Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: cpu68 on 02/02/2023 15:45:36
-
The following paragraph is from the larger text New horizons in physics
Galactical model of subquark particles
Electrons, quarks and gluons possess internal structure, consist of quadrillion of particles of size about 10^-35 m [they correspond with photons], these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-50 m, these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-65 m [they correspond with gravitons]. To confirm legitimacy of assuming of hypothesis of internal structure of smallest from hitherto known structural subatomic particles as electrons, quarks and gluons it can be invoked the theory of science created by A.Comte (see after text Comte's Theory of Science).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Galactic_model_of_preon.gif)
diagram. Galatical model
Every following field uses in a large extent from previous, sociology from biology - theory of evolution, biology from chemistry - an example biochemistry, chemistry from physics - even if structure of atom and periodic table, physics from astronomy. Invoking astronomy it can be in physics reach eg. conception of existence of atoms and their internal structure - stars, planets, planetary system. It can be also reach models applied in conception of subquark particles and QG. It is galactical, cosmical and supercosmical model. Mystery of dark matter can be explained in this way that preonical particles possess mass (the above part of this paragraph is from year 2014).
A more careful analysis of the galactical model leads to the conclusion that there are more types of particles of the right type. Types of stars, by supergiants, giants, dwarfs, all the way to the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy would correspond to the types of these particles. Cosmical model analysis leads to similar conclusions, where the types of particles would correspond to the appropriate types of galaxies. At the end, the analysis of the supercosmical model leads to similar conclusions.
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light (the above part of this paragraph is from year 2019).
Particles much faster than photons are related to the cosmical model and sizes in the order of 10^-50 m. Perhaps they are also related to the supercosmical model, although the chances of this are slightly smaller.
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles. One can also consider the hypothesis that these particles are micro black holes that have ended their lives as particles, by evaporating. These evaporating micro black holes can produce all the particles from the galactical model (compare stars in the galaxy). The only issue is that these particles can also be building blocks of, for example, quarks.
The bonds of particles from the galactic model and higher models are probably - like quark-gluon bonds - indecomposable (the above part of this paragraph is from year 2023).
author of text: Gregory Podgorniak, Poland
about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Bodhidharma (5th or 6th century) buddhist patriarch, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.
email contact: podgorniakgre@gmail.com
my other threads on this forum:
New theory of evolution - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86174.0
New perspectives in physics - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85367.0
New theory of social evolution and social structure - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86048.0
How to raise your IQ, how to achieve higher IQ, how to get higher IQ ? - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86231.0
Photo of subtle body, photo of soul, photo of astral body - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86291.0
Newest Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86332.0
-
Nonsense, yet again.
-
the paragraph supplementing the text from the first post, is from 2019:
A more careful analysis of the galactical model leads to the conclusion that there are more types of particles of the right type. Types of stars, by supergiants, giants, dwarfs, all the way to the black star (black hole, see paragraph 11) would correspond to the types of these particles. Cosmical model analysis leads to similar conclusions, where the types of particles would correspond to the appropriate types of galaxies.
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light.
-
Nonsense
This discovery is even greater than the Bohr model
-
Nonsense
This discovery is even greater than the Bohr model
It is not a discovery. It is just something you thought up AKA a brain fart.
-
"Electron" comes from the Greek ελεκτρον, meaning amber. Modern electrons are made from νψλον, meaning nylon, which is lighter and does not decay.
Humans cannot synthesise protons but rely on plant and other animal sources.
The action of helicobacter pylorii converts proteins into hydrogen.
-
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light.
The excerpt you supplied indicates that the book is pseudoscientific junk. If you're curious about physics, you should consult reputable sources not silly junk sources.
-
How would one test this model?
-
The following paragraph is from the larger text New horizons in physics
You should have left it there.
-
How would one test this model?
An empirical test of this model is beyond the scope of current technical abilities
-
An empirical test of this model is beyond the scope of current technical abilities
Not much of a model then, is it?
-
The excerpt you supplied indicates that the book
This is not a book but an article New horizons in physics whose earlier version New perspectives in physics is available on this forum https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85367.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=85367.0)
-
Of the two galacticala and cosmical models, the adoption of the cosmical model seems unquestionable.
-
Of the three galactical, cosmical and supercosmical models, the adoption of the supercosmical model seems the most questionable. However, the hypothesis of the existence of many universes seems to be acceptable, and the supercosmic model to some extent justified.
Didi you think that made sense?
-
Didi you think that made sense?
Where do you see no sense here?
-
Of the three galactical, cosmical and supercosmical models, the adoption of the supercosmical model seems the most questionable.
OK
Of the three large, tasty and indigestible meals, the consumption of the indigestible meal seems the most attractive.
The implication of this bit (" the three large, tasty and indigestible meals") is that there are three meals which have those properties.
And then you say that the indigestible one is best.
