Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Higgs Signal at 4.30 Sigma (Higgs Boson discovery close...)

Author
Message
zenassem
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 8th Feb 2012 17:27 Edited at: 8th Feb 2012 17:31
Link
~Posted by Brian Greene via FB

http://worldsciencefestival.com/blog/higgs_signal_gains_strength
[Full Article]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higgs-boson-signal-gains



Yesterday, February 7th, Scientific American reported that the latest analyses of the Large Hadron Collider data has raised the signal strength to 4.30 Sigma. Just shy of what is needed to make an official discovery of the elusive Higgs Boson.

Of course, the announcement does come with caveats.

...there’s no new data in there—the LHC stopped colliding protons back in November, and these latest results are just rehashes that earlier run. In the case of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS), physicists have been able to look at another possible kind of Higgs decay, and that allows them to boost their Higgs signal from 2.5σ to 3.1σ. Taken together with data from the other detector, ATLAS, Higgs overall signal now unofficially stands at about 4.3σ. In other words, if statistics are to be believed, then this signal has about a 99.996 percent chance of being right.

According to Scientific American, CERN researchers are now deciding whether to up the power levels from seven to eight trillion electronvolts when they restart the LHC in the spring.


=)

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 8th Feb 2012 21:54
Link
Awesome! Also, awesome that they use statistics I can understand. Also also:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/02/04/a-3-8-sigma-anomaly/

Back to top
Profile PM Email
MrValentine
AGK Backer
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 12th Feb 2012 22:37
Link
I heard about this too... but still do not get the whole picture of the whole thing... what is the ultimate goal of the project?

Back to top
Profile PM
zenassem
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 12th Feb 2012 22:41
Link
Look at Higgs Boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

and the Standard Model of particle physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
bruce3371
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 12th Feb 2012 23:42
Link
As zenassem hinted at with his links, the Higgs Boson is the 'Holy Grail' of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Scientists have long theorised that it exists, but as yet, haven't found it.

If they find the Higgs Boson, so the theory goes, they'll discover what gives particles their mass.

Try reading this article; http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html

About a third of the way down, it gives a great explanation of how the Higgs Boson imparts mass to other particles.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 01:25 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 01:30
Link
zenassem+bruce3371

[I think I got away with that one]

EDIT

from the higgs wiki

Quote: ""the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing.""


I like that guy

EDIT

[continues reading] ... [INSERT BRAIN EXPLODING ANIMATION HERE] ...

EDIT

Question... whats this?
Quote: "4.30 Sigma"


Back to top
Profile PM
bruce3371
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Aug 2010
Location: Englishland
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 02:09 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 02:11
Link
Sigma, in basic terms, is a statistical probability that a result was either a fluke, or an actual discovery.

5 Sigma is the level at which a discovery is recognised as being 'official'.

Hence the excitement about 4.3 Sigma, i.e. we're extremely close to the Higgs Boson being an official discovery.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
MrValentine
AGK Backer
15
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: FFVII
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 02:31
Link
thanks again Bruce

Back to top
Profile PM
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 07:09
Link
sigma is the variable commonly used for standard deviation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation

so in this image:

the o-like symbol is sigma. As I understand it, if an event is at 1 sigma, that means it's past 1 standard deviation away from the mean. So according to the diagram, if an event is past 3 sigma, it has a 99.8% chance of being correct and a .2% chance of being incorrect.

With my calculations, away from 4-sigma has a: 0.006% chance of being a statistical oddity.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 11:13 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 11:15
Link
It isn't really proved by a sigma significance though. I don't believe in the Higgs Boson particle. There is a joke that a Baseball Game attracts so many people that it has the same sigma significance as the Higgs Boson which is about mass, and crowding. I think that the readings that the LHC is getting is to do with holes in atoms, nothing more.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 13:53 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 13:53
Link
Quote: "It isn't really proved by a sigma significance though. I don't believe in the Higgs Boson particle. There is a joke that a Baseball Game attracts so many people that it has the same sigma significance as the Higgs Boson which is about mass, and crowding. I think that the readings that the LHC is getting is to do with holes in atoms, nothing more."


