I wish to expand on my theory.
Firstly, I assert that Gluon is not a particle, but is formed by the compression of many smaller elementary particles. These attract to the color charges of quarks, surround them forming a shell, providing the strong force.

I further state that within the nucleus of larger atoms, Electrons are not bound to a color group, therefore a continual exchange of E occurs as the E moves about, unbound.

In fact, observation has failed to detect stable P's and N's, which leads to the "continual exchange" theory.

A Neutron is like a Hydrogen atom, except that the Electron is within the Gluon shell. The energy of motion eventually causes the Electron to pierce the Gluon shell, leaving the nucleus, to form a Proton and Electron.

Fusion occurs when a Quark or Electron pierces a Gluon shell to enter a nucleus.

Unstable elements are so because the Gluon shell is thin requiring less energy of motion for Quarks and Electrons to break out.

Eventually Leptons(electrons) will be classified as small quarks, as pair production of electrons/positrons has been observed .

Instead of defining matter as baryons, leptons and guage particles, this would define one universal particle [MALON] in three states: quark, gluon, or primordial matter.

[Quarks are formed from Gluon in pair production as observed. Gluon is formed from compressed primordial MALON].

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

What do you mean that observations have failed to detect protons or neutrons? Do you mean sepcifically when they are bound into larger nuclei? or that they are never seen free either?

There certainly ARE experiements that support the existence of protons and neutrons as explicit entities within the nucleus, particularly the shell model of the nucleus, and the various energy states that a given nucleus can switch between, and the various spin isomers we've detected strongly, and mathematically support baryons as opposed to an undifferentiated mass of quarks and gluons.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Well, neutrons were detected by Chadwick. He bombarded the hydrogen atoms in paraffin with the beryllium emissions, but also used helium, nitrogen, and other elements as targets. By comparing the energies of recoiling charged particles from different targets, he proved that the beryllium emissions contained a neutral component with a mass approximately equal to that of the proton.

With big bang theorists searching for dark matter, I expected a little more attention to this theory. This clearly would fill the bill, with the correct properties[BOSON]. Can they accept this gift from an alternative theorist?

This would be the breakthrough of our time!

I have seriously considered every theory , mainstream or otherwise, that I have ever heard. I would enjoy the feeling of someone taking a serious look at mine(unless you believe that science has all the answers).

Nothing is more thrilling than a profound understanding of a concept, the EUREKA factor. This came to me as a epiphany(spelling?). It is sad for progress when ideas come to common people with no political pull [like me]. I am sure scores of people understood the Sun centric view of the solar system, or gravity, or that lightning is electricity, but never could or would sway the masses to accept the change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am CASSANDRA. I know the truth, but have been cursed so that noone shall ever believe what I say.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

What makes you think that? Any evidence to the non-existence of gluons within protons? Gluons were discovered at PETRA Electron-Positron Storage Ring and I find it more sensible that gluons do exist binding quarks within protons.

Yeah Winston, as much as we like you, as much as your idea is creative, as much as we value your input and contributions to the UT forums...it's a kinda wild idea...if Anton says "nice try," then, well, it was a nice try...

I'd have to agree - Nice try!

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

very nice winston, did you had oppinion on gravity too?

__________________
Sorry ‘bout my bad English and low physic knowledge, just can't help to know more

we understanding a bit just to raise more questions

I suppose so. Personally, the shell model of the nucleus does a good job of predicting the energies of the gamma rays that radioactive nuclei give off as the de-excite, and that model assumes that the protons and neutrons are whole objects. It is also the case that quark binding energies are huge compared to the mild forces binding a nucleus together. I don't see any particular advantage to your system, and plenty of problems.

Concerning the 30 problems with the big bang, we've seen these before on this forum, but it is true that some of them are serious puzzles. Some are not. One of the examples of one that is not is the statement that some globular clusters are older than the universe. This is based on old estimations of the stellar aging process. The newer models don't make claims that challenge the big bang hypothesis.

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of leisure time, to sit down and write a rebuttle to all of these, but I welcome them here and hope that a lot of the newer members will select one or two to research and rebut.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I am a status quo type of scientist - well an amateur meteorologist and a scientist and science teacher. I am sure, as Anton said, that there are many who can devote some time to your conjectures, but also like Anton, I have very little time.

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Could you tell more about your ideas on the nature of light and EM?
Is Malon the carrier of it?

regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

I don't have all of the answers yet, but I believe correcting the way we believe light is propogated certainly will be a start.

LIGHT

Current theory believes that Electromagnetism is a wave with no substance in empty space. Yet even "empty space" has neutrinos in it, if not other particles.

Light is often described by photon emmision as a corpuscular particle. Lika a cannon firing a cannonball, the photon is ejected to carry the light force.

