Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: DualElementUniverse on 17/07/2021 19:52:50
-
Hi everyone,
I have a theory related the particle and quantum physics, the Dual Elemt Universe. That is, a theory that makes the complicated system of quantum physics unnecessary and could see as a Super Theory Of Everything.
I think the theory can explain most of physics phenomena and the formation of the matter of universe, simple, consistent and clear.
At the moment I work on it, it is constantly updated and amanded, so the current version which is around 90 pages at the moment, you can read on duelun.com/documents page. I will post the summarized version in my next post..
I started this topik, because I would like to get answers for my questions:
- Has the theory any logically mistake which make the theory basicly impossible?
- Are the theory and the document understandable? (The grammatic and style mistakes are under correction)
- Do you know any physics phenomena which can't be explained by the theory? (Phenomena, result of experience, empirical fact and NOT an other theory undependent of it is accapted by the phisycs (mainstream) or not)
- Are there any part of the phisycs which should be explained for the proof of theory? (Not the mathematic equations.)
Of course, I also welcome any question from you, related to DEU.
But, with a full respect, I'd like to ask everybody, if you don't want to read my work or you don't want to think on it - it is your decision, what have to respect - please, don't response. All of us time is more valuable to waste it with pointless discussion.
Thank you for your time and energy.
-
A particle exist and let’s call it particle B. The particle B has two manifestations:
A state of a loose structure (Bubble), which we can imagine as a very elastic spatial mesh; and a solid state (particle G), when all of its material is compactedinto an elastic sphere.
The basic parameters for Bubble and particles G are size, amount of material (mass), flexibility and velocity. The Bubble has an additional property, which is the rate of vibration of its material.
The Bubbles fill the space. Particles G can pass through the Bubbles. In this way, the particle G elongates the material layers of the Bubble and brings it into elastic oscillation. The oscillation of the Bubble material can change the velocity of the particle G. There is a ratio of the equilibrium velocity of the vibration of the Bubble material to the advancing motion of the particle G that the particle G maintains as it travels through the Bubbles.
If the speed of vibration of the Bubble material decreases and the particle G cannot accelerate it, the particles G getsstuck in the Bubble material. The Bubble filled with G particles is a P particle. The number of particles G accumulating in the Bubble has two equilibrium states by numbers of particles G. The state, where the numbers of the stuck particle G in the Bubble is less than in the other stable state, are known as an electron and the other stable state is known as the proton. No other stable particles exist.
In particles P, particles G oscillate. The mass of the particle P is mainly given by the particles G in it. Particles G that collide with a particle P lose their kinetic energy. The energy is released from the particle P flows to the environment as a vibration of the surrounding Bubble field. Due to the different velocities of the G particles moving towards and away from the particle P, the pressure anddensity of the Bubbles in the vicinity of the particle P increases, and the oscillation velocity of the Bubbles material decreases. Where the velocity of the Bubble material decreases is defined as field S. The G particles traveling in the S field try to adjust their ownvelocity to the oscillation of Bubbles material. The velocity of G particles decreases while they move towards the particle P and increaseswhile they move away from the P particle.
The two P particles, which are on each other's S field, changethe pressure and density of the Bubble field between them, which changes the velocity of the G particles. Therefore, the velocities of the G particles colliding to particles P from outer space and from other particles P, are different. The force created by the difference in the velocities of the particles G, moves the two P particles towards each other. This is gravity. When the distance decreases between the two P particles, the velocity of the G particles changes in away, that they become repulsive and then attractive again. So, the gravity, the electric charge and core power are same effect at different distances of two particle P. To every pair of P particles there exists a distance when the result of the force effect is zero. The P particles always tend to hold this distance.
The repulsive effect between the electron and the proton is only apparent. All types of P particles attract or repel each other according to the same rule.
The set of protons stuck to each other is the nucleus. The nucleus is held together by the force of the G particles colliding them from the outside, and the removing of a proton is prevented by the force of gravity. There are cases when a proton can break away from the nucleus. In this case the number of G particles in the proton is higher than in its normal state and this particle is called a neutron.
