.

The change in pressure would represent the force of gravity.

The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses around the Sun at an excess of 43 arcseconds per century. I don't see the connection to the thread topic ?

Einstein described a "curving" of spacetime as I describe a "spinning" of spacetime.
As such he deserves partial credit!

He failed to make the connection with the forces of static and dynamic pressures. He could not explain how or why curving of spacetime creates gravity.
His analogy was fallacious as well.
The ball in space atop a flat plain.
He describes the ball depressing the plane, and objects rolling downhill to the ball.
Firstly, in space the ball would not depress the plane until another object with gravity were beneath the ball.
How about objects ABOVE the plane? They would have to fall onto the plane before being directed towards the "ball".
Set a bowling ball in the middle of a trampoline. a tennis ball set on the surface will roll to meet the bowling ball. It is because of the gravity beneath, not the bowling ball.

He is saying that gravity is caused by another force identical to gravity, but conveniently doesn't describe how that secondary gravitational force works.

[quote="Eleven"]The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses around the Sun at an excess of 43 arcseconds per century. Big whoop. Are you highjacking my thread with your topic?
You don't have anything to say about the thread topic ?[/quote]

Absolutely, since you ask.

This bullshit belongs in Pseudoscience.

This bullshit belongs in Pseudoscience.

You were gone for awhile.
Couldn't google/wilkipedia any amswers that you can stand by?
If you can't answer scientific questions, what validity do you have?

I'm new here, I'm sorry if I didn't post correctly.
You notice I have no avitar or signature....
For convenience , I would prefer my two threads combine into one.
If anyone wants to discuss these topics and other related phenomenon*, The forum could close one thread and continue the other.

*Surface tension, electronic states, states of matter (solid,liquid,etc.).

Originally Posted by Eleven

The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses around the Sun at an excess of 43 arcseconds per century. Big whoop. Are you highjacking my thread?
You don't have anything to say about the thread topic ?

Einstein described a "curving" of spacetime as I describe a "spinning" of spacetime.
As such he deserves partial credit!

Let's see your calculations. Otherwise, you have failed to produce a viable gravitational theory. There is really nothing debatable on this point.

MeteorWayne

You are such a BrownNoser

There is no math in the Primer on General Relativity.

I need to stop arguing with non-interested or harsh tounged posters. I am worse than they are...

If what I say is hogwash, These DetractoRaptors would have disproven me easily, using proven science.

They have nothing. They're weak and afraid.

If we were "Clingons" it would be my sworn duty to assasinate them and take over as captain.

Originally Posted by Eleven

I need to stop arguing with non-interested posters.

What you need to do is seek professional psychiatric help.

Are you a doctor? Or are you more likely drunk?
You act like an angry drunk.

I worked in mental institutions and know a great deal about abnormal psychiatry.

You basically have an extremely vulnerable ego, and you lash out to protect yourself.

You deny the reality of any situation in favor of emotional outbursts.

You likely have delusions of grandeur .

In more advanced cases, delusions of grandeur make people believe that they are Jesus or God or other grand figures.

True story, we used to have two guys on the same ward who thought they were Jesus. To make peace it was decreed that one would be Jesus on monday, wednesday, and friday; the other would be Jesus on tuesday, thursday, and saturday. God got to be Jesus on sundays.

Originally Posted by Eleven

Are you a doctor? Or are you more likely drunk?
You act like an angry drunk.

I worked in mental institutions and know a great deal about abnormal psychiatry.

You basically have an extremely vulnerable ego, and you lash out to protect yourself.

You deny the reality of any situation in favor of emotional outbursts.

You likely have delusions of grandeur .

In more advanced cases, delusions of grandeur make people believe that they are Jesus or God or other grand figures.

True story, we used to have two guys on the same ward who thought they were Jesus. To make peace it was decreed that one would be Jesus on monday, wednesday, and friday; the other would be Jesus on tuesday, thursday, and saturday. God got to be Jesus on sundays.

Apparently your asylum was run by the inmates.

Let's see your calculations. Otherwise, you have failed to produce a viable gravitational theory.

There is a directly proportional relationship between mass and gravitational force.
That will not change.

What specifically do you feel that has changed and needs to be recalculated?

Gravity still works the same, only the semantics, the explanation of how it happens, has been embellished; using scientific principles understood and applied for hundreds of years, rather than esoteric conjecture and undisprovable statements.

All my statements are disprovable.

Floor mopping is a big part of hospital work. I used to mop one half of a hall floor in one direction and come back mopping the other side.

Oddly, the inmates would walk down the dry side of the hall, but the employees walked down the wet side.

Maybe you have someything....

If you are nice I'll get you an extra dessert...

