Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt

    Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research | Energy Consulting | Creation of Hydrogen ATOM in the Higgs Field >> Vote for Nobel Prize

    Latest comments

    Antimatter Thread Compilation - Discussion at Facebook - Part four

    coninued Antimatter Thread -  discussion on my wall (Oliver Thewalt) at Facebook

    Ulla Mattfolk I am well aware that GR is incomplete...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 09:53

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk But dark matter must be 'climpy' as it is seen in gravity? And actually antimatter is of the same 'climpy' sort seen in gravity.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 09:55 · Bearbeitet

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Therefore I have given you the links: Nobody said that the anti-partners do never annihilate. Have a look at Dirac's equations and FTL implications (Darktron, positron, in Mark's posts!)

    27. Dezember 2014 um 09:55 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Darktron would require some explanations. I see Mrk and his group use SUSY as an explanation, but that is pure speculation so far.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:28

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Well, SUSY is not a girl „smile“-Emoticon (Supersymmetry does not mean: there is just a mirror, Anti-gravity is not the opposite of gravity ...)

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:31 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Well, nobody can tell what gravity is in this format „smile“-Emoticon

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:32

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk I mean, Marks models are very beautiful, but I cannot see the dynamics and the jumps in them, no uncertainty whatsoever. They look like classical physics to me. He and everyone else has surely put much efforts in creating them, but really, they must be based on experiments, not theory.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:35

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt s://plus.google.com/118192958053077.../posts/1M9MLZUxn7x


    (Phys.org) —Scientists at Towson University in Towson, Maryland, have…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:35 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://hixgrid.de/pg/blog/read/21196/gravimetrics


    Hixgrid: Oliver Thewalt's blog: Gravimetrics


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:36 · 2

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Look at this for dark matter, unbelievable: s://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/.../10614187...


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:36

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Yes, but why do you think they refuse to give us data of the JUNO earth flyby ? Or ISON? and there is EVIDENCE, a lot of, for example here: s://public.nrao.edu/.../pulsar-in-stellar-triple-system


    Pulsar in Stellar Triple System - NRAO: Revealing the Hidden Universe


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:38 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Time as the cause for 3 body problem sound appealing, but it is a problem also in condensed matter physics, when you go from 2D to 3D. Would time be an important factor there?


    not closed hyperbolic orbits, y write? This means open systems.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:44 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Why do you think the neutrino traps (detectors/experiments) detetct less neutrinos than predicted by theory?


    How can the neutrino be sterile in the Higgs-field? And the neutrino has a mass AND a rest mass and is oscillating, but not travelling at the speed of light? And the photon has no mass at all?? Ouch!!!


     Neutrinos and p-violation

    Hixgrid: Oliver Thewalt's blog: Neutrinos and p-violation


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:44 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk „smile“-Emoticon

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:45

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Depends on what you think time is .... s://plus.google.com/116175168820229.../posts/SSecTbaGYTt


    I have the impression, that time is including the vis viva potential (by…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:46 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Ye, actually I already thought time would mean that open system...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:47

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk chirality as instance, is very dependent on time...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:48

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Time is and never was, so to speak "relative", it was detected as being covariant in view of velocity or/and acceleration in an inertial system, observing a photon, in STR.


    This covariance is also a result of a measurement and it is assumed that it is...Mehr anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:49 · 3

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Chirality (DNA) --> in physics: Helicity of a photon or spin, possibly is a result of cp-violation. (I do not mean the fact of existence of spin, but the "direction" or way of interacting/prefered interaction etc.)

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:04 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Time from an oscillation of an atom is just a correlation. I cannot accept that.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:53

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Time as a covariant to velocity may also just be a correlation,,,,

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:56

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt A quantum state is not just right or left "spinning" (in fact, there is nothing that "rotates" here


    The question of whether given density operators for subsystems of a multipartite quantum system are compatible to one common total density operator is known as the quantum marginal problem. We briefly review the solution of a subclass of such problems found just recently. In particular, this provides the solution of the 1-body N-representability problem. Its solution, the so-called generalized Pauli constraints, restrict the set of mathematically possible fermionic occupation numbers significantly, and strengthens Pauli's exclusion principle. Moreover, we review the study of a concrete physical model of interacting fermions confined to a harmonic trap. There, we found occupation numbers close, but not exactly on the boundary of the allowed region. This new effect of quasipinning is physically relevant since it corresponds to a simplified structure of the corresponding N-fermion quantum state.


    The Quantum Marginal Problem


    The Quantum Marginal Problem

    27. Dezember 2014 um 10:59 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk the disassociation of space fields by matter fields? is this shown here? If we have no space fields (vacuum, emptiness, no potential ?) then mass fields loose their meaning too? Then we have no inertia? ://www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Testing-gravity-world-s...


    Watch Brian Cox test gravity in the world's BIGGEST vacuum chamber


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:03

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Yes, but inertial mass is not always gravitational mass! there is a violation of Einstein's Principles of Equivalence! Please read the enclosed links first.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:08 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Actually the vacuum must have some potential...?

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:09

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Sorry, I have not been following Marks modelling lately, and you have also so much text. This is a big task to read it all...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:11 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk This is also a remarcable statement: "Energy can be treated like a perfect liquid, as CERN has confirmed recently."