Gravity keeps electrons at anequal distance around the proton. The number of electrons is over 20 already in the case of Hydrogen and they are located on an approximately spherical surface around the nucleus. The gravitational effect between the electrons tries to keep the electrons at equal distances from each other. Since the radius of the sphere of the electron orbit is determined by the gravitational force of the nucleus, the electrons cannot usually be located at equilibrium distance from each other. Areas are created between electrons where the distance between the electrons is much greater than on the rest of the spherical surface. Additional electrons can bind to these potential wells (charged potential well) at greater distances from nucleus than stable electrons. These potential well-binding electrons connect the atoms into a molecule.
The elements of the periodic table differ in the number of electrons, the number of potential wells and type of potential wells. The same element with different number of protons are the isotopes of the element.
The proton and the nucleus create electrons until the orbit of the electron is not saturated. A proton with high velocity or in high pressure enviroment loses its ability to form electrons.
In atomic sets (material), the motion of electrons or the rotation of an electron field can change the pressure and flow of the Bubble field. Due to the changed pressure and flow of the Bubbles, the velocity of the G particles also changes. The altered velocity of G particles is a magnetic force. In magnetizable materials, electron fields can be in permanent rotation and this rotation creates the magnetic field.
The vibrating motion of the Bubble material is the temperature. The vibration of a bubble field to move in space is the electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic waves are created by moving G or P particles. Electromagnetic waves increase the pressure in the S field of P particles, thereby transferring their energy to P particles. The shock-like bubble field motion is the gravitational wave.
The different velocities of the G particles colliding from different directions to the electron and proton cause gravity, the phenomenon of electric charge, the core force and the magnetic effect.
The weak interaction does not exist, it can be considered as the energetic effect of G particles which eject from P elements.
-
A particle exist and let’s call it particle B. The particle B has two manifestations:
A state of a loose structure (Bubble), which we can imagine as a very elastic spatial mesh; and a solid state (particle G), when all of its material is compactedinto an elastic sphere.
The basic parameters for Bubble and particles G are size, amount of material (mass), flexibility and velocity. The Bubble has an additional property, which is the rate of vibration of its material.
I highlighted a few of the terms you will need to define properly before anyone can say anything meaningful about the idea you have put forward.
BTW, it isn't theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
I defined all of them. You can read thise in the citated documents.
Or do you mean, should I define what is the velocity?
That queston, what is 'theory' is a sementical question and the answer is fully different depend on where do you look for the answer. Example the definition of it on wikipedia differ to definition on britannica.com. I think, if the string theory can be theory, the DEU also can be.
But the question is not this, but the DEU system (theory/hypothesis) is workable or not. The answer is undependent of the category of the appellation.
Do you have any idea about it?
-
In addition, if somebody read the document, can see that the DEU can explain a few impotant problem:
When, where and how the electrons and protons come into being, how works the gravity, electric charge, core force, magnetism and what is the relation of them to each other, what is and how work the supramagnetic and supraconductivity, why is the mass-growth by motion, why is differ the mass of element to counted mass by element type and number, what is the impulse of the motion, why is the time shifting by motion, why radiats a moving element with different frekvency depend on velocity, what is the Bose-Einstein condensatum and the 6th phase of elements and why it is become to being, how born the universum and what is the Big Bang, the universum expands or shrinks and why, why different a boundig number of an element if bounds to different type of elements, why is a maximum value of nucleon in nucleus, what is the wave-particle duality effect, what is the spin and so far by SAME RULE undepent on the size and energy rate.
If the logic of system is true.
-
You can read thise in the citated documents.
What cited documents; where?
Also, I'm fairly unlikely to look at 90 pages of stuff just in case it is meaningful.
If all of it makes as little sense as the bit you posted, I'm certainly not going to read it.
-
Not prob, its your decision. I just train myself to explain and defend my theory front of the bigger publik, so Im happy to your response.
But, with a fully respect, I'd like to ask you, and everybody else, if you don't want to read my work or you don't want to think on it - it is your decision what have to respect - please, don't response. All of us time is more valuable to waste it with pointless discussion.
Thank you
-
What cited documents; where?
-
duelun.com/documents
-
OK.
Now imagine that I don't want to click on some untrusted link...
-
Hi DualElement,
Can you tell us about your development of this theory. I don't mean tell us the details of the theory, I mean can you tell us what caused you to develop this theory?
1. What is it about this theory which might make it better than another theory? Was something wrong with other theories etc.
Skim reading through your previous posts it seems that your main belief is that your theory is simpler than other theories - have I understood that correctly?