Problem? Place a bunch of targets around a particle, and cause that particle to give off light. A corpuscular photon[a cannonball] could only strike one of the targets. All of the targets are struck in realityland.

They try to say the same photon strikes all of the targets!

It makes more sense that a wave is thrown out. But these waves seem to have substance, which to me discounts empty space as the medium....

When alternative theorists propose any particle or substance that fills space, the Big Bang people remind you that "ether theory is dead" which means they've proven space to be empty.....

Contrarily they argue that the new dark matter and dark energy theories would have space "filled".

For hundreds of years this arguement has raged of whether or not space is indeed empty.

My theory, which is the only one I know consistent with Higgs proposed particle spec's, would have countless primordial particles throughout space.

I believe that any Electromagnetic disturbances merely cause waves in this media. as ripples in a 3-d pond, which sometimes we see as visible light.

Affected by gravity, this field of Primordial matter would grow more dense in galaxies and areas serving as the center of gravity for a galaxy group.

Moving towards this area, we have entered a more dense field. This slows light, enlarges the redshift, giving the illusion of acceleration of expansion.

Scientists believe that the speed of light has indeed changed over time, consistent with my theory but not consistent with current theory, in which time cannot change speed.

ELECTROMAGNETISM

All primordial matter exhibits gravity and is affected by EM. To propogate EM, however, requires motion. Similarly, I believe quarks are in harmonious motion, perhaps in the shape of a colloid, to create a "charge".

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

OK WINSTON, I'll do that. Just so I don't misunderstand, this is the thread which has your 'theory'? If not, please point me to where I can find it (if you have published a paper, please give me the reference).
It seems that you are using several words here to describe things that differ considerably from how I understand 'mainstream physics' uses the terms - would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean when you use each of these words?
- 'Gluon'
- 'compression'
- 'small'
- 'elementary particle'
- 'color charge'
- 'quark'
- ' the strong force'
Ditto, for 'Electrons', 'color group', 'continual exchange', 'unbound'
Ditto, for 'P's', 'N's', 'stable'

(I think I'll stop asking for definitions of key terms here)

If I accept your use of terms as the same (or very similar) to how they are used in mainstream physics, then your second statement is confused (e.g. electrons are 'colour-blind', there are no electrons 'within' a nucleus, and electrons are 'bound' in orbitals within atoms). And your third statement is inconsisent with 'observation': the proton is stable! More accurately, it has a half-life of >10^n years, where n is variously ~30 to 37, for a wide variety of decay modes.

Alone, protons are completely stable in my humble opinion.

However, my good man, in a larger nucleii some observations have confused scientists .

No Proton stays "a Proton" in a large nucleus for very long, before transforming into a Neutron.

The current model says that Protons and Neutrons continually "change" back and forth.

It is up to the reader to research this one, I shouldn't have to explain.

I suggest you start spending time with your "search engine'. Type in each phrase and there will be numerous sites and forum postings to learn from.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

If protons continously change back and forth, gamma radiation would be given off.
A proton that is fused in the solar interior can decay into a neutron, but only under those conditions of extreme density and heat.

How do you account for neutral atoms failing to give off any such indications?

Searching on the web is not evidence for anything unless it is backed up by experiments done at some facility and verified with repeated results at other facilities..Fermilab, SLAC, and Brookhaven would have all made announcements of such claims of continuous changes back and forth between baryons..

Secondly, theorists who do succeed at designing new prototypes will usher in a new form of math to accompany such discoveries. That math should describe the present situation and the past elementary building blocks that led to it more accurately than the predessessors did..

Newton's equations were extensions of Kepler's math and Galileo's observations.
Einstein's equations described Newton's more accurately and had to describe and still get the 1/r^2 law for gravity..He also needed to encompass Maxwell's equations and derive the same results..and did..His metric tensor can recover Pythagoras' theorum when reduced to 2 dimensions.

Your math should be able to describe the electon's magnetic strength more accurately than is presently done..

It should increase the number of decimal places beyond the present 12 while encompassing all the previous ones that now exist.

That number is 2.00231930435

Show us the beef. If an electron is sitting inside of the nucleus, the law of conservation says that number should pop up if you are right and it should be shown to be the missing mass (along with the binding energy) in comparing neutrons to protons..

Before that you should show some government officials your math. They would be interested in saving some wasted tax dollars that have been going into the search for proton decay all these years..

I got this next quote HERE, and found it very helpful.


Poster was easking for definitions of quarks, color charge, gluon, etc.

A poster should be responsible for some of his research. I feel that it is unfair for me to have to write a book's worth of information.

You just set the record for naming the most scientists/theorists in one meaningless paragraph.

I imagine very sophisticated equipment would be necessary at some point to answer that question. If you don't understand a theory, how can you begin to say what questions should be answered by it?

My theory is more about Higgs.

That is either delusional or sarchastic.

CONCLUSION

Poster obviously is not being objective. He/she even debunks the prevailing theory.