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:13 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt This is Mark Aaron Simpson area, I assume it is about the lense and ZPT (ZPF), what I am able to comment is mostly known (keywords: vacuum catastrophy, M-AM -annihilation, emergent field theory (overall net mass of the universe is zero), Casimir effect, the quantum void (quantum fluctuations) etc...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:15 · Bearbeitet

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://arxiv.org/abs/1411.5391


    [1411.5391] Why is the refractive index cannot be negative


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:16 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk It is taken from your post s://plus.google.com/116175168820229.../posts/SSecTbaGYTt


    I have the impression, that time is including the vis viva potential (by…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:17

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://www.tuwien.ac.at/aktuelles/news_detail/article/7355/


    Technische Universität Wien : Die flüssigste Flüssigkeit des Universums


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:26 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://newscenter.lbl.gov/.../a-closer-look-at-the.../


    A Closer Look at the Perfect Fluid

    By combining data from two high-energy accelerators, nuclear scientists have refined the measurement of a…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:27 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk A plasma? But that is wellknown....

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:30

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Why do you think they even start to model black holes by this model? Or why the density of the relativistic quantum vacuum is varying in apherlion and perilehlion phases, influencing alpha and radiation decay rates?


    ...Mehr anzeigen


    ‎Oliver Thewalt‎ an Astrophysics And Physics

    8. Juni 2013 · Saarbrücken · 

    Is the sun emitting a mystery particle?


    via Torsten P. Kersten





    Mehr anzeigen


    Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? : DNews


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:31 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt LoL, Ulla qg-plasma is a model of early universe ...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:32 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Research Ionizing universe, spin-ice, unruh effect on thermodynamics ..




    Oliver Thewalt hat Hixgrid - The Science Networks Foto in der Gruppe „Astrophysics And Physics“ geteilt.

    5. Mai 2013 · 

    Richard Feynman said that:


    "no-one has ever been able to define the difference between interference and diffraction satisfactorily. It is just a question of usa...

    Mehr anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:33

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt I transfer a comment of Charles A. Laster made on a related post in the String Theory Development Group (Facebook):


    " ... This relates to my soon to be published paper in Galilean Electrodynamics. I propose that the vacuum energy, treated as a perfect fluid, has a density governed by Relativity and the perfect fluid deviations of Einsteins Field Equations. Thus the density of the vacuum is higher closer to the sun, which affect to total energy level of an atom and hence its decay rate. In fact, any energy field, particle collisions, so on, can affect the value of the vacuum energy density within that region of space. Thus the vacuum energy truly is a quantum problem as currently calculated, giving predictions far from observation. This way of calculating the vacuum energy should give better results when compared with observation."

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:34

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt We can look upon the wave function of the electron as a confined helical wave with a forward component (zig) and a reverse component (zag), that explains the zig-zag of the electron.


    Neutrinos without any mass would be a left-handed spinor, comparable to the forward zig -wave of an electron. In case they have a tiny mass and are able to oscillate, it is possible that they interact with the vacuum field as part of a reverse zag wave.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:34

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt copaseticflow.blogspot.de/.../solar-neutrinos-and...


    Copasetic Flow: Gran Sasso, Solar Neutrinos, and Radioactive Decay Rates


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:35

    Marc Poulin

    Marc Poulin Please untag me?

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:35 · 2

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt There are several reasons why pure plasma physics or explanations by doppler red shift are not satisfactory explaining the observations. If Dark Matter cannot be explained by WIMPs or Axions. 


    ISO detects signal from dark matter in a galaxy similar to...Mehr anzeigen


    ESA Science & Technology

    It is also possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted as the site has…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:36 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt No problem, Marc! I think that you are able to untag by yourself.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:37 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Ok, I will stop now „smile“-Emoticon

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:40

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt No problem, Ulla, all those questions are helpful, so that people can grasp that these are not just theoretical models without evidence, go on and do not be confused by those who stopped thinking ...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:44 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Astrologists that I have talked to think that dark matter has to be ordinary matter, there is no other explanation. So we must do the modelling that way, but we still talk of the dark matter of course. There may even be whole galaxies that are dark?

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:45

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk It is a bit astonishing no gravitational waves have been seen so far, maybe the BICEPII soon get the final corrected results?

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:47 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt DM and Matter do not have to be different kind of matter ...




    Is the Higgs Boson a piece of the matter-antimatter puzzle?


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:49 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk But if dark energy would be no-clumpy, repulsive? One solution to that can be an inpouring energy into the system, so it would not be closed, which we already talked of. Then the Equivalence Principle is in big danger... but I also read Quantum Equivalence Principle as something different, a new concept to me. ://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4307


    [1404.4307] Quantum Tests of the Einstein Equivalence Principle with the…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:54 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Dark matter nucleon, I must laugh.... a plasma? 


    String Theory Development FaTe Model Pages Foto.

    String Theory Development FaTe Model Page mit Paul Hearn und 43 weiteren Personen.

    25. November 2014 · 

    Keywords : Dark Matter , Quark Gluon Plasma, Bose Einstein Condensate , Emergent Singularity , Cycloids, Pilot Waves


    11-25-2014 This design for Dark Matter nucl...

    Mehr anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 11:57 · 3

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt There are no gravitational waves at all! ://telescoper.wordpress.com/.../planck-2014-the.../


    Planck 2014: The Results That Weren't....

    A big conference started today in Ferrara, Italy, which my duties here at the University of Sussex unfortunately…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:00 · 2

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk No waves? WAU, extraordinary!

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:01 · Bearbeitet

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738


    [1409.5738] Planck intermediate results. XXX. The angular power spectrum of…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:04 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt No, ://blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../physicist-paul.../


    Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive |…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:06 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt some more links: ://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/88


    Nearly perfect fluidity

    Is there a fundamental lower bound on viscosity? To answer this question, we can look at the coldest and…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:06 · 2

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://phys.org/.../2014-12-evidence-mysterious-phase...