2. Was there some observation that you noticed (perhaps in some published paper or some experiment you've done yourself) that could not be well explained with current theory? Was there a sudden "Eureka!" moment that gave you the main impetus to develop the theory the way you have?
In general, what lead you to develop this theory? If you noticed something that was unusual or hard to explain what steps did you take to investigate and explain it before developing a new theory?
This section of the forum is often filled with new theories and many of them cite documents that would take multiple hours to read. It's often easier for other forum users to examine the motivation for developing the new theory in the first instance.
Best wishes to you.
-
I do not pretend to answer for DualElementUniverse, but the name theory of everything implies an integrated approach instead of a piece meal approach broken down into a wide range of specialties. A theory of everything would need to overcome the barriers between specialties where gray area appear for the specialities as their knowledge level declines on either side.
I did this analogy many years ago and it may offer insight. Specialities are like walking into a forest, stopping and only being able to see the trees that are in front of you. You can see these in a high level of detail, which makes you an expert However, since you can only see these trees, trying to extrapolate the entire forest, from only these details may be full of problems.
The generalists knows a little of many things so they can see the forest more from a distance with each area of specialty as a small circle in the forest instead of a larger circle that goes as far as the eye can see. This long view gives one a better shot at integrating the whole forest since only the gist of each specialty needs to be included.
From a hill overlooking the forest, in the fall I can tell the type of trees by only their foliage color even without knowing their latin names. The expert may be so engrossed in the oak side of the forts they may no know there are ash just down the road. An integrated model of the forest needs to know this more than the size of the acorns.
-
An integrated model of the forest needs to know this more than the size of the acorns.
To be "integrated" it obviously needs to know both.
You seem to be pleading the case for generalists- I gather you consider yourself to be one.
-
Hi Eternal Student,
First of thing: why? I like thinking. In fact, I cant do not thinking about very komplex stuffs. It is my relaxation. I've learned some phisycs and readed about phisycs a lot and I formed an opinion on their own. E.g.I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory (I can proof it) which is the base of quantum phisics, I saw experiment and device which are agains to mainstream phisycs, and I think, dont have to enumerate the unansvered questions in quantum phisics. So, I hade an idea, the universum can't works by the rules explayned by mainstream and about how can it works. On one day I discussed about this whit my son, and he told me, should proof my ideas, so I decided do it. After a time, when I saw the idea is more as an idea and it incorporates the whol phisycs, I worked on it further. It was around two years.
The system includes two elements, therfore its name. Actually, the two elements are just two manifestation of one element, but for the system enough if we speek abot two, because the transformation can happen under very specially circumstantes and don't affect the operations in the system.
So, two elements operate by the Newtonian rules. There are some uncertanity by the big numbers of the elements, but it countable by statistyc. It is more countable and predictable, undependly on size and energy level range of system as by the mathematyc of the quantum phisycs.I think, if just this would be the benefit of the theory, would be wery useful. But its more.
We could create gravity propulsion, to product electricity from the 'nothing', manipulate the elements without emission of very big energy etc what we cant do at the moment. The 'nothing' is called by mainstram as dark energy and matter.
At the moment we can make verifiable observation in maximum the 10-8 - 108 metric range. We created rules and constans by the experiments in thise range. But if we step out this range to subatomic range, the rules become are unreliable and defective. In thise range, the phisycs create new rules and define exceptions. But if step out from this range toward the bigger range, we cant check the results, so our idea about the Universum is false. So, by my theory we could create those rules, that could be trustable in any range.
Example:
I declare in the theory, that the gravity is not universal, depend on the mass, elements type, temperature, velocity and acceleration of elements and more other parameters. The force of gravity its not a linear function by the distance.Because we experiented it in a narrow metric range and in a very narrow energy range and create the rules and constans by it, its not valid for different range of size and energy. At the moment its enough for us, but if we want to step into different range we must create an universaly rule.
I saw an experiment, maked by a hungarian person in Brem, that show clearly that, the different type of elements fall down in the vacuum with different speed. Because, the person's theory was false, the fact didn't get publicity.
I saw an table top device, which can transform elements to othet type elements without emission of big energy into enviroment, but created electricity field. Because the developer (how is a hungarian person as well) don't know the why, till now, he could not control and set the process targeted, the pocess didn't get publicity.
This examples together my theory, could change the industry fully. (This is the main reason, why propagete my theory front of the public and didn't tried use it. Dangerous.)