*Face-palm*

1) The LHC isn't colliding atoms to test for the Higgs particle, in fact atoms are not involved at all in the collision process itself.
2) The concept of a "hole" in an atom is completely meaningless, since atoms are just an arrangement of other particles, and also are almost 100% empty space anyway.
3) A joke is just that... a joke, ie. not meant to be taken seriously.

At 5 sigma, the LHC proves that there is a 99.996% chance of a particle existing with that energy level. Do you really believe it's just a coincidence that there exists a new particle with the energy level well within the bounds predicted by the theory, that has nothing to do with that same theory? And even if it was a coincidence, you still have to call the new particle something, (may as well be the Higgs particle) so either way, they will still have found it...

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zenassem
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 14:54 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 15:06
Link
Quote: "Question... whats this?
Quote: "4.30 Sigma""



Statistical Significance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

Also take a look at Uncertainty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Potential For Misuse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Potential_misuse

~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 17:30 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 17:38
Link
Quote: "*Face-palm*

1) The LHC isn't colliding atoms to test for the Higgs particle, in fact atoms are not involved at all in the collision process itself.
2) The concept of a "hole" in an atom is completely meaningless, since atoms are just an arrangement of other particles, and also are almost 100% empty space anyway.
3) A joke is just that... a joke, ie. not meant to be taken seriously.

At 5 sigma, the LHC proves that there is a 99.996% chance of a particle existing with that energy level. Do you really believe it's just a coincidence that there exists a new particle with the energy level well within the bounds predicted by the theory, that has nothing to do with that same theory? And even if it was a coincidence, you still have to call the new particle something, (may as well be the Higgs particle) so either way, they will still have found it..."


Yeah, but all of your quote is taken from the same theory. That atoms contain empty space is the same theory that predicts the Higgs Boson.

Quote: "2) The concept of a "hole" in an atom is completely meaningless, since atoms are just an arrangement of other particles, and also are almost 100% empty space anyway."


If you don't stick with the Standard Model, then an atom is almost filled with other particles, the electrons are holes, and Mass is Gravity filling those holes.
So you change this....
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.

to this...

F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared.

Which gives exactly the same result, but with holes instead of mass.

So now a Neutrino is a hole passing through mass.. the reverse.

So the facepalm is all based on what you have been told by the standard model.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 20:47
Link
Quote: "Yeah, but all of your quote is taken from the same theory. That atoms contain empty space is the same theory that predicts the Higgs Boson."


No, the first one is based on simple logic, and doesn't require any physics knowledge except that atoms are not the same thing as protons or neutrons...

Quote: "So you change this....
F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared.

to this...

F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared."


You haven't changed anything there. Those two formulas are mathematically identical.

Let's assume for a second what you actually meant was that mass is negative, as that's the only way it could make slightly more sense:
By making mass negative, all you have changed is the convention used. A pair of models based on the two conventions will produce the same result, because physics doesn't depend on the mathematical notation used.

Again, saying that particles are holes instead of mass is just changing the convention. It's impossible to know how things REALLY are (or even if that is a sensible question to ask) so the only thing you can do is represent things as mathematical equations and analogies to things we are used to dealing with. The only thing that is important is that a particle does or does not exist. Asking whether it is the particle that is solid or the lack of the particle that is solid makes no sense. Solid is just a word we have for how things appear to us on a large scale.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 21:27 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 21:32
Link
If you read it back I already said that the change doesn't change the maths.

-mass makes a difference, but not visible, so the Standard Model looks fine. The maths looks the same, but you have to wonder why the maths looks the same if it has two negative signs in it. You have to question maths itself. The difference is that you have changed a convex curve into a concave curve. The concave curve is a hole.

It's not just changing the convention. That small change changes the whole of the standard model. You no longer have a big, bang, you no longer have a singularity, you have logical mass filling holes like a sponge, and you have logical time as a hole in the middle of an atom. The singularity is now inside atoms, and the inflation is the particles themselves inflated from the middle. Dark matter is now Magnetism, and Gravity is a push force towards the holes which are the area of least resistance. Quantum Physics are now physics.

So that small change fixes everything.

Anyway.. nevermind. It is going to take more than a website to change science into the physics of the real universe.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 21:46
Link
Quote: "The maths looks the same, but you have to wonder why the maths looks the same if it has two negative signs in it."

Because multiplying two negative real numbers makes a positive real number, which (like all of maths) can be proved. To claim something different you would have to find fault with that proof.