    First direct evidence that a mysterious phase of matter competes with…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:07 · 2

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt s://plus.google.com/116175168820229.../posts/gN5GccLicPd


    About Dark Matter, I have given you some links on the wall of STD group or FaTe educational site.




    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:16 · 2

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Yes, be aware that the flyby anomaly is not just induced by STR effects (frame dragging etc.) but as an EFFECT not affact of gravity (gravimetrics) in conjunction with thermodynamics (unruh radiation) (but it is still possible that the flyby anomaly is not there at all, theoretically, but this would not disprove the other theories), we have evicence that doppler effect is not what it is thought to be...once again: does gravitational mass always equals inertial mass? No! ://www.technologyreview.com/view/506681/fly-by-anomaly/



    How To Tackle the Outstanding Problem in Astrophysics | MIT Technology Review


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:34 · 1

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdf

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:34

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt ://www.iflscience.com/.../journey-other-side-absolute...


    The Journey To The Other Side Of Absolute Zero | IFLScience


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:34 · 2

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Helpful link via Ulla: ://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7333v1.pdf

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:35 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk does gravitational mass always equals inertial mass? this is why we have the violation of Equivalence and consequently an expansion of the Universe? Due to the quantization as I first said...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:51

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk But again if the model uses SUSY for dark matter and still know dark matter is ordinary (or virtual also) I cannot understand why?

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:54 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Also this gives no explanation for the uncertainty what I can see...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:55

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt No, Ulla, it is NOT just due to quantization, THEN this would be just a measurement issue!


    This is more FUNDAMENTAL:




    "While Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has so far been confirmed by every experiment, it is not compatible with quantum theory. Because of that, physicists expect that it will break down under extreme conditions," Ransom explained. "This triple system of compact stars gives us a great opportunity to look for a violation of a specific form of the equivalence principle called the Strong Equivalence Principle," he added.


    When a massive star explodes as a supernova and its remains collapse into a superdense neutron star, some of its mass is converted into gravitational binding energy that holds the dense star together. The Strong Equivalence Principle says that this binding energy still will react gravitationally as if it were mass. Virtually all alternatives to General Relativity hold that it will not.


    "This system offers the best test yet of which is the case," Ransom said.


    Under the strong equivalence principle, the gravitational effect of the outer white dwarf would be identical for both the inner white dwarf and the neutron star. If the strong equivalence principle is invalid under the conditions in this system, the outer star's gravitational effect on the inner white dwarf and the neutron star would be slightly different and the high-precision pulsar timing observations could easily show that.


    "By doing very high-precision timing of the pulses coming from the pulsar, we can test for such a deviation from the strong equivalence principle at a sensitivity several orders of magnitude greater than ever before available," said Ingrid Stairs of the University of British Columbia. "Finding a deviation from the Strong Equivalence Principle would indicate a breakdown of General Relativity and would point us toward a new, correct theory of gravity," she added.


    "This is a fascinating system in many ways, including what must have been a completely crazy formation history, and we have much work to do to fully understand it," Ransom said.


    Ransom, Archibald and Stairs were on an international team of researchers that reported their findings in the online edition of the journal Nature on January 5.




    Pulsar in Stellar Triple System - NRAO: Revealing the Hidden Universe


    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:56 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Maybe I explained badly, rather failure of quantization... ok, I read the link

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:58

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt aha, very good idea „smile“-Emoticon „smile“-Emoticon „smile“-Emoticon

    27. Dezember 2014 um 12:59

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk When a massive star explodes as a supernova and its remains collapse into a superdense neutron star, some of its mass is converted into 

    gravitational binding energy that holds the dense star together. The 

    Strong Equivalence Principle says that this ...Mehr anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 13:07

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk no result yet

    27. Dezember 2014 um 13:08

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk what they explain sounds in my ears like delayed time effects

    27. Dezember 2014 um 13:08

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk some of its mass is converted into 

    gravitational binding energy = a pressure wave? But then this is no violation either, what I can understand...

    27. Dezember 2014 um 14:11 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover impulse response

    27. Dezember 2014 um 14:10 · 1

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover yes no violation at least Lorentz will hold

    27. Dezember 2014 um 14:11

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Maybe there are facts not written here. I cannot think big groups would do nonsense res.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 14:12

    Ted Brandes

    Ted Brandes A little clarification since the headlines are very misleading: inflation is not dead; classical inflation is the only thing being discounted at this point. Actually, inflation still holds the most water amongst competing models, though I personally think other mechanisms were, at the very least, involved.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 16:36

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Inflation theory can no more be sustained because it would not withstand a test on its own null hypothesis in view of CMB or big-bang (or BICEP2, gravitational waves respectively) ....

    27. Dezember 2014 um 16:44

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Hartle-Hawking state and infinite-finite universe theory lack the explanation of a pre-big-bang scenario, overall changing constants and deny phases of energy/matter (qg-plasma) by the assumption of a wave (universe as a wave): (via wiki): 


    "According to the theory (Hartle Hawking state) time diverged from three state dimension—as we know the time now after the universe was at the age of the Planck time.

    Such a wave function of the Universe can be shown to satisfy the Wheeler–DeWitt equation."


    Wheeler-DeWitt is based on ancient assumptions of a tensorial hilbert space, 4-vector space and the like ...