I have heard all the information I need about my theory here, and need no more input.

In trying their best to disprove, some info was presented here that I wouldn't find otherwise, and it helped.

THANK YOU ALL

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

and yet, you have still failed to convince some (me included) of your theory - sarcasm, insults, condesencion, arrogance etc are not proof.

At this stage, I do not see you as any kind of authority

I would like to see specific data to support your claim.

__________________
Damien,
International Baccalaureate Physics teacher
Optics, Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Instrumentation Major
Admin: Pacific Science and Art

Details please! Be sure to explain how these 'confusing observations' are consistent with your theory.

Quote:

<!--QuoteBegin-Nereid

It is up to the reader to research this one, I shouldn't have to explain.

I suggest you start spending time with your "search engine'. Type in each phrase and there will be numerous sites and forum postings to learn from.[/quote]
Hmm, so we're left with the following:
- all the key terms in WINSTON's idea have the same meanings as they do in mainstream physics (in which case WINSTON's idea goes nowhere, as it puts electrons in the nucleus of atoms, for example, and this is inconsistent with quantum mechanics - the mainstream theory which has the most complete and accurate account of electrons and atomic nuclei)
- at least some key terms in WINSTON's idea have new meanings, but WINSTON hasn't explained what they are, so we must put the idea on the shelf, to be examined later when a consistent set of definitions of they key terms in the idea are available.
Perhaps you've not actually done any physics before WINSTON? It is customary for all key terms in a theory to be clearly defined. This is not just some quirky convention; it's a key part of doing science - one's ideas cannot be tested (even for internal consistency) if one doesn't know what the key terms mean!

Further, when presenting one's own idea, the custom is one needs to address all challenges to the idea - if your idea is well researched, you'll likely have plenty of material that you can supply to address the challenges.

I'd also like to ask you, politely, to not make ad hominem attacks. Not only does it contravene this forum's rules

3. Be Nice

Attack the ideas, not the person. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but don't make personal attacks. You might think you're making a joke, but it could really hurt someone else's feelings, so steer on the side of caution. If you feel that someone has crossed the line and insulted you, please email one of the moderators. Don't write some scathing post in the forum to try and humilate people publicly - we probably won't listen to you then.


but most folk take this kind of defensiveness (when their idea is being challenged) as a sign that the author himself knows these challenges have merit (but doesn't want to admit it).

Sorry, I edited the previous post for 90% less acid.

I have essentially answered questions relating to these topics previously. There was a previous post "A new particle theory defined".

Although someday someone somewhere will agree wholeheartedly with my theory, I don't expect to "prove" it to this forum. I'm not looking for approval, no matter how much you want to withold it.

Data is the observational evidence we all are privilidged to, and uniting prevailing theories is SUPPORT driven agenda.

To discuss the possible relation of Higgs to Gluon is hard to discuss if reader doesn't know what Gluon, higgs, or color charges are. If I explain, the debunkers will just argue about it.

For the posters/readers in need of a short tutorial:
[This is what a typical Q&A physics site will tell you]

Particle types are:Baryons,Leptons,Guage particles.

Baryons:Protons and Neutrons,Mesons.
Leptons:Electrons and Neutrinos
Guage particles:Photons,Gravitons,Gluon and weak force particles.

Behavior:Fermion,Boson In a motel Fermions would all go to separate rooms. Bosons would all go to the same room. An electron would be a Fermion. A Higgs would be a Boson.

Particles formed from Quarks are called Baryons.

Quarks exhibit color charge. Three Quarks of colors that add together form white will combine to form a stable formation. The addition of Gluon makes this a Proton.

Two quarks of opposite color charges [colors that add together form white] can form a stable particle, called a Meson.

The Strong Force is what holds the nucleus of atoms together, when similar positive charges should repel particles from each other.

Elementary particle: A particle that is not made of smaller particles.

Higgs is a typical example of an Elementary particle, one that other particles are formed FROM. Although prevailing theory, current models of matter have no place for Higgs.

Small: I believe that the Higgs is smaller than a prediction at a link previously posted.

Compression: a drop of water is held together by "surface tension". The electrical forces cause water atoms to compress about the surface. This is how the nutty professor floats a razor blade on a glass of water....

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

Nice crash course on particle physics, Winston.
I still like your idea. It shows a new direction.
Something about standard theory needs improvement, for light cannot possibly be a wave and a particle at the same time. And the concept of a graviton is even more absurd.

regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Thank you WINSTON.[/b][/quote]
Stephen (a.k.a. man from kibish) is referring to the Yukawa pion exchange theory, and that's fine. However, it's important to understand that this exchange is of virtual pions, in the same way that the electromagnetic force is an exchange of virtual photons. The details of how the pions are responsible for nuclear binding, yet are themselves colour-less, and protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus by the strong force (which is mediated by gluons) are complex, and many aspects remain under active research (this is not surprising; we're talking about a many-body problem, in the quantum domain!) Readers may find this and this discussion interesting.