-
but the name theory of everything implies an integrated approach instead of a piece meal approach broken down into a wide range of specialties. A theory of everything would need to overcome the barriers between specialties where gray area appear for the specialities as their knowledge level declines on either side.
My theory is more as an tool to step over the barrier. It can proof the speciaity relativity dosn't exit at all in the present form. So, dosnt create a link from macro to micro but give the universal rule for the process of whole Universum undependen on size and energy range.
-
I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory (I can proof it) which is the base of quantum phisics
Relativity is not the base of QM.
If you think there's a logical problem in relativity, you might as well tell us what it is.
But beware; it is much more likely that someone here will explain that you are wrong, than that you will get a Nobel prize for being right.
https://xkcd.com/675/
-
Since the radius of the sphere of the electron orbit is determined by the gravitational force of the nucleus
That's determined by electromagnetism, not gravity. For example, the radius of a deuterium atom is very similar to that of protium, despite deuterium having approximately twice the mass and therefore twice the gravity.
-
I saw an experiment, maked by a hungarian person in Brem, that show clearly that, the different type of elements fall down in the vacuum with different speed.
If that was true, we would have noticed it.
That sort of measurement has been done to very great precision and the outcome was that everything falls at the same rate in a vacuum.
I saw an table top device, which can transform elements to othet type elements without emission of big energy into enviroment, but created electricity field.
Like this?
https://fusor.net/
We know how that works- and have done for about 70 years.
-
Dear Bored chemist,
I don't want to be impolite but I will not reply to you until yours response is non-essential and rather reflects your personal feelings to irrelevant details.
I don't would be unhappy, if you don't keep your eyes on this topic.I don't have time for hecklings.
-
.I don't have time for hecklings.
Telling you why you are wrong isn't heckling; it is science.
If you think the things I commented on are irrelevant, why did you post them?
The fact that other people have done experiments which show that you are wrong is not a reflection of my "personal feelings".
It's a matter of record.
-
That's determined by electromagnetism, not gravity. For example, the radius of a deuterium atom is very similar to that of protium, despite deuterium having approximately twice the mass and therefore twice the gravity.
Say the mainstream phisycs.
If you would read my work, you can get the answer for it as well. By DEU the gravity is not closely related to rest mass and depend on the rate of protons and electrons. At the Hydrogen the gravity force come from the proton maximum 5-10% of the whole atom.
The gravity and electromagnetism are same effect at the different distance of the elements.
The phenomenon of gravity, electromagnetism, core force and magnetism come from the velocity difference at the one of basic elements collid with the atom from different direction. (by DEU is called particle G)
Please, please, please if you don't want read my work, don't do it, but just citating the statement of mainstream phisycs will not move us forward.
I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction. This is the point!
-
Like Bored Chemists say, it isn't heckling to point out where you are wrong.
The state, where the numbers of the stuck particle G in the Bubble is less than in the other stable state, are known as an electron and the other stable state is known as the proton. No other stable particles exist.
This statement, for example, is incorrect. Photons and neutrinos are also stable. Then you have the antimatter counterparts of the electron and proton, the positron and antiproton. To all current measurements, those particles are stable as well.
The number of electrons is over 20 already in the case of Hydrogen
Hydrogen only has one electron per atom.
The different velocities of the G particles colliding from different directions to the electron and proton cause gravity
How does that explain gravity produced by things that aren't electrons or protons? Gravitational lensing shows that light itself has a gravitational field.
I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory
Care to expand on that?
The weak interaction does not exist
It's been measured and the particles that transmit it (Z bosons and W bosons) have been detected. We know it exists.
I saw an experiment, maked by a hungarian person in Brem, that show clearly that, the different type of elements fall down in the vacuum with different speed.
Do you have a link to this? Were the results duplicated by other experimenters?
I declare in the theory, that the gravity is not universal, depend on the mass, elements type, temperature, velocity and acceleration of elements and more other parameters.
By DEU the gravity is not closely related to rest mass and depend on the rate of protons and electrons.
Existing experiments have shown that gravity is correlated to mass. The experiments get approximately the same value for gravitational attraction based on mass. Different materials have been tested (lead, stainless steel, mercury, tungsten and copper) and they have no obvious effect on the results: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900
Say the mainstream phisycs.
No, actual measurements say that. We can measure the radii of atoms. It's not a theory, it's experimental evidence.