    Hartle-Hawking Universe Model

    One of the problems of the inflationary theory is that it does not explain what may have occurred before the…


    27. Dezember 2014 um 17:54 · Bearbeitet

    Oliver Thewalt

    Oliver Thewalt Moreover:


    Quote: " further analysis of this form places it as a candidate for the standing photon wave in a quark manifold. This is not the same as a photon wave form under transport in free space. If we forcibly remove this waveform from the manifold it is more likely to be considered a 2-spinor neutrino waveform, as it will be stripped of the manifold component dimension. The neutrino (specific type) of this free form is probably determined from the periodic state it was in while still within the manifold space-time framework. It also has it's own component transform property. We will try to provide more information regarding this periodic model in the near future. "



    String Theory Development FaTe Model Pages Foto.

    String Theory Development FaTe Model Page

    6. März 2014 · 

    Thursday, March 6, 2014. A product of Mark and Gregory's workshop. This model is a representation of the process a photon uses to move along a 2-space gauge.


    27. Dezember 2014 um 17:34 · 4

    Ted Brandes

    Ted Brandes You are applying your logical analysis of the inclusion of Wheeler-DeWitt. The use of Wheeler-DeWitt was not meant to be a sufficient indicator, but a loose mathematical test. Any Hartle-Hawking proponent would tell you that Wheeler-DeWitt is not a physically representative equation; its sort of like their equivalent of the initial solutions for black holes, which by all means never appear in nature. Further, Wheeler-DeWitt is not the only recognized waveform that is being considered. It is the first, but there are many other variants that Hartle-Hawking proponents use. Really, if we were to leave our disassociation to such minimal standards, we might as well say the Big Bang never happened.

    27. Dezember 2014 um 21:30 · 1

    Ted Brandes

    Ted Brandes I do find it ironic, however, that you are so quick to toss away something with rather weak evidence, yet favor String Theory, which itself is even weaker due to its infinite redundency that has yet to be resolved. On top of that, supersymmetry has been a near utter failure in comparison to inflation, taking more blows than any front-running theory in the modern era. I'm not so cruel to String Theory, so I don't see why one should be so cruel to inflation. (I am not a String Theorist, nor am I a Hawking-Hartle proponent, but I do think they have shown merits, and have some truth to them; I just think we need to start approaching from a different angles, whether it be Hawking-Hartle, M-Theory, etc.).

    27. Dezember 2014 um 21:34 · 2

    Ted Brandes

    Ted Brandes The truth of the matter is, we're ignoring the implications of assuming there is no inflation at all, from a lack of observation where it really wasn't even intended to be seen with such precision. This was a fluke supposed detection that was shown to...Mehr anzeigen

    27. Dezember 2014 um 21:51 · Bearbeitet

    Ted Brandes

    Ted Brandes To quote the Guardian (news), because they were right when discussing the aftermath (this is what science is and should be treated as): "What, then, of gravitational waves? If, as it seems, Bicep2 never saw them bouncing from the repercussions of the big bang, then we’re back to looking for them the hard way, by trying to detect the incredibly tiny distortions they should introduce in spacetime as they ripple past. Now the Bicep2 and Planck teams are pooling their data to see if anything can be salvaged. Good on them. Debate, discussion, deliberation: science happening just as it should."

    27. Dezember 2014 um 22:00 · 1

    Mark Mighell

    Mark Mighell you will only find gravitational waves inside individual magnetospheres. 


    27. Dezember 2014 um 22:03 · 1

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover If Mark want a proton model he need completely different concept. I designed a photon model which indeed shows magnetic function it's not "optical" but it is the emergency of the particle state from density under kahler action. This is dual function of the charge and magnetic bound if the potential satisfied. You can't do such thing in case of proton simply because the criteria is not the same. The problem with his recent concept is that he can't analyse 3d action in the gauge and put him onto difficult situation during the analysis. He trying to fix this by apply a recursive sheme but it's not relates to Such bundle he trying to provide . just to note, My comment is trying to be constructive here.

    28. Dezember 2014 um 01:19 · 1

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover I can prove myself here. You can analyse what you see. This is a proper simple oscillatory model. Black Hole function series V 2 0: ://youtu.be/udnZyTxZki0

    28. Dezember 2014 um 01:22 · 1

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover If you separate the bound it is the symmetrized maxwell equations where you get embedded monopole as the function of the background for superfluid states . I didn't find any spacetime beyond. It's is locally emergent. But it holds under entanglement and varies the local data configuration.

    28. Dezember 2014 um 01:48 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk There are many who takes up the ether or grid or quintessence again, even Nobelists.

    28. Dezember 2014 um 02:27

    Joseph Kover

    Joseph Kover [Nature] Stephen Hawking: "There are no black hol…: ://youtu.be/isimsXwilvc

    28. Dezember 2014 um 05:27

    Abhas Mitra

    Abhas Mitra One of the most downloaded paper of New Astronomy for past 8 months: ://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S1384107613001413


    Why the Big Bang Model does not allow inflationary and cyclic cosmologies…


    28. Dezember 2014 um 06:52 · 2

    Abhas Mitra

    Abhas Mitra The essential proof also published in another journal : ://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10714-014-1670-x


    Testing R_h=ct cosmology from fundamental considerations: Is the…


    28. Dezember 2014 um 06:54 · 1

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Would you care to elaborate on that Abhas, Most people think of the Big Bang as the entire future universe packed into something smaller than 1.6e-35 metres, which suddenly inflates. I don't; I think the only way to make sense of it is to consider it as an "appearance" of expansion. A dimensional collapse from higher to lower dimensions.