But they are all indigestible.
And then you have to define the adjectives you used.
-
But they are all indigestible.
I think they are all digestible
-
But they are all indigestible.
I think they are all digestible
Then why didn't you say so?
-
My next remark is that particles much faster than photons are related to the cosmic model and sizes in the order of 10^-50 m.
-
What is the mass of one of thee particles?
-
What is the mass of one of thee particles?
I have no such estimates
-
Not a very scientific hypothesis, then.
Do let us know when you have done the arithmetic.
-
What is the mass of one of thee particles?
shouldn’t that be “thy particles”?
-
Perhaps particles much faster than photons are related to the cosmical model.
-
Perhaps particles much faster than photons are also related to the supercosmical model,
More likely, actually MUCH more likely is that particles faster than photons do not exist.
-
More likely, actually MUCH more likely is that particles faster than photons do not exist.
If we accept two models of subquark particles, galactical and cosmical, then the hypothesis about the existence of particles faster than photons seems to be justified.
-
If we accept three models of subquark particles, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical, then the hypothesis about the existence of particles faster than photons seems to be justified.
But there's no reason to accept, "three models of subquark particles, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical", therefore your hypothesis is based on nothing and can be dismissed.
-
Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?
-
Who needs evidence?
Science used to be about facts and tests, but nowadays it's all about models, and if the predictions are wrong it's not the fault of the model but "factors beyond our control".
Are you a Denier?
-
Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?
There would be evidence, you just have to look for them, although the empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities
-
empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities
So... no evidence then.
Why not just say so?
-
Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?
There would be evidence, you just have to look for them, although the empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities
If there is currently no evidence, then why should we believe that it is correct?
-
If there is currently no evidence, then why should we believe that it is correct?
A strong argument in favor of the galactic model, followed by the cosmic model, is the Bohr-style model of the atom based on the planetary system. Among other things, Comte's theory of science implies the assumption that physics can draw models from astronomy. If a planetary system has proven to be a useful model, so should a galaxy. It was just a matter of what the galactic model might look like.
-
A strong argument in favor of the galactic model, followed by the cosmic and supercosmic model, is the Bohr-style model of the atom based on the planetary system.
It's not a strong argument. The planetary model of the atom was incorrect. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the way that planets orbit the Sun.
Among other things, Comte's theory of science implies the assumption that physics can draw models from astronomy. If a planetary system has proven to be a useful model, so should a galaxy. It was just a matter of what the galactic model might look like.
That doesn't imply that electrons are made up of quadrillions of smaller particles.
-
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black star (black hole, see paragraph 10) at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles.
-
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black star (black hole, see paragraph 10) at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles.
Why should we assume that?
-
Why should we assume that?
Because the supermassive black star (black hole) in the center of the galaxy occupies a distinguished place and can be said to be the main object in the galaxy
-
Why should we assume that?
Because the supermassive black star (black hole) in the center of the galaxy occupies a distinguished place and can be said to be the main object in the galaxy
That doesn't sound like a good reason to assume that such logic also applies to particles.
-
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles (In the new version of the text, I abandoned the concept of a black star and a black hyperstar).
-
Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles (In the new version of the text, I abandoned the concept of a black star and a black hyperstar).
You're not making any sense.
-
According to previous concepts, quarks would consist of only a few preons, according to my concept, they consist of a very large number of tiny particles.
-
according to my concept, they consist of a very large number of tiny particles
There is no evidence to back up your claim.
-
It's obvious, if you study the upper regions of classical poetry
Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs, to bite 'em
And little fleas have smaller fleas
Ut sic ad infinitum
-
It's obvious, if you study the upper regions of classical poetry
Ah, I see it's a turtles all the way down sort of thing...
-
The bonds of particles from the galactic model and higher models are probably - like quark-gluon bonds - indecomposable.
-
No.
-
One can also consider the hypothesis that these particles (main particle) are micro black holes that have ended their lives as particles, by evaporating.
-
One can also consider the hypothesis that ...
One can.
And then one can reject it.
-
One can also consider the hypothesis that these particles (main particle) are micro black holes that have ended their lives as particles, by evaporating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
interesting
-
These evaporating micro black holes (main particle) can produce all the particles from the galactical model (compare stars in the galaxy). The only issue is that these particles can also be building blocks of, for example, quarks.
-
All particles from the galactical model are somehow related to the main particle of the model, which is related to the rotation of the galaxy where the center is a supermassive black hole.
-
All particles from the galactical model are somehow related to the main particle of the model, which is related to the rotation of the galaxy where the center is a supermassive black hole.
So these particles are somehow related and they sorta interact kinda and then probably do some other stuff. Well, that is quite the in depth theory!
-
There are three types of galaxies, spiral, elliptical and irregular, just as there are three kinds of particles, electrons, quarks and gluons.