Writers do not have a problem talking about how much money other people have, but I wonder if I am not the most poor person among my associates. Of course, I have looked into the abyss and I am at least back on the shakey precipice. Too cautious now except for the safest steps, but on the bright side I have some pretty substantial writing inventory.
My physics is right but I am being pressured to do more for a small gathering and I am not sure I am mentally up to it, certainly not today. It is like Berlin, too much before I know what I am doing.
Credentialling is important.
Today, I had a nice but very short walk and will take another later with the dog (I did that walk by now and found 4 baseballs which I stored close to where I walk thereby making for good dog throwing conditions in subsequent walks.)
The overly complicated and wrong SM has all of this
Quarks 6
Lepton-electron and 5 others
and the 4 forces.
We will now explain AuT in this context and why the SM is wrong.
These are the illusory particles of the standard model.
Forces are limited to 4.
Pre AuT doesn't understand it quantum wise.
EM is given the value of light and is quantum ct3 and ct3-ct4 building up to a point.
It is said to be responsible for all of chemistry but as we know in AuT, chemistry is largely a ct4-5 phenomena although the role of ct3-4 is enormous since it makes up not only light but the lower forms of matter up to the neutron.
The "strong" force ties quarks together protons and neutrons together under the SM and under the more accurate view of AuT is the alignment (net) of ct3 to ct4 above T-12 in the ct3-ct4 alignment. Now this is not the exclusive relm of the strong force since the EM force (loading of ct3 onto ct4) continues in this area.
Under the newest strong force theory of AuT, there are two forces at play (which gives rise to the mistaken idea that all chemistry is EM or ct3-ct4 loading. This is the idea that there are "two" types of ct3-ct4 loading (loading of ct3 onto ct4 information arms).
The first type is the EM type and reflects ct3 alignment on the 16 information arms sequentially going from one arms to the next, eg 11 to 12 to 13 to 14 and so on as the alignment increases. We view this as electromagnetic wave forces remembering that "charge" forces (ct2 alignment onto ct3) is a big part of this since charge is seen as a part of the electromagnetic spectruum even though it arises from pre-time phenomena.
Recent AuT theory (and modeling, but much more theoretic) is that the strong force represents "jumped" compression according to the rule of 3's or 4's depending on how you look at these hinge features.
In the case of ct3, this jump is a 3,6,9,12 jump. In the case of ct4 it is a much more tangible 4,8,12,16 and is the theoretical basis for the electron (see the prior post for a detailed discussion) or better still the books below.
In AuT the ct4-ct5 loading known as the weak force is important being part of beta decay but also being the source of molecular structures under AuT. This is not seen under the standard model but part of the reason is that SM doesn't look for it. Instead it comes up with these weird boson type concepts which replace mathematical results with bulk particles that somehow yield the mathematical results which compressoin and hinge state jumping cause.
The SM recognies that the weak and Strong forces don't exist except in the size range under the proton, but this is actually a misunderstanding.
As long as ct4 states are aligned, the weak force plays a role in, or more specifically is generated by, that alignment, but it is virtually invisible if the alignment is not at this atomic spacing because it is a post-time force and hence is seen as "structure" whereas pre-time forces appear more active. We have to look at what holds adjacent neutrons and protons together to see it, but it is resulting and not a cause.
The strong force is narrowly defined for similar reasons, we only see it where t12 electrons and t16 minuts t13 nearly complete protons are joined to be t16 (complete) neutrons. For an understanding of why I say minus T-13 instead of t-12 see Vol 2 of AUTC. Hence we see it when Protons and Electron bundles collapse into neutrons so we see it in this small space even though technically it is a function of the space between protons and electrons which is greater to some extent.
If you want to see a comparison of why the forces are stronger or weaker you can see this in Volume 1 of AuT or in the summary.
The SM sees force as the exchange of particles. The rather similar concept in AuT is that it is the loading or unloading of information arms. What is the difference?
Largely the difference lies in the overuse of Greek letters which I cannot easily do here, but it also has to do with the need for additional parts. The SM has the 12 Q-L parts and 4 F parts (it doesn't include the fifth gravity because it is wrong, but you can see all about what gravity is and why it is the same (unified) with other forces even though it looks different in any of the compendium books, primarily vol 1 I'd say.
In this way , W and Z, Y (for the greek photon:EM reflecting ct3 and ct3-4), g (gluon-strong) particles [there is talk about the G (graviton) particle but particles are just nonsense which is what this post is about] shifting about to give the forces and these must be combined to get certain forces reflecting the fact that, for example, the weak force (WZ) is a combination of the EM force and "jumped compression."
We know SM is the wrong model because it fails the Parminides test which is the foundation of AuT (the step that took AuT from NLC and NLT which in turn grew from EHT). As long as the space between particles governs the model and worse still time, the model is defective. Space is critical to AuT, but it "is" the building block, instead of the separation and "space" or ct1 in AuT has no dimension so it is not the space you think about in SM at all.
Higgs for example, is the worst particle of all (giving mass) since all it relfects in the jump in polynomial math that gets us from the larger compresson state gravity from the next lower one, again see vols 1 and 2 of AuT for details.
No comments:
Post a Comment