Originally Posted by Eleven

Math describes some relationship. Which relationship is it that needs math?.

Okay, this is a disqualifier! You need math in order to make precise predictions of your speculation. It is not a theory. I suggest you look up this term. This is how science works: formulate an idea, create a mathematical model, make concise predictions and demonstrate how they can be empirically verified. Give examples that demonstrate what phenomenon would falsify your idea.

There is no math in the "Primer on General Relativity".

You know it's odd that in the movies the main character is always someone who is discredited absolutely by society, despite his or her talents.

The audience enjoys living vicariously through this lone wolf figure fighting against the grain.

In real life people despise the "different guy".

It's cool being the lone rebel, even if I was wrong I would probably resist the status quo...

The MIT bag model confines three non-interacting quarks to a spherical cavity, with the boundary condition that the quark vector current vanish on the boundary. The non-interacting treatment of the quarks is justified by appealing to the idea of asymptotic freedom, whereas the hard boundary condition is justified by quark confinement. Mathematically, the model vaguely resembles that of a radar cavity, with solutions to the Dirac equation standing in for solutions to the Maxwell equations and the vanishing vector current boundary condition standing for the conducting metal walls of the radar cavity. If the radius of the bag is set to the radius of the nucleon, the bag model predicts a nucleon mass that is within 30% of the actual mass

Like I say, You guys need to do more homework. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by top physicsts and engineers..

Originally Posted by Eleven

GRAVITY SOLVED BY LAYMAN
Called spacetime, or aether, a substance fills space that groups and spins to form quarks which form matter. This motion of spinning increases dynamic pressure, which causes a decrease in static pressure; Similar to "atomization" applied in carburetors and perfume atomizers.

The "decrease in pressure" of matter is a pull on the surroundings, i.e. GRAVITY.

You have obviously no idea how matter is described at (sub) atomic scales. The observable we call "spin" does not imply that there is actually something spinning. It is a remainder of the initial classical approach. Therefore, you will have to demonstrate that your classical analogy actually applies to quantum mechanics. What is the form of the operator you need do apply to the wave function of any particle to produce gravity?

You are walking on thin ice, when you discredit General Relativity. It is a well formulated and beautifully precisely verified theory. Your scratch paper scribbling, however, is nothing useful. How do you think we should verify this speculation? Can you make precise predictions that can be verified by empirical measurements?

Can you make precise predictions that can be verified by empirical measurements?

My predictions so far have been things observed already but not inderstood by current theory.

I am thinking about trying to predict the mass variations that occur in different particle formations.

Gluon isn't always the same mass, like say, a proton.
I know why there is a variation.

If I came up with a formulae to predict the mass changes, that should satisfy those of you who ALWAYS require math to accept any idea.

Originally Posted by Eleven

All my statements are disprovable.

Indeed: you have disproved your statements by failing to be able to use them in a standard test for a theory of gravity. You have to show that your theory works, we can't just take your word for it.

you have disproved your statements by failing to be able to use them in a standard test for a theory of gravity. You have to show that your theory works, we can't just take your word for it.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not under contract to follow specific criteria. This is not a publishing company. If I publish my theory I will include all that is necessary.

As it is, I am being generous in sharing the ideas, at risk of being ripped off.

I know the difference between releasing a scientific paper and an open discussion of ideas, do you?

I thought the internet was about freely sharing ideas, but now I don't know...

The way I see it, until you make some kind of scientific statement you are nothing more that a six year old throwing rocks.

I know what you people are afraid of. This could lead into the propogation of light, a sore-spot for BB theorists. I wasn't going to go for the jugular, but you guys are pushing me.

Spacetime is required by BB theory. It has properties assigned to it, therefore it exists. It is a substance, a MEDIA.

When Einstein put forward his theory of relativity in 1905, it was claimed that no experiment using a rotating interferometer could prove the existence of an aether since relativity would cancel out the apparent changes in the length of the arms of the rotating apparatus. However, relativity did not deny the existence of the aether as postulated by Fresnel. Indeed, Einstein theorized that gravity was caused by the distortion of "space-time". What exactly did he mean by "space-time"? It appears that his "space-time" is just another name for aether.

Modern Cosmologists claim that the expansion of the universe under the Big Bang Theory is due to the expansion of "space" and it is the expanding "space" which is causing the stretching of photons (i.e. red shift). Again it sounds like the use of the word "space" here is just another name for aether.

We know that light must either be propogated by this MEDIA or must propogate through the MEDIA.

If it propogated through the MEDIA, scattering would occur.

This is not what we observe.

Therefore light is propogated by the spacetime MEDIA.

As such, it is elastic and will lose energy over great distances. This causes the "distance indicator redshift".