Please, please, please if you don't want read my work
I have been reading it (what you've posted here, that is).
but just citating the statement of mainstream phisycs will not move us forward.
I'm citing experimental evidence.
I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction. This is the point!
Experiments currently support mainstream physics over your model.
-
Say the mainstream phisycs.
The evidence says it.
Do you realise that science is based on experimental observatin?
-
I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction. This is the point!
Only one of them can be right; and it's the one with experimental support- which means your idea is 90 pages of waste-paper.
-
I like thinking. In fact, I cant do not thinking about very komplex stuffs.
Perhaps you should try thinking about simple stuff like the importance of evidence.
-
This statement, for example, is incorrect. Photons and neutrinos are also stable. Then you have the antimatter counterparts of the electron and proton, the positron and antiproton. To all current measurements, those particles are stable as well.
This is just a conclusion based on the phisycs theory. Nobody saw positron or antiproton. To be this exist just a nessery inferenc because without it the phisycs by the mainstream rules could not works. IN the DEU I explain the other non stable particles.
The weak interaction does not exist
It's been measured and the particles that transmit it (Z bosons and W bosons) have been detected. We know it exists.
By DEU the weak interaction the emissio of the extra number of particle G related to the equilibrium state. So you can messure it, but not an idividual interaction and don't come by bosons.
Existing experiments have shown that gravity is correlated to mass.
Ok, you catch me. The mass that I mean the value of the material (particle G) So I correct it: The gravity is not closly related to the value of material. (in DEU its the mass)
Of course, because we determine the rest mass by the gravity.
Care to expand on that?
This is not a new theory and I have chance it can appers on a trusted site as news. So I will not.
Experiments currently support mainstream physics over your model.
You don't know it, because you don't know my theory. You know an essence of it, what can't explain the detailes.
Otherwise, the experiments just coincides to the conclusion of mainstream, but absolutely not proof the rules. If you have a black box, and set up a rules by the outpot and the rule are proofed many times, you didn't proof the rules are true, just the rules can give a good predict. I never told, my theory give different result related the messured fact as the mainstream, in the arrow metric and energy range, where we can verify it. Why important it? Because if we step out from this metric and energy range, the rules can become invalid. One of the biggest probleme of the phicisycs, cant make unified rules for the phenomenon. So the phisycs see the universum as two (or mor) black box and for every black box make a new rule.
But my theory makes one rule for every rang. I don't know, my theory the verity, but can explain every phenomenon and can give answers for every non answered question in the phisycs. So I have just one black box, and the rule for it working in every case. And maybe give same result for the questions in the x range as the mainstream or not.
I understand you. You try compare my theory (what you don't know) to the statement of mainstream. If we would see the facts (eg. the result of experiments and phenomenon) ther are not contradiction to my theory. Just the explanation by mainstream dos it.
So you can see, it is pointles compare the DEU to mainstream.There is a meaningful thing if we see my theory and we can ascertain it workable or not. And every citated fact by you are in my theory, and there are explained as well.
-
https://atomsz.com/
additional, DEU can explain why dosn't give the experiment the predicted result. eg. the position of objects don't reached the expected position
-
Nobody saw positron or antiproton.
Yes, we have. Not with our eyes, but with particle detectors.
So you can messure it, but not an idividual interaction and don't come by bosons.
We have detected those bosons.
You don't know it, because you don't know my theory.
Then I'll amend that statement: the current evidence supports mainstream physics over what you have posted so far on this forum. I can, indeed, say that.
You try compare my theory (what you don't know) to the statement of mainstream.
I'm comparing your "theory" (which it isn't really, because you haven't tested it) to the existing evidence. It falls short. Claiming that particles which we have actually detected, measured the mass, charge and other properties of and even sent messages using (yes, we have sent information using neutrinos) don't exist is to be a denialist of the evidence.
-
Nobody saw positron or antiproton.
Nobody has seen you or your 90 page work of fiction.
But people use positrons every day. We know they are real.
You don't know it, because you don't know my theory.
You have told us that your idea disagrees with physics.
Physics agrees with evidence.
So we know your idea does not agree with evidence.
So there is no point in your idea.
So you can see, it is pointles compare the DEU to mainstream.
Yes, but not for the reason you want to believe.
-
We do shedow boxing.