Permit me, if I may, to expand just a bit ...

What distinguishes baryons from leptons? The former 'feel' the strong (nuclear) force, the latter do not (they 'feel' the weak force). Both, if they are charged, also 'feel' the electromagnetic force.

The gauge particles are the 'force carriers' - the photon (carrier of the electromagnetic force), the W's and the Z (weak), and gluons (strong). As this whole discussion is about the quantum domain, to make sense of these terms we need to grasp the key features of quantum mechanics (especially the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which is where 'virtual' particles come from, and which sets the range of a force). There is no graviton! Why not? Because a ) the best theory of gravity we have (General Relativity) is not a quantum theory, and b ) there is no alternative quantum theory of gravity (M-Theory, String Theory, LQG, and so on can't yet - in my view - claim that crown).

So, coming back to WINSTON's idea, since it is couched in terms of neutrons, electrons, gluons, quarks, colour charges, the strong force (and so on), we need to ask if it's an idea that embraces quantum mechanics. If so, we can move on in one direction; if not, then we can challenge WINSTON to show that his idea produces results that are consistent with those obtained from QM (this seems to me what blueshift was doing).

Winston,

We are not trying to corner you here. However, you do seem to be destroying your own credibility and, in the process, are destroying your own hypothesis.

Methodology is the issue here. And none of your posts indicate you have much of a background in methods used in particle physics at all except to recognize a portion of the particle zoo( with too much left out..).

Particle physicists cannot do one experiment (or even 1000 experiments)--obtain predicted results--and make any claim whatsoever. They must gather data on a billion billion experiments and come up with predicted results 99.999% of the time before they can use the word "discovery" at all. With 68% success they can make claims of a "finding"...but not a "discovery".

Yet, I do recognize that you do not have the spare pocket change to build your own accelerator and hire all the need help and equipment needed to conduct any needed experiments that could reveal some of your claims..

I would first go right here for an introduction to the subject..

I would spend several years advancing math skills and lab skills at some particle accelerator like SLAC, Fermilab, Argonne, etc before presenting some hypothesis for testing to people like her and him and all the other physicists at that site. Connor does answer questions from time to time and gives you an example right on that page..Watts is in process of shifting the responsibilites of CDF and DZero over to the new LHC being built in Europe. It will be online in 5 years.

Further, you might try and drop unwarranted arrogance. I have spent a lot of time around physicists in my astronomy club that work at Fermilab and Argonne and none have ever used the word "my" in front of the word "idea".

How dare me suggest that anyone or anything in science isn't absolutely correct.

If you read my previous posts you'd realize that I have no interest in presenting a hypothesis for acceptance. I don't get paid for that.

I'm not looking for credibility. I gave just enough information to get what I needed from this site. I have even deleted my own posts, which may have explained TOO MUCH.

Well, go there, then.

YOUR arrogance leads you to believe [and state] that only you can understand a topic. I am here to read what people have to type.

When I disagree with someone, I give scientific and logical reasons. All you are presenting here are politics, personal jabs, and insults to credibility.

You are behind in this information age.

MOST VALID EXPERIMENTS ARE ALREADY BEING PERFORMED BY SCIENTISTS. TAXPAYERS, SUCH AS ME, PAY FOR THIS. THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE.

SOME DEBUNKERS here feel that noone can understand experimental data but the technician who hit the "go" switch, the scientists directly related to the project, or the debunkers here.

One (of many) way I have of accessing such information RELAVENT to my theory is to interact with debunkers and theorists.

BLUESHIFT-If I took credit for anyone elses idea you should quote me doing so. If you can't, I don't.

I only claim one unique "theory". It IS unique. All other views, such as anti-big bang rhetotic, I post as my philosophy, not MY IDEA.

My theory is based on all previous observational evidence. It also predicted recent experimental observations, and predicts outcomes of furure experiments.

I remember writing a basic script for a comedy show. When I told someone, they said I had to finance it, direct it, set up the lights, move the equipment....

I said, the writer writes, the director directs, the producer finances....

MORAL: Don't expect everything from one guy. If I see science correctly, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of great minds before me.

By the way, my "theory" is a simple aesthetic change which unites prevailing theories. This is not an alternative theory, by definition, except that the linking concept has never been considered before.

If someone would close this topic with diplomacy, I will give you the last word.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

Oh don't be so melodramatic! No one here has said that, and most everyone realizes that science is almost NEVER "absolutely correct". Take a breath, people here are challenging your assertations, not you.

Funny comment that. Is it not you who posted your desire to If that is not "presenting a hypothesis for acceptance" I don't know what is.