Physics is the use of maths to describe the universe. If the equations don't change then the physics doesn't change, it's as simple as that.

Quote: "The difference is that you have changed a convex curve into a concave curve."

No, as you just said the maths is identical, so no curves change.

Quote: "It's not just changing the convention."

What else have you changed then? Stop just saying that things are true and start saying WHY they are true.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 22:11 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 22:13
Link
Don't think of the Universe as maths, think of the numbers as reality. If a magnet pulls particles together, or an electron is a negative particle with a pull force, then that requires a pull form of physics. To describe this pull physics there have been many propositions such as the bending of Space-time, Gravitons, and the Higgs Boson also plays a part in it. Ok so all of the suggestions are trying to account for mass, and using particles combined with atoms.. that is convex combined with convex. If you take two footballs both convex you need to get a pull force. If you use the bending of space-time you have a concave shape, and nobody is too sure what the bending of space time is doing in reality.

Now change the mass to -mass. Call -mass concave, and it isn't a particle it is a hole to be filled with weight. So now you have the atoms as sponges. You imagine an invisible sponge full of water, and you see just the water. Now you have lots of particles that are convex. What we see as atoms are really the full holes of Gravity. Now you have a football, and a hole, and physically that doesn't require an imaginary pull force. The bending of space-time is the flow into the Earth. Just standard physics, not imaginary pull forces.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zenassem
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 22:42
Link
So is this 'your' theory? On trying to research your equation I came across...

source: www.sciforums.com
Thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109600&page=4

partial excerpt...
Quote: "... I didn't realise however until last night what science was doing. I thought that Einstein was a 3D visual genius like me, and was picturing nature. He was using maths. I appreciate the fact that maths has worked this well now that I know what has been done. It is very amazing to know that maths can last so long. It has flaws however. People are not picturing some of the invisible parts of nature properly. The maths has some + signs where there should be - signs. It doesn't alter the maths strangely enough, but it does change what is there. For example.. mass is often backwards...

F = G(mass1*mass2)/D squared

Should be...

F = G(-mass1*-mass2)/D squared.

Which doesn't alter the outcome, but it does change convex into concave. Concave is important for gravity. So when you shoot a particle around an electron you get a curve, and you call the curve mass. But you are curving around a concave shape, and the concave shape is -mass. Electron = negative particle = negative mass. Pull = hole. ..."


~ZENassem
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 23:41
Link
It's a part of it. I start my theory from a particle I call the zero particle. It is basically a particle that creates nothing. I then work up from there. I couldn't get my particles to pull, so I realised that the only way to build a Universe was to always make it push. Years later I am watching Science News to see if they find my conclusions. Some striking similarities have been found, like a Beach Ball around the galaxy which I called a sphere in 2004, and it was found 2007. And Voyager found some magnetic bubbles which I predicted in 2005, and the space-time grain has been observed about 2006 which I also predicted. Dark Matter looks a lot like a sponge when it is calculated by gravity forces. I have written DBPro programs, and put them on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/user/Pincho333

And...

If you go to 18 minutes of this clip, you will see that Stephen Hawking came to a conclusion similar to mine...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-jQUHUF1MU

Where Stephen Hawking used a hole, I used an Igloo. I get a lot of stick off the science community however, so I don't often post about my theory.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58032-bubble-universe-and-black-holes/

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 23:43 Edited at: 13th Feb 2012 23:56
Link
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/gravitating_misconceptions.html
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

[edit]
And of course math applies to our physics models of situations, provable by experiment in many cases to better than one part in 10^(-11). Why it applies is a mystery to me, but whenever I use logic I end up with something correct (and make no mistake, logic IS math). At the bottom line, some things "just make sense". A valid question would be "why is that true," but that would be metaphysics. Your arguments have nothing to do with physics.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 13th Feb 2012 23:57 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 00:01
Link
Like has been said, I didn't change the maths, I changed the physics. I changed mass into negative mass.. massless holes. The equation didn't change. So that means that the maths doesn't describe the situation properly.

Science version

An electron is a negative particle, with mass, and a pull. Contradictory?

