Why don’t you describe what you think the strong and weak forces are? I’d love to hear, for example, how weak decay processes are caused by mass displacement.
You argue that electrons are not negatively charged; however, there are highly repeatable experiments (one that won the discoverer the Nobel Prize in 1906) that proves that electrons are negatively charged. How do you account for this?
I think overall the problem you have Mantraphilter is that you don’t seem to understand the nature of modern science and how advanced it has become. Generally, scientists don’t just come up with ideas out of the blue. They do a lot of studying of the literature and make some small incremental improvement in some small research area. These improvements are heavily based on the work that comes before and strongly rationalized against the existing literature. To make a hypothesis such as yours, which has very sweeping and bold claims, has to be argued with the utmost rigor in comparison to the existing paradigms and literature. It is not enough to say “I think it is this way”, you need to compare it to existing literature and show how it resolves open problems in the literature. As an example, see my question above, this is just one of the many questions you need to answer, that is to say how your model explains all of the previous work as well as the existing models and, in fact, brings it further. If you want to overturn a well-established model, you can’t just argue that it brings it further, it doesn’t work that way. You have to be able to explain all of the existing experiments in your paradigm.
That means you’re going to need to explain at least a little over 100 years of very established science. If your model cannot explain even a single experimental result then it means that it is flawed and needs to be rejected or modified.
Better get reading, but if you’re serious about pursuing your hypothesis that’s what you need to do to prove it.
I’m asking you to explain what you think the weak force is— not what causes it or how it relates to your ideas about displacement, but what the term “weak force” actually means. There’s nothing about it on your website, and I don’t think you have the faintest idea what it is. So, explain to the class: What is the weak force (aka the weak interaction)?
Did you not read the finished version of my theory? The weak force is how electrons escape the displaced space of an atom, commonly know as radio active decay, the nuclear reaction that happens in a star. It is how energy escapes the space that is displaced by the atom. if you did not get that point by reading the theory, you did not read it very well.
If there at 5 protons in a nucleus, the space displaced by the nucleus has 5 over lapped spaces that are more space than the space outside of the overlapped space. this is what creates the strong nuclear force. Likewise the wall of space differential has 5 points that represent the shape of the 5 protons in the nucleus. These points are not overlapped space, but are also greater space than the space outside of them. This is where electrons are contained in there orbits.
MANTRAPHILTER, your statements about the inadequacies of math are akin to me staring at the cockpit of a 747 and declaring that because I couldn’t begin to understand what all those dials, buttons, switches and screens are for I can only conclude that this thing cannot possibly fly.
You have obviously studied up on your nuclear physics, the electron was given its negative charge designation because it moved towards the negative charged side of a parallel plate. But, if a particle is attracted to a negative charged plate, wouldn’t that particle have to be a positively charged particle? You think that an electrons charge is somehow a negative (opposite charge of a positive) and it is not. My problem is the language of physics, opposites attract. If you have two parallel plates, one positive charge and one negative charge, they are not two opposite charges, only the energy is flowing in one direction. When you force particles between the two plates, the particles attracted to the positive plate are called protons, and given a positive charge designation. When actually they are, particles void of any charge, and because they could accept a charge, they were drawn through magnetism to the positive plate. Yet the modern language of physics calls them positively charged protons. The particles that are attracted to the negative charged plate, are particles that already had a charge and are repelled by the positive charged plate and attracted to the negative plate, yet, modern physics language calls them negatively charged electrons. Any particles that are not attracted to either plate they call a neutron. The language is all fucked up. I say the particle attracted to the positive plate and can accept a charge should be given the negative designation. The particle attracted to the negative plate and repelled by the positive plate should have a positive designation as it is already charged. And the particles that are attracted to neither plate is a particle that should have a neutral designation. So, go spew your information to whoever will listen, sit up on your high horse preaching your false Idea that you read somewhere so it must be right. It appears that you do not even understand the concept of magnetism yet, are well educated enough to be confused.
That sounds like a job for a mathematician, which I do not pretend to be. So if I can’t do the math that describes how much time dialates due to the space displaced by a mass, my theory is not valid?
No, negative charges are drawn to positive plates and vice versa. And equal charges repel each other. This is true on the atomic level and on the macro level. You can experiment with this using glass and plastic rods and pieces of cloth and adding charges to various light weight objects and see how they behave. Our current models explain how this work very well. How does your model explain the phenomenon where I rub a rubber balloon against my head and then have it stick to the ceiling for many minutes?
Electric charges moving in a magnetic field are accelerated with a force perpendicular to the direction of motion, so they move in a curved path. You can show this in a high school lab with an electron cannon and a regular old magnet. Or you can use Helmholtz coils and make it a bit more precise. How does your model explain the behavior of the current, magnetic field, electron cannon and electron beam in this experiment? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwZEBsefIzM
Worse that that - it means that your theory isn’t complete enough to be judged as valid or invalid. Until you can make specific statements about what your theory predicts, how can you have any confidence that it’s right?