How gregarious of you! Thank you for sparing us mere mortals from having to try and follow your apparently super-intellegent musings. I, for one, am humbled and grateful for your consideration.

I didn't read it that way. Rather, it seems to me he said that you may need more information about the subject.

Still, I think you have a point is saying it was a personal jab. Obviously he finds the logical progresson of your arguments less than compelling.

I respectfully disagree with this assertation. It is neither simple, nor does it address enough of the known prevailing theories to suggest it unites them. I think that blueshift alludes to this deficit in his post, not the "personal atttack" you have labelled it.

And, by definition, it is indeed an alternative theory. It would seem that you agree, considering the location of this discussion.

Winston, accept this as a friendly warning. You are bordering on insulting behavior, which is not tolerated in this forum. If you disagree with blueshift or any other person who finds your theory untenable, then simply state your disagreement, or don't respond. No one is forcing you to react.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

This was further DEVELOPMENT. I had several possible ramifications to consider.

I made a statement that no protons exist in large nucleii. The information that Antonioseb gave [in "disproving" my theory] was the information that answered for me (and me alone) which possible ramification of my theory agrees with observational evidence.

Now I don't have to rent my own accelerator.

That's what I thought at first, that a theory which , if true, would turn science on it's ear would be alternative. Through time I've learned that my theory agrees not only with observational evidence, but with prevailing science.

I have the only theory that resolves Higgs Boson theory with current particle theories and observations. This is done simply, logically, with no major overhaul.

THIS WOULD SOLVE A MAJOR PROBLEM IN PHYSICS no matter what anyone will tell you.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

Winston,

Again I insist that no personal attack is under way here. You do deserve answers to some questions that you raised on Sept. 27, 2004..No one really answered fully and I can't point a finger at anton since he is quite busy and can't respond to every post there is.

I will clear up a quote I made that likely was misinterpreted..

And I do have some questions that you might answer for me..

T begin with..a reference frame is not a reference point. A reference frame is what shares your motion. Wherever/whenever space between 2 objects does not change, a reference frame, a uniform reference frame, exists.

As you move down the interstate at 55 mph and keep that speed steady, all other cars moving with you in the same direction and going the same steady 55 mph are in your reference frame..The cars passing you are not...If you drop your car keys at a steady speed they will fall straight to the floor as long as your motion is uniform...no bumps or turns where your motion changes...

In another reference frame...the ground...and all objects that are not changing their motion relative to the ground...( which means they are standing still, but sharing the motion of Earth)..Anyone walking around on the ground does not share the same reference frame with those standing still. They only share the same reference frame with others whose measured distances do not change with respect to all others...It does not matter how far apart they are. Another planet in the universe may be circumventing a star like our own whose galaxy group shares the same motions as ours does and whose solar system is journeying through its galactic orbit at 220 km/sec just as ours is. If our galactic journeys are in a lockstep we are in the same reference frame even if we are 8 billion light years away from each other.

Are the laws of motion the same in all reference frames? We are not talkling about measurements..We are talking about laws..If I drop those same keys while I stand on the ground, will they still fall right near my side or ground like they did in the car?...Will they fall right next to me on board a jet traveling 600 mph where no air turbulence exists and the seat belt sign is off? In all 3 reference frames mentioned here...the car...the ground...the jet...the answer is yes..This is called a relativity principle...Galileon relativity...

You can play catch in the steady moving aircraft...You can play catch on the ground...You can do it in the back seat of a steady moving car...The laws of motion are the same in all uniform motions..

Now turn on your microwave..Set it for 3 minutes with a cup of water placed inside.
Then take that same microwave with you on board the jet and ask this question..
Do I need to set the timer at another setting since the jet is moving 600 mph? Will the temperature be different? Of course not on both accounts. Your tea will sense that electromagnetism's laws are the same wherever you are...Now comes the hard part..it doesn't make sense as above but the following experiment tells your head to adjust...

Will the measurements of light from different reference frames measure different speeds? After all, Galileon relativity tells us that two cars both going 60 mph that slam into each other head-on will be the equivalent of one standing still while the other rams into it at 120 mph..Speeds should add, shouldn't they? They do for you and me and freight trains and everything else..Shouldn't they do the same for light? Shouldn't light be traveling with respect to its source so that their speeds add when crashing head-on? If they do, then shouldn't I measure light from another vehicle coming me at me at twice the speed my light is heading toward him? This would occur if light moved with respect to the ground just as our two cars are going. Our car speed is 60 mph with respect to the ground..But light speed up in the jet was also measured at speed c since our microwave experiment beared that out...And microwaves are just light waves with a different frequency!