You can't or don't want recognize the different between phenomenon and the explanation of phenomenon by a theory. The phenomenon are the transfer of energy portion, change of the energy level at an element or in the space and the motion of an element. The explanation of phenomenon by mainstream are bosons, alpha radiaton or electromagnetism. The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist. It just give a different explanation of phenomenons related to mainstream. The result of the two theory can be same and can be different. The different between they is how explain the phenomenons.
In the mainstream phisycs there are around 20 elements, around 6-8 different effects and a lot of rules how the elements can interacting to each other. The fetures of some elements must are exactly same, exactly opposot or in a determined rate to some other elements. Eg, by the mainstream phisycs if the rate of force of electromagnetism and gravitation would changes by 1% (I readed about 0,1% as well) the universum would collapse.
The DEU operates with two elements (actually one, as I early mentioned), the elements have 5 fetures: size, mass, velocity, flexibility and oscillating. The fetures can are in a very big rate range to each others.
If we see the possibility of the two theory by the mathematics, it not a question what is more possible. (Occam's razor) Regardless of probability both can be true or fals, could give same or different results for the questions. It is not importan decide it at all. By the theme of this topic, there is one question: the logic of the Dual Element Universe is workable or not. And we can't give the answer by compare the explanation of the two theory or analyze that the mainstream can give a workable answers for all of the questions. (Otherwise the mainstrean can't give, the DEU can.)
So, if I could ask it, please lets speek about logic of the DEU, as the basic theme of the topic is this. I would be happy to explain the theory part by part if somebody don't want read a lot, but interesting about the logic of DEU.
-
The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist.
Yes it does.
. No other stable particles exist.
-
Nobody saw positron.
I once had scan which used the gamma rays produced by positrons to form an image of my heart.
The gamma rays lit up the image, showing where the positrons were.
-
I once had scan which used the gamma rays produced by positrons to form an image of my heart.
The gamma rays lit up the image, showing where the positrons were.
This is by DEU:
The nucleus able create elements like electron. When the structure or energy level of enviroments of the atom is changes, there are so energy level, when thise particles able leave the atom.Thise particles similar to electrons, but its particle G number in its inner structura is not in equilibrium state. When bigger value of particle G collid with this particle, it can become in excited state, and the oll of its particle G are emitted with a big particle densinity and big velocity. Thise particles G can make an energy transfer, what we can detect.
The created particle cease to exist.
So, by DEU the phenomenon exist, just not by an individual particles of positron, and not by an individual energy rays (gamma).
The mainstream explains the disappering elements whit the anty elements of it. The DEU explains the disappering elements with the structure and the change of structure of the elements.
-
Every elements created when the particles G and the Bubbles summa energy level decrease. Then the particles G stuck into Bubble. The stable elements the elektron and the proton. The enviroment of two elements can changes that way, that the particle G quantity in the element changes. Thise state is instable, but can detect as a different sized element for a short time.
When the particle G number change in the element, the energy level of element changes. When the particles G accumlated in the elements or emited out from element, the particle G changes the oscillating of Bubble field. The oscillating of Bubble field is the temperature, and the oscillating of the Bubble field which spreads in the space is the electromagnetic wave.
The set of particle G moves in the space can pretend it is an element. It is detected. When the particle G density in the space decrease, it seem as the element dissapers. It cause an energy level change as well.
-
This is not a new theory and I have chance it can appers on a trusted site as news. So I will not
So you won't support your statement, "I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory".
That's not surprising I suppose, since almost all your ideas are falsified by experimentation and observation. You apparently don't like to look to closely at any current scientific information.
-
Every elements created when the particles G and the Bubbles summa energy level decrease. Then the particles G stuck into Bubble. The stable elements the elektron and the proton.
Electrons and protons are not elements, that is the wrong word.
When the particle G number change in the element, the energy level of element changes. When the particles G accumlated in the elements or emited out from element, the particle G changes the oscillating of Bubble field. The oscillating of Bubble field is the temperature, and the oscillating of the Bubble field which spreads in the space is the electromagnetic wave.
You haven't really written 90 pages of this type of word salad, have you? :o
-
The nucleus able create elements like electron.
No.
Because that would break the law of conservation of mass. The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist.
It says the phenomenon which we call "mass conservation" does not exist.
-
So, by DEU the phenomenon exist, just not by an individual particles of positron
We know that positrons exist because we are able to measure the mass and charge of subatomic particles. The positron has a mass equal to that of the electron but has a positive charge instead of a negative charge.