    A fun dimension to look at is, ln(333,3333,31) / ln(x) =-0.25

    That gives us m = hbar c / 7.995 pi G


    (I've picked 333333331 as it's a speed of light within the first second, and a prime. I would say that it's on a flat of a devil's staircase. The universe is not decelerating there, so it's a speed)

    29. Dezember 2014 um 01:40 · 2

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Interesting read and comments. Again, we really do not have a clue as to what is going on inside cores of Proton's or Blackholes. Here is one article above that shows just how little we understand of this large scale energy exchange that powers all atomic motion and galaxies. "Why the Big Bang Model does not allow inflationary or cyclic cosmologies." Here again we see the problem as plain as day,the mere fact that we think matter, atoms were all created at one time is total ignorance of how our CYCLIC UNIVERSE works. The universe is constantly cycling energy, but from where? Well, I can tell by the research comments that there is not one that even comes close to answering that question. Dark matter is like a band aid on the problem. Obscure, absorbs waves, singularity at core. No, none of this is occurring, you do not get it. Negative charge electrons, matter is just one of the components, and it certainly did not win out over antimatter otherwise you would not see so many pairs of matter and antimatter formed during collider experiments. But here again, we miss identify what is going on because we cannot except the answers it would mean that we have it all wrong. Which is course the truth, and no doubt we will never find gravity waves that propagate at the speed of light...LISA was cancelled. We will not see gravity waves because the force of gravity operates above the speed of light. Reverse motion antimatter cores or black holes serve a purpose, yet there is not one scientist so far that has even identified this purpose. I am waiting for someone to get it.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:14 · 1

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson John W. Rickey , considering that we have a model for almost all of the known particles, including the proton, I do not understand why you constantly state that we do not. It was my understanding that you have studied the models , and that , if you do not agree with them or their synthesis, then please explain why. But stating they do not exist is incorrect and unnecessary. If you have better information, that is one thing. provide it. If you do not have information or models, then please do no harm in your comments. I am seeing this same comment over and over and I find it rather annoying.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:22 · 1

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson We also have models for Black Holes of a few types as well.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:22 · 1

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson Dark Matter does not have electrons or positrons, based on pilot wave studies.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:23 · Bearbeitet · 2

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson Oh , and Happy New Year !!! , as I will be posting the most complete proton Model we have tomorrow evening.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:27 · Bearbeitet · 4

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Hi Mark, First of all I am not trying to annoy you given that you are open minded. My wife is calling me to dinner, I will answer your question as to what a proton does, what it looks like, and its purpose. Also, why antimatter cores exist inside black holes.

    31. Dezember 2014 um 18:34

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Happy New Years!!! My conclusions on what a Proton looks like is based on a matter and antimatter balanced rotation and energy exchange taking place over a very large scale. Where one half of our universe is a matter rotation that is juxtapositioned ...Mehr anzeigen

    31. Dezember 2014 um 20:15 · 1

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner We need to run a book on what new Higgs like particles are found with CERN's new runs. My money is on a particle of about 1.56TeV That would make it just under 4pi times the Higgs mass.

    1. Januar 2015 um 02:41 · 1

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner If such a particle exists, I was going to call it a Bobon but as I've claimed all particles, and called them all bobons, this latest one could cause confusion. So the name of the particle is going to be the Soccotash, as it sufferes „smile“-Emoticon

    1. Januar 2015 um 03:18 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk What we know of dark matter in cosmology is only that it is a missing matter, so far it must be seen as ordinary matter unseen.

    1. Januar 2015 um 03:24 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Maybe the Dirac fermions would express that rotation John W. Rickey talks of, and we must look at the condensed matter physics better? Actually the Higgs mechanism can also be interpreted as such?

    1. Januar 2015 um 03:28

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson When I produced a condensed matter model of Dark Matter, it did not occur to me until a week later when I modelled Dark Carbon, that it was a clear possibility that Dark Matter and anti-matter are the same concept over different scales of atomic weight. John W. Rickey, being an excellent presenter of Anti-matter arguments, made this a strong suggestion to consider, and it , in turn , was a good influence in my consideration of these possibilities. The more I explored it in the details, the more it became a reasonable and useful proposition. I later placed a few explanations to this effect. So, I am not arguing against antimatter and for Dark Matter. I actually find evidence they are the same branch of the tree of particle physics.

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:34 · Bearbeitet · 3

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson This conclusion also opens the door for the mapping of the recycling of all types of matter in the Universe, a defined set of pathways, with quantum mechanical principles based on wave mechanics.

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:37 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk But you have antimatter as symmetric to matter? Do you have an antimatter model, or is it the dark matter? Have you a virtual matter model?

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:40 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson It isn't really symmetric in the classical sense at all. Only symmetric at the lower atomic weights. At higher weights it is more stable in fact. They tend not to interact much, except for gravity effects, at the higher atomic weights. this is based on gauges that both types of matter produce and also the lack of electrons or positrons for Dark Matter (high end)

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:42 · Bearbeitet

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson They exist due to slightly different thermodynamic pathways (a branchpoint) in a Big Bang scenario.

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:43

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson I know, I have said in the past I don't support Big Bang, but I am certain as to the pathway and thermodynamics aspect.

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:43 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk but the forces are not similar, as the quark masses are different? so the outputs cannot be similar? You talk ofsimilarity at lower atomic weights?

    1. Januar 2015 um 09:47 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Dürr's calculation shows that QCD describes quark-based particles accurately, and tells us that most of our mass comes from virtual quarks and gluons fizzing away in the quantum vacuum.