Sound travels with respect to air..Water waves move with respect to water..Each has a special reference frame that their speed is measured with respect to..What does light move with respect to? If we form a right angle with the Earth, the Sun, and Jupiter twice during the year...once with us moving away from Jupiter in our orbit and, six months later, again with us moving toward Jupiter..what would happen if we measured the speed of light coming from the Jovian planet. Shouldn't one measurement be faster than the other? That doesn't happen...Light does not move with respect to the source and the M-M experiment that you brought up in an earlier post last fall proved that light does not have a special reference frame that it moves with respect to..Jovians measure light from Jupiter to be speed c as well as Saturnians, Earthlings, etc...Cars speeding down the road measure light from Jupiter to be speed c and all experiments bear this out..All reference frames measure light speed at c..

Is light speed relative to the source? If it did then we would measure a different speed light coming from Io as it ducks behind Jupiter compared to when it emerges. The measurement has been done and no difference exists.

We both know that speed = distance divided by time...30 miles/hour...What happens if speed is constant? Can the other two quantities change at all? Yes. Since they form a fraction we know that a fraction holds the same quantity if the numerator changes by the same multiple as the denominator..2/1=4/2=8/4=16/8.
All are the same quantity. They all equal 2..

So how do we keep the speed of light the same? By time and distance (space) changing in the same amounts that keep the ratio = speed c.

There are also accelerating reference frames. They deal with general relativity and gravity but that is a long subject to talk about. One thing at a time.

Is this clear or not?

This might have been taken wrong and it is incomplete on my part.

I can even elaborate on this further. In all of the 100+ books I have read on the subject matter of classical physics and modern physics and the $2000 plus that I spent on the Teaching Company's video courses on astronomy and the same genre, I haven't heard those words in association thereabouts either.

This comes on the heels of a stern lecture that Mike Turner gave to a reporter for Symmetry magazine last month on page 12..He is the Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences..

"Science First! Before you tell me what you want to build, tell me the questions you want to answer." I took this to mean that a scientist does not defend an idea. A scientist faces a question he or she wishes to answer then organizes an experiment to answer the question..

Also, from both Nereid and DGR, a valid theory must have an experiment that can disprove it or it is pseudoscience. I agree.

This does not make me any kind of expert whatsoever. An expert is someone you can sue and who can charge you.

Now there are questions that I have to you that I don't know the answers to. Maybe you can provide them with experiment and source..

These two statements call for verification.

Emmy Noether developed a theorum connecting symmetry to conservation laws. Asymmetry tells us an indicator of some missing mass and this indicates a missing unknown particle that must exist that we need to ramp up energies and controls to realize in collisions in particle accelerators...

Do you find problems with this theorum and what are the missing parts we don't understand? Does someone or some source point out its errors?

Feyman's diagrams use arrows whose lengths tell us the probability amplitude of an event. Time is indicated by how much an arrow rotates. Arrows must describe all the ways an event can happen. Where these direction arrows have neighboring direction arrows pointing very nearly in the same direction for an event ( no two are in the same direction), they add the most linear length to the final arrow and, hence, the greatest probability that an event will occur in that direction. This has been verified in experiments with glass, lenses, mirrors and photomultipliers...and, of course, in particle accelerators...These arrows can shrink and turn..Do you find errors in these calculations? Is there a source?

David Z Alpert has written of "math formalism" and so has Sydney Pollack. Some calculations take an entire school semester to figure out..Is there some flaw that you see in them? That math is way over my head at the moment and maybe either you or someone you know understands its flaws?

Or did you or some source come up with some explanation for the anamolies surrounding the DsJ 2632 particle? They were realized at Fermilab last year in experiments where the bombardment of thin films of copper or diamond with a beam of sigma particles that createed charm quarks and the baffling DsJ2632 which is a very massive meson that has a half life much longer than mesons with 1/3 its mass..It's a puzzle..

Have you or some source found some discrepency to Strangeness conservation?

Since gluons are a subject you are exploring you might look up Kenneth Wilson at Ohio State; Andreas Kronfield at Fermilab; Ian Shipsey at Purdue; Michael Kreutz at Brookhaven; and others concerning lattice QCD which has a math that might be describing the particle riot going on inside of the B meson. They are thinking that a cord of gluons tether together quarks in the B meson where hypothesized "staggered" quarks exchange high speed gluons and move about lilke a drunk in a bar...Miles over my head at the moment..but something you might want to investigate...

As for the Higgs? Gordan Watts at Fermilab could be the one to contact and I left you that link in the last post. He just returned from Cern. There's a good chance he is working right on the problem ( or knows someone who does ) and can provide you with some feedback..

Some lives are in a rush through traffic. That can leave only little time to read over posts carefully and respond in a communicative manner..I'm retired and have to recognize when others live in the fast lane..

Thanks for the term theme!

This wasn't from another Forum? I didn't think I had been here so long.

Frame theory is a part of big bang, you know how I feel about that.[I don't accept it at all]

Not enough infrormation here to know if I have the answer, but it does sound relavent to my theory. Give me a link.

