Take for instance the film of a pico second pulsed beam of light and the electron.
One the pattern is wavelike, more like an interference pattern that one might infer should have been like what Michelson and Morley were after.
Two the motion of a 'real' particle is not observed by wave pattern interference indicates the electron is not 'matter'.
In the whole universe there are two stable forms of matter. Normal matter the proton to be specific. Electrons just associate with them and neutrons decay to protons over a ten minute time frame. The proton has a stable half life estimated at 35 trillion years and proton death not occurring until around 120 trillion years.
Strange matter from the few strange matter distant objects observed, magnetars and so forth. It is well to remember two things here.
One this appears to be an ancient stable form of matter as these objects have ended their 'normal' life as stars.
Two as the universe ages matter is gradually building up ... hydrogen to helium to lithium to carbon and so on. (The next heavier stage is upward to lambda matter, worth thinking about).
Neutrino's although hypothesised are detected by limited interaction only. A neutrino is detected by energy signature in luminous fluids (just as are cosmic rays). None have been captured, photographed or bonded into 'matter'.
The further up from the proton in size the less time a 'particle' stays in existence, for the W and Z bosons not much longer than a trillion trillionth of a second.
If the little stuff is energy and the big stuff can't hold energy then is a proton really a particle?
Now back to wormholes, a one side symmetry violation and surrounding gate with various energies. Gravity at the gate working within only at a distance using inverse squared laws along the corridor ... much like distant stars have so little effect gravitationally on earthly matter.
To answer your question politely, as it requires an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eta C
Hogwash. Provide some evidence that the observables are "tailored" to be consistent. Sounds to me like you're accusing physicists and astronomers of fraud.
|
No disrespect to your good self or other working scientists who have put so much of their lives into the understanding of our world, but yes even if inadvertently refusing to or being incapable of understanding a different perspective.
Given that there are so many brilliant minds in science and so much research if this is known and being kept quiet by anyone then absolutely I would be screaming from the rooftops that the greatest and most extraordinary fraud imaginable has been committed. I do not believe it is the case and I hope this isn't the case. I believe the answer is so obvious that it has been missed because nobody even stopped to consider it.
Prizes to the scientist or scientists that rewrite all the rules of physics and still manage to keep the laws of physics intact.
It was my privilege to listen to an interview of Professor Lisa Randell where the concept of a gravity strong and gravity weak brane. Answers are being looked for at the smallest scales and at the largest scales and somehow we missed the very stuff right in front of our noses.
Gravity is not being looked for at the strangest scale, normal matter. Why ... perhaps because we assume that it must be a particle.
Why?