    The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. ://www.durr.itp.unibe.ch/

    The text is from 2008 NS ://www.newscientist.com/.../dn16095-its-confirmed...


    Stephan Dürr / Stephan Durr / Stephan Duerr


    1. Januar 2015 um 10:07 · 2

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer matter,antimatter,dark matter,what about dark antimatter?what puts this all in conflict and turmoil is each persons subscribing to the term,in Susy it is the anti-"partner" some say the opposite charge sign,some just think it is the evil twin out to get us,the opposite of the normal be it in observation of the negative or the positive it doesn't matter,the equality of distribution in infinity is a localized field represented by EMFields and Matter fields,in some areas such as Plasma Field of positive ions it is balance to antimatter but antimatter is unstable unshielded at the quantum level and at the macro level though still unstable and radioactive it's quantity is sufficient to maintain it's ability not to annihilate at once giving it's long half life this aided by the so called dark matter field separating the EMField at that point,the dark matter field acts as an insulator against the annihilation process,again,this is not at every point in space of this situation,when researching this on a quantum level the antimatter particles are not separate entities of matter but the same atom carrying it's anti charge,a proton and electron are by virture of the opposing charge matter and anti matter to each other and not being the same means nothing...the charge to mass ratio of the electron to the proton will show you this,it may be smaller but pound for pound as the saying goes puts it on an even field,now you can charge conjugate an atom and classify it as antimatter as well...nature does it all the time...this is where the positron appears

    1. Januar 2015 um 10:21 · 3

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk ://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2403


    [1011.2403] Lattice QCD at the physical point: light quark masses


    1. Januar 2015 um 10:22 · 2

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey I agree with Mark that Dark Matter and thermodynamic pathways, point to dark matter being antimatter that forms a repulsive cold energy leaving cores of galaxies and cores of proton's. Part of my reasoning that enabled me to figure out a possible solution to how our Universe works as a large scale energy exchange between matter and antimatter paired rotations, was my looking at antigravity effects caused by spinning magnetic fields that stripped electrons. I could not figure out why there was a cold column above the SEG that went straight up into space. I suddenly realized that Proton's had to be gyroscopes that were alligned somehow to the gravity well. After seeing the FERMI LABS report on B Sub s Meson's that had flipping rates of 3.3 trillion times per second, and reports of negative downstroke ligntning causing a positive charged upstroke lightning that collided with electron fields in thunderstorm heads creating GRB's, I began to realize that indeed matter integrity is maintained by an outside power source. But what?

    1. Januar 2015 um 10:31 · 2

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer John W. Rickey,can you explain to me how a magnetic field strips electrons?are you referring to ionizing the atom of removing the charge?

    1. Januar 2015 um 10:36 · 2

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Well, thanks in large part to my introduction to Dr. Tom VanFlandern's meta model of the graviton and our long discussions on his Metaresearch board with fellow researcher Bob Turner.....Shout out to you Bob!!!! You really helped me to shape my thinking processes. HI Michael, okay the Searl Effect Generator is accelerated by ionization process that strips electrions. Because magnetic fields are made out of high speed gravitons that have extreme inertia and operate way above light speed and also carry a negative charge, electrons can accelerate the magnetic rollers so that they float and at 550 rpm the entire craft will begin to lift up off the ground. I did massive research, Tom insisted that the graviton was like a fourth dimensional ping pong ball bouncing around matter pushing on mass and was caused by an atmosphere of an object that existed in the next scale up. Thank You Tom!!!! This started me to think in terms of scales of motion, scales of frequencies, in otherwords the universe had a continuous scale of spectrums, and that our EMF spectrum was a subset of a much larger spectrum, but why?

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:02

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey I almost got kicked out of Tom's group, well actually all my posts were erased in regards to my research on Antigravity. I think I was a thorn in his theory, because I asked too many questions and I intuitively knew that what ever was going on was extremely refined and not caused by some bouncing around ping pong effect caused by a 4d graviton. I also knew that this process was the ultimate unification of all forces and was ongoing, not something that had occurred once during a big bang event. I started looking at crop circles, I kept finding the yin/yang symbol and wondered why the dark side was paired in motion with the white side, and most importantly why the core of either side had polarity reversals and it appeared that the tail was creating the head. Why?

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:10

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey breakfast time, brb

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:12

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson I do like the direction this discussion is heading. I think it reflects what the community at large , will consider when they discuss the models and most recent evidence. Michael Balmer, you need to look at what I was stating again, that the Dark Matter and antimatter are the same family of nucleons, so there isn't anti-Dark Matter. Or , more in a funny way, normal matter is anti-Dark Matter LOL „glasses“-Emoticon (in the higher atomic weight ranges)

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:18 · Bearbeitet · 5

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer Mark,i can see aspects of the two having similarities in most of the mid to heavier elements,the many,many bodied,especially according to some of my personal assertions on the issue,i do like the normal is anti-dark lol,i would concur on the possibility and i have stated on the Neutron on occasions .

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:29 · 1

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson All of this challenges my imagination and ingenuity, so I expect it can go beyond other people's limits , fairly often. What I simulate right now is kind of surprising to me, but, essentially we have more mechanics associated with gravity between the two types of matter, and less (near nothing) having to do with charge, EXCEPT where the lighter anti-matter(Dark Matter) and normal matter are concerned. Only at those lighter atomic weights does charge take precedent. Maybe this is confusing at first (a few things to adjust to) but, the rewards of this leap is that things actually sort out nicely, and to me, nature does a have a simple plan we need to uncover/discover.