Applying this redshift to observations shows that the universe is not expanding, destroying BB theory.("Blasthemer!")

My bad. There IS a one in a octillion chance that we just happen to be between the expansion and contraction stage. I could totally see the status quo community going with that.

This is how science works: formulate an idea, create a mathematical model, make concise predictions and demonstrate how they can be empirically verified. Give examples that demonstrate what phenomenon would falsify your idea.

This is not a publishing company.

This is not an official organization that one submits scientific papers to.

This is how the internet works: Ideas are supposed to be shared freely.

When I present a full scietific paper, it won't be at a forum!!!

Otherwise, how are you doing? Nice to meet you.

The MIT bag model confines three non-interacting quarks to a spherical cavity, with the boundary condition that the quark vector current vanish on the boundary. The non-interacting treatment of the quarks is justified by appealing to the idea of asymptotic freedom, whereas the hard boundary condition is justified by quark confinement. Mathematically, the model vaguely resembles that of a radar cavity, with solutions to the Dirac equation standing in for solutions to the Maxwell equations and the vanishing vector current boundary condition standing for the conducting metal walls of the radar cavity. If the radius of the bag is set to the radius of the nucleon, the bag model predicts a nucleon mass that is within 30% of the actual mass

The typical fool understands nothing of the theory that he crticizes, nor even of the most elementary of physical principles. He refuses to read the literature or standard texts. He is uneducable, and likely quite stupid. Yet he continues to shout that the large scientific community that developed modern cosmology (an army of PhDs and billions of dollars of experimental work) is categorically wrong – and that is the ultimate in arrogance.

Hate Rheteric

Iwant to hear from others but it's clear that they are afraid to post in this environment.

Originally Posted by Eleven

you have disproved your statements by failing to be able to use them in a standard test for a theory of gravity. You have to show that your theory works, we can't just take your word for it.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not under contract to follow specific criteria.

You are if you want us to give you any credence. This is how scientists convince one another. You can continue to play it your own way, but you're not going to get much by way of positive attention. I'm assuming your goal here is to have your ideas understood and accepted.

Originally Posted by Eleven

DrRotket, You are the fool you describe.

You will stop insulting our users or I will lock any and all threads you start and recommend your account be suspended. If you can't remain civil and respond to understandable skepticism with evidence rather than rhetoric, you have no place here.

I'm sorry, you guys drew first blood, said that I was insane.

I'm assuming your goal here is to have your ideas understood and accepted.

Looking through this thread, do you really see anyone trying to understand my ideas?

A good theory does three things:

1 makes statements that are disprovable, instead of esoteric conjecture, and these statements are not disproven.
2 makes predictons.
3 does not contradict proven science.

I have met all three criteria.

Originally Posted by Eleven

A good theory does three things:

1 makes statements that are disprovable, instead of esoteric conjecture, and these statements are not disproven.
2 makes predictons.
3 does not contradict proven science.

I have met all three criteria.

Quite possible, but please humor me. Following the points you have laid out:

1. Please give an example, along with a test with the capacity to falsify it.
2. Please give an example, preferably one which sets your theory apart from competing theories. If possible, show how one would test the prediction (or even better, an observation already on record which does so)
3. This is not actually a requirement of a scientific theory, as no scientific knowledge is ever considered proven. That said, demonstration of agreement with well-established observations would be good.

I'm sorry, I don't understand question one.

In response to question 2:

A An alpha particle contains 2 P's and 2 N's.
By the particles sharing the same bubble, an alpha particle would weigh less than the 2 separate P's and 2 separate N's, each in separate bubbles.

B When a single neutron expels an electron, it should create an EM disturbance.
In larger nucleii, a neutron expels an electron and no disturbance.
This would be because in larger nucleii, the expelled electron remains in the same bubble. In a single neutron, the electron must push through the bubble, which is what creates the EM disturbance (light).

C Standard theory states that gloun bind quarks by a force of attraction.
Bubble theory states that gluon binds quarks from the outside.
Forces of attraction become weaker with distance(less energy). Bubbles become tighter when stretched(more energy).
The further quarks are stretched apart, the MORE ENERGY is required.

Question 3:
I believe the Hubble deep space images of 15 billion years is observational evidence supporting the propogation of light aspect of my theory about the MEDIA.

By the same MEDIA forming bubbles,AKA spacetime/aether, light must propogate by it or through it.

Since scattering doesn't occur, then light is propogated by the media.

As such, elasticity causes a redshift over great distances.

Applying this redshift to observational data shows that the Universe is not expanding, but is static, existing forever.

The Hubble deep space images of 15 billion years show an area of space generally what we see today.