Most questions asked by posters here have no obvious relevance to my theory, such as your question:

I appreciate this. I don't believe that these guys would ever waste time on a new theory by an unknown.

Still, I feel I should present my theory completely and properly at some point. I would likely make my own website.

I will answer your questions, since you went to so much trouble.[although I want this thread to finish]

1 The size given would be detectable by current equipment, given it's properties.
2 No single (Higgs) particle has been detectable, and therefore must be very small.
3 The mass of Gluon changes smoothely(addition or subtraction of Higgs), not in quantized steps. Each step would represent the addition of a particle with measurable mass.

Currently Higgs theory is prevailing theory, but has no place in current models. My epiphany from 15 years ago marries Higgs to the current model, although I didn't even understand what Higgs was about until recently. This is like independent confirmation to me.

My theory explains HOW and WHY particles get their mass from Higgs, and explains the strong force. Higgs proved all the reasons that the particle is necessary, and this is accepted by prevailing science. I just "located" and explained this Boson.

FYI, Two fundamental forces would be redefined as derivative -The strong and weak forces. I'm not sure, however, that I believe in GUT.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

No it is not Winston. If frames of reference did not exist then the television would have never been invented..Reference frames comes from Galileon relativity, special relativity, and general relativity. All scientists against the BB agree with the valid reality of reference frames..

If an electron is imbedded within a gluon shell as you suggest, then you have some issues to settle and my remarks about Noether's theorum, Feynman's diagrams and the math formalism of Alpert and Pollack come into play here.

Concerning Noether's theorum, it deals with the known mass of the electron and the design of particle accelerators..Particle accelerators are very delicate instruments. They do not simply just slam things together like mack trucks. It is quite elaborate but I will keep all the details to a minimum here..

If you sliced a donut in half and put it in a hatbox, you would make a very crude design ( yet a fairly good representation) of a particle accelerator. Put a gap between the two half donuts and place an emf across the gap..The emf will have to be synchronized just the right amount so that the particle being accelerated will "see" an attractive potential across the gap and will leap the gap, increasing momentum..So its frequency and strength need to be adjusted even as it moves within the apparatus..Increasing momentum will make the particle's path increase in radius, nearing it to the wall..We don't want it to hit the wall so we need to add stationary magnetic field on the top and bottom of the apparatus that will shrink the radius of the particle's path downward. The cover and the bottom of the hatbox example shows where the location of the two poles of the magnets are located..

If modern science has been wrong all these years, as you suggest, and an electron is embedded within each gluon, then every particle accelerator experiment would not have succeeded since the balancing act needed is in desperate dependence upon Noether's theorum to keep control..The discrepency would grow to astronomical values as the heavier nuclei, like the gold ions used at Brookhaven, would show that our calculations for the masses of each baryon would be erroneous. In fact the entire Periodic Table of Elements would be in serious error. The nuclear arsenal should not have been invented since we would have needed energy far above what the future LHC will even reach to deal with things like uranium and plutonium, both of which would have far more incredible masses.

Secondly, you would need an explanation for how the electron arrived and was trapped by the gluon..Either it is created by the gluon...it is taken in as a free electron that was caught within its grasp and traveled straight in...or it spiralled inward..All three possibilities fail..

In the first example, a creation event would give off a positron at gamma frequencies and none is detected..In the second example a straight drive by an electron that even comes NEAR the nucleus will give off X-rays known as Bremsstrahlung radiation. The third possibility gets ruled out as well since a spiralling electron would be losing energy on its way into the nucleus, sending out EM at enough frequencies to give off a rainbow of colors for every baryon in the universe...This should be a very colorful place...but not that colorful..A fourth possibility would be an inward shuffling of electrons from the outer energy levels to the inner ones. That fails as well since it would give off K shell X-rays in a number of frequencies. None is detected..

Further, the magnetic strength of the electron would be detected in the situation you propose since it would be influenced by the field of other electrons moving into other baryons and Feynman's calculations bear out the ugly number of 12 decimals again that should show up in observations..2.00231930435...That number was realized from Feynman's diagrams and the math formalism of Alpert and Pollack..

They spend time working on theories by unknowns all the time..You need to relook at the word "theory" and realize that it is not a synonym to the word "idea" to a scientist..Further, are you trying to convince me that I am wasting my time with you?

I am not sure that giving you a site is going to help you at all. If you reject reference frames, then you are rejecting the simple concept that everyone should share their motion in a boat ( by sitting still) in order to prevent it from tipping.
You are rejecting how people first learned how to dance and how a string instrument works and pretty much how friction functions..Fire would have never become a part of our life..Sunset and sunrise would have been only seemed like a light switch to the ancients..Light on and light off. Quarterbacks would never bother leading a pass receiver while in motion nor throw it straight to him when he stands still..

If you proceed to hang on to such delusions, then I see no point in responding to your posts and you will have convinced me that I too am wasting my time.