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:29 · 2

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer It's not so confusing when the time is devoted to it...the lighter ones are more....say electronically active...with involvement than the nucleons as with element number 9

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:51 · 3

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk ://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0610365v2.pdf

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:53

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk element number 9????

    1. Januar 2015 um 11:56 · 1

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer Ulla ,Florine

    1. Januar 2015 um 12:21 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Now I am confused, Fluorine??? Wot the *** has it here to do?

    1. Januar 2015 um 12:24 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk The 'conservations' within generations are also hard to get, even if the mass differ so much. It is not total, though.

    1. Januar 2015 um 12:26

    Michael Balmer

    Michael Balmer Ulla,that was in reference to Mark's statement of lighter weights and charge as opposed to the heavier ones i stated

    1. Januar 2015 um 12:29 · 2

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk I think you two make a giant quantum leap here....

    1. Januar 2015 um 12:31 · 2

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey I agree Mark, nature has a simple plan. That replicates itself, over and over again, within the framework and parameters of this large scale energy exchange that perpetually powers all atomic motion, forces, and geometries including heavier elements t...Mehr anzeigen

    1. Januar 2015 um 14:34 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Erik Vonckx

    Erik Vonckx for later, why only dual time universe? Alexander Vilkenin many world in one allows an infinite amount in an Hawking no boundary system

    1. Januar 2015 um 14:31 · 1

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Hi Erik, I agree there are an infinite number of matter/antimatter universes.

    1. Januar 2015 um 14:40

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson Abhas Mitra and Erik Vonckx and John W. Rickey, and probably the rest, are suggesting the same thing, but for different basic reasons. I agree that the Big Bang isn't the best explanation for where we are right now in terms of evidence at hand. Somewhe...Mehr anzeigen

    1. Januar 2015 um 15:08 · Bearbeitet · 6

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson BTW Ulla Mattfolk, you are doing a nice job asking the pointed questions. Hat Tip to you on this.

    1. Januar 2015 um 15:11 · 4

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey I think it is a lost cause to focus on a creation model, that is the problem now we think the Universe was created 13.75 billion years ago. If we fail to evolve our thinking, we will not be able to accelerate our own evolution to where we can build faster then light space craft and to begin leaving our planet and exploring our solar system and beyond. Part of the problem is continued suppression of physics that will allow taping the GMF directly to not only power our world but to build advanced space craft that use gravity control technologies to travel directly into space without feeling any g-forces. So, I really think the basic principles that power the dual time universe and form matter or antimatter operate the same through out the universe. However, change in physics could occur due to change in energy dynamics and maybe at higher spectrums of energy we see that physics and life forms may be totally regenerative and do not die. However, our survival as a species is contingent upon our advancing our science. The Universe is a regenerative system that is cycling energy through all mass at extreme speeds above that of light frequencies. We are not able to understand this energy dynamic, and with our limited conditioning, the hard wired neural programming is holding us back from thinking outside of existing paradigms. We can take existing data and build a new dynamic model of how galaxies work. Take for instance dark matter, where a dwarf galaxy might be moving so fast (magnetic graviton cycling fields could be huge over 500,000 light years!) that the direct termination of the graviton cycle might be accelerated 1000 times by a greater flow of antigravitons creating extremely high rotation rates. So, again we can show how planetary development takes place and causes drag that eventually slows down the rotation rate of the mature galaxy. In the Milky Way galaxy, our rotation rate only requires 100 times dark matter to solve the missing mass problem. I really think that if energy dynamics change within in any given location in space as Mark stated there certainly could be a change in composition of matter. Most likely our solar system oscillates and goes up and down. We most likely collided with another star system in our far distant past, we are a binary system that is not well known but most likely it is true. Evidence is the asteroid belt, comits which are mainly the oceans from the former destroyed planets, and the fact that we are tilted 60 degree's to the ecliptic. So, in essence no big bang stop trying to figure out how universe was created. Because nothing, I will repeat myself, NOTHING could exist period, without an outside energy source causing atoms to exist. No cycling energy, no matter, just space. The only question that makes any sense at all is to ask: "How does our Universe work?"

    2. Januar 2015 um 01:24 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk I only try to understand this. When I look at the quark masses as a result of the forces I cannot see a symmetric creation. There are about a double mass differing between ups and downs. Sometimes more than that, sometimes less, still in masses between proton and neutron is that not seen. Why? Maybe Matt Strassler has the answer. Two ups and one down as the difference only, or even one up?. ://profmattstrassler.files.wordpress.com/.../myproton...


    The quarks change by transferring the colors, also gluons have colors and change, so one color, one force strength? In this way we get resonances, oscillations. You should make a 'living' model?


    But the mass is in the confinement, not in the quarks? The confinement means hadrons, and they no more express the color force (are color neutral) This , I think, is not quite the truth „smile“-Emoticon . The weak force is expressed, making them dark (virtual) sometimes (W-bosons)... but this is not the real dark matter (one quarter of everything that is, incl. energy, which is a lot) . Most matter is virtual or dark (not even distributed, not symmetric?). 


    Quark-antiquark pairs can pop up and momentarily transform a proton into a different, more exotic particle.... So this system is not closed? Is antiquark really antimatter, it cannot be. Then you have also true antimatter in this equation, seen from the pic. I gave earlier, how quarks were detected. 


    The tetraquarks show true antimatter? Are they also hyperbolic hadrons (negative pressure)? Why are they not instantly annihilated then?


    The pentaquarks are hadrons = bounded triquarks + mesons.