My Version

An electron is a negative particle, with negative mass, and a hole that is the area of least resistance. All elements agree with one another.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 00:27
Link
So then why aren't electrons repelled from earth? If newtonian gravitation holds the force would be negative. How is negative mass the same as massless? AFAIK current models support matter, antimatter, positive AND negative mass (exotic matter), all mediated by the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces.

You've definitely shown that electromagnetism isn't goverened by the equations of gravity.

Also, just pointing out, if acceleration=F/mass, then with a negative mass and positive force, the attracting acceleration would be negative, eg they push away

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 01:12 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 01:16
Link
Quote: "So then why aren't electrons repelled from earth? If newtonian gravitation holds the force would be negative. How is negative mass the same as massless? AFAIK current models support matter, antimatter, positive AND negative mass (exotic matter), all mediated by the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces.

You've definitely shown that electromagnetism isn't goverened by the equations of gravity.
"


The force to the electron hole would be towards the atom nucleus as well. The Atom nucleus is an outflow of time. This keeps the electron in its position. However in zero temperatures time is slowed, and the Bose Einstein condensate shows atoms moving towards a central point.

Quote: "Also, just pointing out, if acceleration=F/mass, then with a negative mass and positive force, the attracting acceleration would be negative, eg they push away"


The Earth a sponge, an asteroid a sponge, gravity in the middle. Two sponges don't push apart, they move together, bending space-time with them. You also need to learn my magnetism which is an out-flow... an out-flow of holes.. so imagine that as well.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 01:22
Link
excuse me while I tally up your score
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 02:48 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 02:57
Link
That is also based on the Standard Model. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, with rules of obedience. I don't agree with the list either. It is no use parrot-fashioning with me it doesn't work. I can run DBPro in my head, and the things that I am describing all run nicely. That's why I like DBPro. But anyway, all I want is that I posted my ideas before they are found, so for now my work is done.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:07
Link
Will the day future scientists uncover your correct predictions be the day you reveal what your theory is?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:09 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 03:12
Link
Quote: "Will the day future scientists uncover your correct predictions be the day you reveal what your theory is?"


My theory is just physics that can be created by a computer that match physics around us, and no magic pull forces, and no change of the current maths. But a new particle, which uses something scientists forgot about... fundamental scale. In other words.. scale is relative, so why do particles have scale? The answer is because they bump, so they can't scale anymore.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:30
Link
so no magic pull forces, but plenty of magic push forces from bumping. Also... if scale is relative, why do we observe some forces at tiny scales, but different forces at massive scales?

If the math doesn't need to be changed then the theory doesn't need to be changed, and the issue is arguing about metaphysics not physics.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:36 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 03:44
Link
How is bump a magic force? Ever played football? Ever tried to suck the ball to your foot? When you suck through a straw you expand your lungs... a bigger hole. When a vacuum cleaner cleans your carpet it moves air away from the source.. a bigger hole. When you pull a car where are your fingertips, they are behind the force, they are in fact pushing. No magic pull forces.




Quote: "If the math doesn't need to be changed then the theory doesn't need to be changed, and the issue is arguing about metaphysics not physics."


If you start with a singularity.. it is a hole. Now which way do particles go when there is a hole around?

So what do you need instead of a singularity?

You reverse it, you start with the particles out of the hole. This equals exactly the same energy.. so no maths changed.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:46 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 03:48
Link
Actually both the standard model and your ideas are wrong. In reality, the particles are push around by tiny ants which live in the metaverse and eat dark matter. Mass is a by product of the fact that the ants don't have infinite DarkEnergy™. This solves all of the gaping holes in both the above theories. You see if you swap the two sides of the Schrodinger equation around: the maths itself doesn't change, but what was once not alive becomes alive, and when solved for the time-independent case, the wave clearly forms ants smaller than the planck length. When the behaviours of these ants are modelled and statistically averaged over certain cases, the standard quantum mechanical equations and general and special relativity are approximated.

There, according to you that conclusively shows that I have proved physics wrong.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:53 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 03:58
Link
Nope you have added even more physics.. like an ant, which is billions of particles. I however removed a lot of physics. I removed the Higgs Boson, the gravitons, Dark Matter, the singularity, the Big Bang, Quantum Physics, pull forces, and all of the particles. I have just one particle called the zero particle.