BB [and its theory on the propogation of light, different than my theory]would demand that these images show an exponentially hotter, denser Universe moving exponentially more rapidly, which it does not.

[Why can't Hubble find the early Big Bang Universe and take pictures of it?
The "echo" is in every direction...]

With observations not supporting motion as the Redshift Distance Indicator, it also supports my assertion that light is redshifted due to elasticity, and is therefore propogated by a MEDIA.

Thank you for taking me seriously.

it occurred to me just now. Applying the increase in dynamic pressure/decrese in static pressure explanation for gravity, this would explain why gravity is always attractive [it has been theorized, but NEVER OBSERVED to be repulsive].

Why?
As the pressure (gravity) is based on the motion of the quarks, there is no such thing as negative motion.

As a result, there will be no negative values for the pressure (no repulsion).

in my descriptions of the MEDIA, none has asked about what is is, what properties it has.

I hold it to be a field of infinitesimally small non-baryonic particles. They have no spin, temperature, inertia.
They play an important role in the flow of electricity(high energy states) and carry EM forces.
They are what forms all matter in pair production, fulfilling the role of the Higgs Boson.

"Bubbles" are condensed formations of these particles I am referring to, AKA MEDIA/spacetime/aether.

Besides the GLUON bubbles holding quarks together, these bubbles also exist on larger scales.

In solids, bubbles surround each molecule separately.

In liquids, this bubble moves to the surface surrounding the whole substance collectively (raindrop/surface tension).

In gasses, each molecule is again surrounded by bubbles separately.

In plasma, the bubbles are dispersed between the particles, facilitating the observed electrical field....

Solids might transform directly to gas if the bubble energies are very similar, requiring less energy that transforming throught the liquid state; that would require the bubble to go to the surface and back again.

I deserve the right to name the particle I defined.
I shall call it... MALON.

Edited for ether/plasma correction and attitude

Bubble theory would suggest that in larger nucleii the bubble stretches, making it easier for bouncing particles inside to break through the skin...causing radioactivity.

By standard theory, larger nucleii should become MORE stable, having more binding carrier particles and by being more dense.

Particles fired through a crystal can increase their mass as much as forty times. Radioactive particles have an increase in half-lives.

Why?

If an increase in mass occurs, it would be because the bubble accreted more material. According to MALON Theory, this would contain the particles inside better, increasing the half-lives of radioactive materials.

Stardard theory has to resort to time-dilation to explain this phenomenon.

aaaaaand boom goes the dynamite....

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

aaaaaand boom goes the dynamite....

Lol. He actually got a web redemption tonight. 8)

Originally Posted by Eleven

You likely have delusions of grandeur .

You seem to have delusions of adequacy. I'm still waiting for the maths.

You will stop insulting our users or I will lock any and all threads you start and recommend your account be suspended. If you can't remain civil and respond to understandable skepticism with evidence rather than rhetoric, you have no place here.

Okay im not trying to make enemies with any members in here or anything, but for those who have spend alot of time in this forum will have come to realize that some higher or experienced members use ALOT of insults, i wont name any. I dont see Mods. warning them saying i will suspend you or lock the threads or anything like that.

Is it because the moderator thinks that you are well worth getting insulted if your ideas are nutty? or is it just royalty to the experienced members, for contributing their knowledge to the forum??

i just dont find it entirely fair thats all, though who said "the world is fair?"

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

You will stop insulting our users or I will lock any and all threads you start and recommend your account be suspended. If you can't remain civil and respond to understandable skepticism with evidence rather than rhetoric, you have no place here.

Okay im not trying to make enemies with any members in here or anything, but for those who have spend alot of time in this forum will have come to realize that some higher or experienced members use ALOT of insults, i wont name any. I dont see Mods. warning them saying i will suspend you or lock the threads or anything like that.

Is it because the moderator thinks that you are well worth getting insulted if your ideas are nutty? or is it just royalty to the experienced members, for contributing their knowledge to the forum??

i just dont find it entirely fair thats all, though who said "the world is fair?"

You make some interesting points, most of which (maybe all of which) I would agree with. However, consider this. On the one hand you have members who have demonstrated some knowledge of the scientific method, some knowledge of a particular branch of science, a reasonable approach when replying to posts. A willingness to explain and to answer sensible questions. In short they are making a positive contribution to the forum.

On the other hand we have individuals who come along with an apparently crackpot idea, then respond in sadly predictable ways to any criticism of their 'theory'. These same individuals amply demonstrate little or no awareness of the findings of science or of scientific methodology. What understanding they do display is frequently misunderstanding, amplified by the use of logical fallacies.

