[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Maybe you should add another “s” to make it “masson” or “masseon” particle to avoid the confusion with mesons. In reality though, how does this improve over current interpretations? Does it change the math and if so, how?

Hi David

Thanks for the link. Having just gone through it, I can't imagine why that 2006 thread dried up? There's so much sense in there.

I spent two years searching for the right terms for my model; graviton was obvious, chronon was also in use but in a different way and I only discovered it recently. So what should I call the basic thing which is the source of all matter? 'Mason' just seems so right as it's definitely 'on the square' and its handshake unmistakable!

My paradigm is completely different from any other. It postulates a structure for the aether/spacetime which incorporates a mechanism for gravity which is in tune with GR. It explains the link with QM and the quarks of the standard model but rejects the concept of bosons as force carriers. The forces are effects of variations in the motion of matter which we have chosen to describe mathematically and call laws. It also includes a proposed mechanism for time based on the probability function. As regards the maths I leave that to those more qualified than I.

regards
Felix

PS - no I'm not