    2. Januar 2015 um 02:35 · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk "In short, atoms are to protons as a pas de deux in a delicate ballet is to a dance floor crowded with drunk twenty-somethings bouncing and flailing to a DJ." Matt Strassler. This is where you make the giant quantum leap.

    2. Januar 2015 um 02:37

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Strassler also says that: anti-quarks (the anti-particles of quarks.) as well as gluons are their own antiparticles.

    2. Januar 2015 um 02:42

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk The top quark, weights as much as 175 'protons' and 100 times the protonmass here. The difference is big, as is all quark masses differencies. This is also why I wonder when I don't see that uncertainty in the model. And how many bottom quarks balance...Mehr anzeigen


    2. Januar 2015 um 03:05 · Bearbeitet

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk Note that this top quark mass as expressed in this fig is not statistically safe, what I can see?

    2. Januar 2015 um 03:12

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner The mass of theparticle were after is going to be about 2.16e-42 kg

    That puts it in the frame as an axion.

    3. Januar 2015 um 00:08 · Bearbeitet · 2

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk You mean the Higgs particle? I suggested the axion almost at once. Now Wilzcek has made a paper on it.

    2. Januar 2015 um 11:26

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Hi Ulla, unfortunately these collisions really show more about how little we understand what is going on inside protons. If there are repulsive factors at work, for instance antiphotons broadcasting away from forward time, we really are getting partial understandings at best of the quark/antiquark relationships. I doubt that these pictures are accurate of what antiquarks look like. Axions, hypothetical symmetry breaking cold matter. Hmmm, that sounds like antigravitons leaving forward time forming the force of gravity! All I am say, right now we have HERA showing us 100 pairs of broken gluon strings floating around like a soup. They do have some findings that are correct, one being the strong force between quark and antiquark, which certainly points to an energy exchange just as I have predicted. So, collisions produce many effects, but may only show us a true EMF signature of events and the reverse time quotient may be totally missing hence we get combo quarks, or a three quark collision blaster showing up...I doubt that 3 quarks even operate as any combination or form as a function of large scale transactions showing up inside protons. Here again, we have so many broken parts it looks like proton soup, we will ever sort this out?

    2. Januar 2015 um 13:45 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Ulla Mattfolk I wondered why it got so silent here?

    2. Januar 2015 um 15:09 · 2

    Mark Aaron Simpson

    Mark Aaron Simpson I can only speak for myself. I went to see the movie Interstellar. They made a very good presentation of information theory and relativity, even though this was for entertainment purposes. The point I am making is that we can release the answers, well before people know what questions to ask and why. I am trying to make this process slower so that everyone can assimilate the answers and the reasoning. Without that, the answers have far less meaning. It defeats the real reason we are Unifying physics. My hint to you," it isn't just about science" and it isn't "just about the answers". I took the time to send a friend request to Professor Matt Strassler, Physicist. Perhaps I will be sharing something that will allow him to answer your question Ulla Mattfolk. It is not my perogative to try and answer all the questions. I am supplying the models to help in any way possible for others to do these tasks.

    2. Januar 2015 um 15:50 · 5

    John W. Rickey

    John W. Rickey Gravity distribution is stronger over north pole. and the map show a clear picture of how larger mass areas are showing greater antigraviton production which totally makes sense to me „smile“-Emoticon ://www.universetoday.com/.../new-results-from-goce.../


    New Results from GOCE: Earth is a Rotating Potato


    2. Januar 2015 um 22:32 · Bearbeitet

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Hi Ulla, look at that matt Strassler, equation for the w particle but plug in that mass I gave of about 2.16e-42kg 

    m_ax = 0.5 (g_ax / c^2)*4.3848648e-25kg


    We end up with 0.88 something. So let's say that it's 

    1 / 1.125=0.8888,888,88 So m_ax = 2.1683644-42kg Which makes it about the mass of the electron neutrino. Stick that 0.888 bit into the Lorentzian, 

    m_1 = m_0 / sqrt(1 - 0.8888,888,88) which will give us 

    3m_0 =m_1


    Now this bloody thing decays and emits an xray. So it carries about a third of an electron; or less; of energy. We do have neutrinos that can carry that much energy, in fact the "ice cube" detector has about 37 of them in the PeV range!

    3. Januar 2015 um 01:36 · Bearbeitet

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Now we need to look at hyperinflation. Specifically when the speed of light is c^6 

    1.054571726e-34 = c^2 / x^6 * c^6 (note that that number is not hbar it's a refractive index, dimensionless. But I'll call it hbar and stick a set of brackets around it...Mehr anzeigen

    3. Januar 2015 um 02:02 · Bearbeitet · 1

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Now what happens when we are looking at the speed of light when it was about c^5 squared? Then we end up with 

    sqrt (hbar *[hbar]*e^-78.234] c / 1.001*G) = m

    m = about 2.2941383e-42kg


    The upshot of it is, is that gigantic virtual masses are sieved out of our 3d space.

    3. Januar 2015 um 02:14 · 2

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Righto, let's say we have that mass of (2.239e-42 / [hbar] c^2

    Its mass in higher dimensional space will be about 2.1754e-8kg

    Lambda = hbar / 2.1754e-8kg * c = 1.617007e-35metres.


    I think that means that our scalar field is constructed from points, that have a radius close to the Planck radius.

    3. Januar 2015 um 02:24

    Bob Turner

    Bob Turner Now for the total bugger. I reckon that the speed of light doesn't just fall from infinity to 1.027c in one second in