Now given those two groupings, if you were going to give any leeway, who would you give it to? Granted it might be preferable that the memebers of the first group said things like "I have examined your proposal carrefully. I believe you have overlooked A, B, and C, each of which invalidates Part 1 of your approach, while D and E make Part 2 untenable."

However, after a while, when the spouting of nonsense gets worse, it is tempting to say instead "Listen you ****ing nutter, you are off your ****ing rocker." The effect on the target of the abuse is probably zero. The effect on the poster of said abuse is momentary relief. The effect on the educated forum member is perhaps to welcome the shorthand confirmation that the "nutter" really is a "nutter".

Now, do you want to take bets that I get censured for making a seriously off-topic post that breaks the forum rules? Or even, that this post mysteriously disappears?

And, by the way, since your post followed on from a mild insult in my prior post I am guessing I am one of the members who you think is never censured. Not so. I've had several polite wraps on the knuckles. The difference is, perhaps, that I back off when asked and the mods know that. The same is rarely true of the "nutters"

The creator of this post wishes it to be known that any and all references to "nutters" in this post do not automatically, necessarily, or even incidentally refer in any form, shape or fashion, real, virtual or metaphorical, to any individual or individuals posting in this thread. The creator of this post also wishes to point out that he has always viewed irony as an art form. © Ophiolite 2011

Originally Posted by Eleven

A An alpha particle contains 2 P's and 2 N's.
By the particles sharing the same bubble, an alpha particle would weigh less than the 2 separate P's and 2 separate N's, each in separate bubbles.

This is nothing new. This is called "mass deficit" and is fully described and verified by GR. It is the basis of nucelar fusion processes.

Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz

You will stop insulting our users or I will lock any and all threads you start and recommend your account be suspended. If you can't remain civil and respond to understandable skepticism with evidence rather than rhetoric, you have no place here.

Okay im not trying to make enemies with any members in here or anything, but for those who have spend alot of time in this forum will have come to realize that some higher or experienced members use ALOT of insults, i wont name any. I dont see Mods. warning them saying i will suspend you or lock the threads or anything like that.

Is it because the moderator thinks that you are well worth getting insulted if your ideas are nutty? or is it just royalty to the experienced members, for contributing their knowledge to the forum??

i just dont find it entirely fair thats all, though who said "the world is fair?"

You may well have a valid point, but can we discuss it on the feedback forum instead? Otherwise it could derail Eleven's topic. I can move your post and Ophiolites over to a new thread there if you'd like to talk about it in detail.

Please leave the previous post. I haven't always taken the high road myself, but I am really trying now to stay on subject.

I offer a truce, and will wear my banishment to pseudoscience as a banner.

Fairness aside, it is BOGUS to debate that way. In debate it is seen as a fallacy, the"poisoning of the well".

If one ( a new poster) presents a different explanation for something observed, used disprovable statements, then:
1 Disprove them using science.
or
2 Discuss anything else relevant.

I came to explain my MALON/MEDIA/bubble theory of particle production.

This is exactly the same as observation, except standard theory aknowledges no real particles to be accreted, and places an ELEMENTARY GLUON Particle within the quarks, which has to CHANGE MASS.(?)

According to my theory:

Pulling quarks apart stretches the Gloun bubble, pulling in more MALON into this Gluon Shell.

Further stretching brings in enough new material to form two new quarks.

As Gluon is formed from the quark forces, it like like a copy. Quarks are created much like DNA copies itself...

Energy is required to form matter, but it is not the substance matter forms from.

Energy is not a substance, merely a property of matter, which is more logical.

Yes, rewrite "conservation" again....

This is nothing new. This is called "mass deficit" and is fully described and verified by GR.

Thank you for knowing about the "mass deficit"

I didn't say it was new,did I?

I keep saying my theory only uses real observations. That is a good thing, not a bad!

I merely provide better explanations and predictions.

I predicted this before I knew of the observation. I'm not trying to explain it after the fact.

ANYWAY...

We both know it exists now. Stage one complete. Now we can move to Stage two:

......... THE EXPLANATION

I can't find the current theory explanation of this "mass deficit", please enlighten me.

I would prefer that you should explain it yourself. b
But if not, just copy and paste, that is OK.(please keep it short.)

Please do not give an Encyclopedia of links and say "there is your answer".

You seem to have delusions of adequacy. I'm still waiting for the maths.

I read the Primer on General Relativity. It had no math.

My theory is based on unifying all we know. It requires the same math, there is no profound change which needs math to explain it.

I posted in Mathematics, see "Axis of Symmetry made simple". I did this to demostrate my ability to provide formulae to describe relationships.

I wrote graphics software and had to make math formulae.
One to real slider levels and adjust brightness and contrast simultaneously, and one to adjust hue and saturation simultaneously.