The difference is reversed.. science added the ants.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 03:57
Link
in football pushes are governed by the repulsion of molecules at small distances, what you're talking about is a fundamental pushing force between particles. Are these spherical particles? Do the particles take on the shapes of their cells in their voroni diagram? Or is the force governed by a distance squared law?

Making imaginary particles fill up all of space except where there is matter sounds a lot like the "caloric".

I'm not a physicist, I'm still on waves and basic relativity, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

Modern physics teaches, "Look at this observed phenomenon, it's quantified like this, and it can be explained by these laws, here's observational proof of this within +-10^(-10)". You don't have any testable claims.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 04:03 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 04:21
Link
Quote: "in football pushes are governed by the repulsion of molecules at small distances, what you're talking about is a fundamental pushing force between particles. Are these spherical particles? Do the particles take on the shapes of their cells in their voroni diagram? Or is the force governed by a distance squared law?

Making imaginary particles fill up all of space except where there is matter sounds a lot like the "caloric".

I'm not a physicist, I'm still on waves and basic relativity, but what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

Modern physics teaches, "Look at this observed phenomenon, it's quantified like this, and it can be explained by these laws, here's observational proof of this within +-10^(-10)". You don't have any testable claims."


My push force is created by scale. My zero particle scales until it touches another particle, it then breaks the zero rule.. two overlapped zero particles create energy. They then scale back down again due to the loss of their energy. This is Newtons Law that every action has an equal, and opposite reaction. This scale up/down is all that you need to get the universe moving. The scale down is a hole, the scale up is a particle. So space-time is a grain, and all of the particles are just not quite touching, so they look like a void. Energy / Touching = visible particles, not touching = nothing there. The repulsion that you are talking about is the zero particles reacting to overlap, but not having time to be measured. The energy that pushes the particles is time. Time is the smaller scale zero particles inside the original zero particles, because the particles have no true scale. So they decrease in size inside other zero particles. And mathematically you can have as many zero particles as you want, they still add up to zero... so long as they don't overlap... like a figure 8.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Slow Programmer
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2006
Location: USA, Tennessee
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 05:55
Link
Pincho Paxton,

How does your theory explain electromagnetism?




There are two kinds of computer users. Those that use Macs and those that wish they did.
Back to top
Profile PM
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 17:34 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 17:43
Link
Quote: "Pincho Paxton,

How does your theory explain electromagnetism?"


So let's stick with iron, because it is the common attribute. It's molecules are in straightish lines. Think of those lines as hollow cylinders. Now think about a spin dryer with clothes inside. On a slow spin the clothes distribute in front of the glass door, so you can't see inside the cylinder. On a fast spin the clothes are sent to the outside of the cylinder, now you can see a hole in the middle. The iron on a fast spin sends particles out of the way. Now you have hollow cylinders which allow Gravity to flow faster into the iron, but the speed increase is just inside the magnet (So don't look for a gravity increase outside the magnet). The Gravity flows into the iron at one end, and gets into a spin. The spin causes the particles to bump. The bump causes the particles to scale down. Scaled down particles become holes. The particles leave at the other end as holes. Now iron filings follow the flow of Gravity at one end, and at the other end they have less resistance due to the holes leaving the magnet. So Iron filings have two forces working them towards the magnet, but both forces are from behind the iron filings.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Diggsey
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 18:56
Link
Quote: "It's molecules are in straightish lines."


You might want to learn some basic chemistry before you overturn the accepted theories of physics.

[b]
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 14th Feb 2012 19:18 Edited at: 14th Feb 2012 19:23
Link
Quote: "You might want to learn some basic chemistry before you overturn the accepted theories of physics."


Yeah, I probably shouldn't use the word molecules as it's the standard model. I should probably just say the bonded version of my particles are in straightish lines giving rise to electrons being in straightish rows, and therefore the flow having what is called polarity. Anyway, whatever words I use need to be translated to a new form of physics. Basically just rows of scaling particles, bumping together to give the impression of electron orbits, a bit like the lights on a Christmas tree appear to move.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Nickydude
Retired Moderator
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Nov 2006
Location: Look outside...
Posted: 14th Mar 2013 14:55
Link
Quote: "Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider say the particle outlined in July 2012 looks increasingly to be a Higgs boson."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21785205

I reject your reality and substitute my own...
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-16 02:07:14
Your offset time is: 2026-07-16 02:07:14