So where are we going with this thesis, or should I say these two thesis, because there is more than enough material to divide it into two.

The first thing is to describe four and five dimensions of space in simple terms. If string theory describes space, and a string equals a dimension in space, it can describe up to 21 strings, but not infinity.

String theory is an active research framework in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It is a contender for a theory of everything (TOE), a self-contained mathematical model that describes all fundamental forces and forms of matter. String theory posits that the elementary particles (ie. electrons and quarks) within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings").
The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact because the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[1] In imperial units this speed is approximately 186,282 miles per second. According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light) travel in vacuum. It is also the speed of gravity (i.e. of gravitational waves) predicted by current theories. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the Theory of Relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.[2]

A tachyon (play /ˈtæki.ɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. The word comes from the Greek: ταχύς or tachys, meaning "swift, quick, fast, rapid", and was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper.[1] Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light,[2] but instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation. Nevertheless, they are still commonly known as "tachyons",[3] and have come to play an important role in modern physics.[4]

Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[4][5] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.[5] Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier.

Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence had been found.[6]

 Beginning on page 10 you will be taken through this theory very gently, assuming you know very little about physics.  At the end of this book the theory will be fully developed and explained.

The universe is not chaotic, it is ordered and much of it is flat. By this I mean, that just as when you play pool you can predict where a ball will go when you hit it at a specific point or angle, particles are trapped in space and cannot do anything unexpected.

What we must do is explain how a particle which is very small, and travelling very fast moves within an atom or a proton or neutron or a photon.

Imagine that the galaxy is the size of a pea. It doesn't matter how big or model is really, as long as things stay in proportion. If our galaxy, or pea is teh Milky Way galaxy, it is approximately 100,000 light years across. The clost galaxy to ours is Andromeda, which is about 2.2 million light years away. This means that our pea sized galaxy will be about 21 peas away from the next galaxy to us, or if our galaxy is about 1 centimetre across (representing 100,000 light years, the closest galaxy is 21 cm away. This is quite close, but it takes us over 2 million years travelling at the speed of light. Imagine that the universe is full of objects just this close to each other, but just that far away. Our current technology can get us nowhere near the speed of light, so spending even two million years getting somewhere is out of the question. We may as well admit we are trapped on our planet until we die, and even if we are born again, we can still go nowhere without acknowledging God.

Getting back to science, we already know that a star, (like our sun) produces ample energy to accellerate particles (photons) to the speed of light. We know this takes an awful amount of energy, but we also know that it takes a lot more to accellerate something to more than the speed of light. So where would a particle go if it is travelling at that speed (millions of light years per second)? It could go directly to a nearby galaxy, maybe to the black hole in the centre of such a galaxy.

Imagine a particle, which goes directly toward the centre of the atom, directly into proton or neutron, the two things apart from electrons that atoms are made of. Where will it pop out again? Will it stay within its own type of matter, either proton or neutron, or could it switch randomly?

Imagine that the sun is the centre of the atom. We are eight minutes away from the sun, travelling at the speed of light. For any energy which disappears down this "rabbit hole", some energy comes back up. We know this is so, otherwise our matter would disappear. What causes this matter to come and go, as it could do? What causes it to be replaced in exactly the same proportions as it left? Obviously, if any matter can travel at faster than the speed of light, into its centre of mass, it takes energy. When it arrives, and slows, it gives up energy, and when it goes it takes energy to make it accellerate. We know that a mass with twice the velocity (speed) has twice the energy. If it has half the mass, and twice the velocity, it has the same energy (as a mass with a given velocity).

 This is just a very basic principle of what type of thing we are looking for, but since we have two types of matter, protons and neutrons, one positive in charge, and one neutral, we expect them to have different masses. In atoms a hydrogen atom, with one electron charge has about a quarter the mass of the neutral Helium atom, which is the next biggest atom. A neutron is slightly larger than a proton 1, compared to .99862349. How do we explain this? How does it fit with my theory that protons and neutrons contain a group of five particles each?

Neutron = 1
Proton = 0.99862349
Electron = 0.00054386734

Current theory, which has many billions of dollars invested in it, most in atom accellerators or coliders such as the Hadron collider, says protons and neutrons are composed of quarks.

My theory, which cost nothing, just a pocket calculator used to find prime numbers, investigating an explanation which eventually proved futile, because there is no common factor in the masses of atoms, does not admit quarks, because quarks do not fit, and to be mine, I must have a different name for my particles.

How many particles are there in a proton and a neutron, is it an odd or an even number? Is it three, or five, or more? Are they in the relationship; 1, 4, 7..., like the relative masses of the first five atoms of the periodic table? Are there some particles which are common to both protons and neutrons? Where are protons and neutrons made? How much energy does it take? Where does this energy come from, is it a star, or some other place?

I'm making a calculated prediction, it is five particles (not quarks) although it could be three. I'm saying it is teh same number for both protons and neutrons, and that it should be possible to prove it by designing an experiment to extract energyy from protons and neutrons. I think I have designed three, but it would take somebody else to come up with their own experiment to prove my theory.

If protons and neutrons both have five particles, are they five different particles, or combinations of, say three or four different particles?

Imagine that these particles look like hard boiled eggs. They have a yolk, or round bit which represents the centre of mass, then there is the bit, the "cloud" of matter, or orbiting (photons) which contain the momentum, or motion which gives the particle it's mass and charge. Ibagine two of these "eggs" spinning in unison, but (like two eggs separated by a glass sheet) big end to small end. They would both be spinning around a common centre of mass.This would account for two positive charges which would cancel each other out, but what other types of shape could there be?

 "Scientists" have discovered all sorts of quarks. There are up quarks and down quarks and top and so on, but all these are "created" are they not, in a violent collision. Is it not possible that these are merely shapes which explain what happens in an instant in a collision? Is there not a purely logical design, made possible because of the laws of physics? It should be possible to "see" this shape, in our minds, because it is not possible to physically see objects which are so small. To assist us we need look no further than the atoms themselves, and try to see what nature is doing and why.

 

Make a free website with Yola