As in "Primer", many concepts are not married to a formulae....

2. Please give an example, preferably one which sets your theory apart from competing theories. If possible, show how one would test the prediction (or even better, an observation already on record which does so)

How about answers 2 A, 2B, and 2C?

please humor me

Answer 3 angers people, but the Hubble Deep Space Images are the ultimate observation of all time, either way you go on it.

It was originally expected to show an early BB Universe, but it did not.

I will add one more answer to question 2, I have plenty!

First, I will give all here a first shot at solving the next mystery of science.

Q:Why is it that no Gluon is observed to exist without Quarks, and no Quarks are observed without Gluon?

(Jeopardy! thought music plays...)

a DrRocket post led me to:

In theoretical physics, quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is a theory of the strong interaction (color force), a fundamental force describing the interactions of the quarks and gluons making up hadrons...

QCD enjoys two peculiar properties:

Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches...

Asymptotic freedom, which means that in very high-energy reactions, quarks and gluons interact very weakly. ....

There is no known phase-transition line separating these two properties; confinement is dominant in low-energy scales but, as energy increases, asymptotic freedom becomes dominant.

If it takes an infinite ammount of energy to separate quarks, then conversely combining quarks releases an infinite ammount of energy?

Also, current theory still doesn't explain why no Gluon is detected individually.

I believe in this area I have the better explanation.

Imagine a room partially filled with micoscopic particles that are evenly dispersed.

These particles will attract to a magnet.

If a magnet forms in the room, it is surrounded even AS it forms by a condensed blanket of particles, which are now visible.

If this magnet disappears, the particles disperse, and again are not visible.

<Quote>Virtual particles that blink in and out of existence....</Quote>

Simply picture the Magnet as quarks.
The dispersed particles are MALON [AKA Media/Aether/spacetime].
The dense covering of particles collecting on the magnets are GLUON.

My theory PREDICTS,REQUIRES, that GLUON and QUARKS only exist together.

The Gluon shell likely becomes much weaker at higher energies, the MALON is more dispersed between the nucleus and electron shells.

According to QCD :

the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated.

It becomes greater to a point, then pair production occurs, where new particles are created.

This is standard theory.

The energy of the stretching at that point is lost/converted to the energies of the two particles.

By MALON theory, when enough MALON is pulled into the stretching Gluon shell, the extra GLUON, not energy, forms the new particles.

As GlLUON is magnetically formed by quarks, it is like a copy.

...magnetic moment.. the Gluon is observed to be a "negative copy"of the quarks

So particles are formed like DNA duplicating itself.

MeteorWayne

Verrrrrry interesting.
You have no info about yourself whatsoever.

You are obviously an altar-ego to somebody here.

Possibly DrRocket. Short insults.

When people with altar-egos die, all of their posts stop at once, and it gives away what they have been doing.

Using multiple identities to gang up on those you debate with, agreeing with your altar-ego's to prove your point by majority.

Each separate Altar ego can throw out insults, and are disposable if they cross the line.

I call "Shenanigans" on MeteorWayne. Moderator?

Originally Posted by Eleven

MeteorWayne

Verrrrrry interesting.
You have no info about yourself whatsoever.

You are obviously an altar-ego to somebody here.

Possibly DrRocket. Short insults.

When people with altar-egos die, all of their posts stop at once, and it gives away what they have been doing.

Using multiple identities to gang up on those you debate with, agreeing with your altar-ego's to prove your point by majority.

Each separate Altar ego can throw out insults, and are disposable if they cross the line.

I call "Shenanigans" on MeteorWayne. Moderator?

MeteorWayne's IP address is fairly consistent and does not match that of any other user on our forums. Sockpuppet behavior would also not be consistent with any of the users you have mentioned.

We have occasionally had sock puppets here, but I have noted that in general they are not employed by long term users of these forums, but rather by new users, usually ones attempting to self-promote or create the illusion of broad support for a new idea.

I would urge you to return to the topic. You're starting to make it look like you'd rather engage in meta-discussion than deal with your critics.

Originally Posted by Eleven

MeteorWayne

Verrrrrry interesting.
You have no info about yourself whatsoever.

You are obviously an altar-ego to somebody here.

Possibly DrRocket. Short insults.

When people with altar-egos die, all of their posts stop at once, and it gives away what they have been doing.

Using multiple identities to gang up on those you debate with, agreeing with your altar-ego's to prove your point by majority.

Each separate Altar ego can throw out insults, and are disposable if they cross the line.

I call "Shenanigans" on MeteorWayne. Moderator?

That, sir, is a lie.

I apologize.