This is my fault. I should have explained the first time and could have prevented much of Blueshift's previous post.

In expansion theory, it is claimed that the galaxies on the leading edges of expansion are not travelling at nearly twice the speed of light, as required by matter moving 25 billion light-years[half of 50 billion light year wide universe] in 13.7 billion years.

It is claimed that each galaxy is only moving relative to the "space" around it, or the "frame". And this space itself is moving, or stretching, so that the motion of galaxies would appear slow in relation their frame...

This was what I was arguing against.

If there's no frames of reference, how will I get the proper tea to sugar ratio? How can I tell the new "Family Guy" from the old?

I don't reject frames of reference. I also don't wish to argue big bang, and noone wants me to.

I'm saying that science is correct. Science is looking for the Higgs as we speak. If you can show me where my model was considered and rejected, then I am in disagreement with that.

I believe there is already enough experimental evedence to prove this model, one only needs to look at the observations through the "eyes" of this possible configuration. It's hard to support a hypothesis who's possibility has never been considered...

CALL ME SILLY.....

I believe that there are more than a few brilliant people in the field of theoretical particle physics. I believe that a few of them would have a foundation of knowledge, and logical prowess enabling them to reach a "critical mass" of understanding once they consider this model. However, they would probably only be open to it if they searched it out of their own volition, or it was presented to them by someone they trust.

Having understood the "connection" between Higgs and the current observations, it wouldn't take long for these few to present a formitable case in support of this model to the world, even if additional experiments are required.

The world community would likely embrace this "discovery" presented this way.

The best I can do is someday present my theory at my website[$3.95 per Month No frill website]. Perhaps someone would search me out...

The word was Gluon shell. I probably should have said Pion instead of Electron.

Pion is a generic particle term. This Pion is just an Electron with a Neutrino. The Electron has the charge that is in motion, and is the important concept here.

Science believes that quarks and pions are glued together by gluon, as I do. I merely say that the Gluon is the shell on the outside, with pions and quarks within. I also say that the Gluon is composed of elementary particles [Higgs/MALON].

In observations Pions are not bound to any Baryon within large nucleii. Pions move freely from Baryon to Baryon. If Gluon bound Baryons SEPARATELY, the Pions would have to overcome the binding forces of Gluon within each Baryon, and some form of energy/radiation would occur.

Nowhere in nature do particles bind and unbind constantly without addition of energy or release of radiation.

In my model, the binding Gluon binds the nucleus as a whole, leaving the pions(electrons) unbound to any SEPARATE Baryon. These Pions(electrons) would therefore move about the nucleus, agreeing with the observation that no STATIC protons or neutrons exist.[continual exchange]

Observation shows quarks to be "more attracted the further apart they are". The inverse square law describes attractive forces. Objects are supposed to be exponentially more attracted to other objects at closer distances.

This behaviour only makes sense in a shell configuration. Increasing ammounts of energy stretch the quarks, and thus, the shell. More elementary matter is pulled into the Gluon, increasing mass. At a critical point, enough extra Gloun[Higgs/MALON] is present to form two new quarks. This is pair production.

This doesn't violate conservation of matter. This requires no energy-to-matter or matter-to-energy conversions.

Do you know of an observation that would suggest that, moving into the nucleus, you encounter Pions before you encounter Gluon? THIS would be one of the only ways to contradict/disprove my theory.

So electrons with a mass 1/10.000 of a proton would add incredible mass?

My frame of reference tells me that you are doing a bit of grandstanding here.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE / FREEDOM IS SLAVERY / ETC.

1/10,000 of a mass of a proton would be easily detected and when you multiply that by the number of protons in a gold ion it would fly all over the place if is not accounted for.

You have spatial expansion all wrong..

You still do not understand frames of reference. Tea to sugar ratios have nothing to do with it.

You do not have a model because math is required to present one.

Scientists know exactly what they are looking for in terms of the Higgs boson, you don't.

Pion is not a generic particle term at all. It is not an electron with a neutrino. A pion is a meson, existing in 3 forms...neutral, positively charged, and negatively charged..Charged pions decay into muons and neutrinos; the neutral pion decays into 2 gamma ray photons.

The behavior of gluons is that they are exchange particles between quarks and their strength increases with distance like a rubber band does. When we drill a meson with an electron beam at very high energies we can snap the gluon field which creates another quark/antiquark pair. This is one of the pieces of evidence that suggest that spatial expansion is valid and created quark/antiquark pairs in the early universe. Though you recognize part of this, it appears you have no fundamental grasp at all.

Is there observations showing pion encounters before gluons ? Yes. In particle accelerators...

I'm not going to be responding to you any more. You are self delusional and you are not being honest with yourself at all. Nothing backs up anything you are proposing here. You have no understanding of the laws of physics..Bye