Originally Posted by Eleven

you have disproved your statements by failing to be able to use them in a standard test for a theory of gravity. You have to show that your theory works, we can't just take your word for it.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not under contract to follow specific criteria. This is not a publishing company. If I publish my theory I will include all that is necessary.

As it is, I am being generous in sharing the ideas, at risk of being ripped off.

I know the difference between releasing a scientific paper and an open discussion of ideas, do you?

I thought the internet was about freely sharing ideas, but now I don't know...

The way I see it, until you make some kind of scientific statement you are nothing more that a six year old throwing rocks.

I know what you people are afraid of. This could lead into the propogation of light, a sore-spot for BB theorists. I wasn't going to go for the jugular, but you guys are pushing me.

Spacetime is required by BB theory. It has properties assigned to it, therefore it exists. It is a substance, a MEDIA.

When Einstein put forward his theory of relativity in 1905, it was claimed that no experiment using a rotating interferometer could prove the existence of an aether since relativity would cancel out the apparent changes in the length of the arms of the rotating apparatus. However, relativity did not deny the existence of the aether as postulated by Fresnel. Indeed, Einstein theorized that gravity was caused by the distortion of "space-time". What exactly did he mean by "space-time"? It appears that his "space-time" is just another name for aether.

Modern Cosmologists claim that the expansion of the universe under the Big Bang Theory is due to the expansion of "space" and it is the expanding "space" which is causing the stretching of photons (i.e. red shift). Again it sounds like the use of the word "space" here is just another name for aether.

We know that light must either be propogated by this MEDIA or must propogate through the MEDIA.

If it propogated through the MEDIA, scattering would occur.

This is not what we observe.

Therefore light is propogated by the spacetime MEDIA.

As such, it is elastic and will lose energy over great distances. This causes the "distance indicator redshift".

Applying this redshift to observations shows that the universe is not expanding, destroying BB theory.("Blasthemer!")

My bad. There IS a one in a octillion chance that we just happen to be between the expansion and contraction stage. I could totally see the status quo community going with that.

I'm not a physicist, I'm not under contract to follow specific criteria. This is not a publishing company. If I publish my theory I will include all that is necessary.

As it is, I am being generous in sharing the ideas, at risk of being ripped off.

LOL

Originally Posted by Eleven

I apologize.

accepted

Quote:
2. Please give an example, preferably one which sets your theory apart from competing theories. If possible, show how one would test the prediction (or even better, an observation already on record which does so)


How about answers 2 A, 2B, and 2C?

Quote:
please humor me

I answered you, now you need to answer me.

Quote:
2. Please give an example, preferably one which sets your theory apart from competing theories. If possible, show how one would test the prediction (or even better, an observation already on record which does so)

How about answers 2 A, 2B, and 2C?

Quote:
please humor me

You gave me a whole page of questions. I answered you.

Now I deserve a response to my answers

If there's any fairness or credibilty to this process, indeed to this forum, you can't constantly accuse me of saying nothing when in reality you are ignoring what I say, dodging not only questions but dodging my answers to your questions.

Unchallenged=undisproven=you are just urinating.

Eleven Said-Unchallenged=undisproven=[you are just urinating[/size].[/quote]:x
What Are You Saying????????????? DO YOU HAVE NO MANNERS hmmm. Inferiority Complex I see................

Originally Posted by Eleven

You gave me a whole page of questions. I answered you.

I asked you three questions, and they were very short. They're essentially the same questions I ask most people who post a new topic to NH or pseudo.

Originally Posted by Eleven

Now I deserve a response to my answers

I asked the questions in order to try and stimulate the discussion and focus it a bit. I was rather hoping someone with a physics background would be able to better assess your answers. But then you went and accused some of those people of sock puppetry, so I guess they won't feel inclined to bother with you now. I'll review your answers if I have the time tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Eleven

If there's any fairness or credibilty to this process, indeed to this forum, you can't constantly accuse me of saying nothing when in reality you are ignoring what I say, dodging not only questions but dodging my answers to your questions.

I don't believe I ever accused you of saying nothing.

Originally Posted by Eleven

Unchallenged=undisproven=you are just urinating.

Not sure what this means to be honest.

I apologize. I was taking HGH and it made me a little whacky. I stopped and I'm coming back down.

"Human Growth Hormone"

Edited to explain

This is extremely old, but I am hoping Eleven still gets emails from replies to this perhaps.

I like the idea, and nothing ever started out as more than an idea, so I see no need for all the bashing. Especially for those of you that call yourself scientists/physicists, or have a lot of experience on this forum or what have you. A proper response for you would possibly be to tell him what he is wrong about and show facts, perhaps proven by maths. But instead you simply say things like Blasphemy, and bullshit. If he shows no math for his explanations and you show none when you tell him he is wrong, how much better are you then he? do yo just assume this maths backing up your comments are out there without actually knowing? Oh yes, very clever of you

Sadly Eleven wont be notified. A software change in July 2011 destroyed all of the data for peoples thread watch lists. Thus comments on Pre-2011 threads are not going to attract any attention except from people who come here and see the new post.

Originally Posted by Deno

I like the idea, and nothing ever started out as more than an idea, so I see no need for all the bashing.

The trouble is that this idea is just that, an idea. No more and no less. It is not based on any physical reality, evidence or theory. It cannot be used to make testable predictions. So it is not scientific, it is just meaningless nonsense.

For example, lets take the first post (I haven't read all of the repetitive posts following, enough to see that there was not really any more content).

Originally Posted by Eleven

Called spacetime, or aether, a substance fills space.

With the addition of energy, this MEDIA condenses and spins to form quarks which form matter (pair production).

Two immediate problems with this. Firstly, there is no evidence for a substance called aether that fills all space. In fact there is good evidence that there is no such thing. Of course, as Eleven doesn't actually gives us any details of what his aether is, what properties it has, etc. it is hard to provide specific evidence against it. (Note that because he doesn't say what his aether is, he is really only pushing the questions back a step: he says this is what quarks are made of, but what is this aether made of?)

Secondly, he says this "stuff" condenses to form quarks (not sure why he throws the "pair production" buzzword in there). But that doesn't account for electrons, photons, or many other particle types. It also doesn't explain how quarks come to have the properties they have (spin, charge, color, and the many other conserved properties) or why other particles have the properties they have.

Once could go on (why does energy cause it to condense rather than disperse) but there is no point as it is just something some guy on the internet made up. And, as with (nearly) all these people with their personal theories, is absolutely convinced he is right and will not accept any criticism.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Deno

I like the idea, and nothing ever started out as more than an idea, so I see no need for all the bashing.

The trouble is that this idea is just that, an idea.

Yes it is, and that is how everything starts out, as ideas. No one ever came up with the full theory with all the math included right off the bat.

Originally Posted by Eleven

in my descriptions of the MEDIA, none has asked about what is is, what properties it has.

I hold it to be a field of infinitesimally small non-baryonic particles. They have no spin, temperature, inertia.
They play an important role in the flow of electricity(high energy states) and carry EM forces.
They are what forms all matter in pair production, fulfilling the role of the Higgs Boson.

"Bubbles" are condensed formations of these particles I am referring to, AKA MEDIA/spacetime/aether.

Perhaps you should have asked him when he was here then?
Instead of waiting until he is gone to attempt at falsifying his statements.

All I have said was that I liked his idea, and that barely anyone that commented on his thread had any scientific input whatsoever, and seemed more intent on bashing his idea.

EDIT: Is there any chance I could get his email from an Admin or Moderator to try and contact him? Would greatly appreciate it

Originally Posted by Deno

Yes it is, and that is how everything starts out, as ideas. No one ever came up with the full theory with all the math included right off the bat.

But if most people had something that was "just an idea" wouldn't insist it was correct and reject any criticism.

Perhaps you should have asked him when he was here then?

Before my time, I think. Otherwise, I'm sure I would have done.

EDIT: Is there any chance I could get his email from an Admin or Moderator to try and contact him? Would greatly appreciate it

I doubt it. There are laws against that in most jurisdictions. You could try sending a Private Message to him.

Originally Posted by Strange

But if most people had something that was "just an idea" wouldn't insist it was correct and reject any criticism.

True, if there was any scientific criticism I would say that he was wrong to reject it. He shouldn't have said 'Gravity solved' He should have said 'Idea on how the cause of gravity' . There was one person I believe that actually asked relevant questions, which was good criticism, but the others simply said it was bullshit, which isn't very clever -_- .. Last I checked most people that made scientific advancements were regarded as crazy or full of crap in their day werent they?

And yes, I did send him a PM. If possible an email would be nice, but if not that's fine too..

Originally Posted by Deno

Last I checked most people that made scientific advancements were regarded as crazy or full of crap in their day werent they?

I don't think so, no.

I also liked the idea and found the response to be lacking, but Strange I'm glad you pointed out some of the issues with it. Personally, I was reminded of the deferent/epicycle theory for planetary movement [link] which did in fact explain all those confusing problems of variation in speed and direction of the planets... it just explained them wrong. That is to say, the theory was perfectly logical in itself and provided an answer for the question at hand, but those ancient astronomers didn't have enough information to know that their theory was completely wrong. And it being wrong did not mean that it was provably wrong at the time. That didn't come until later.