quanta07's Blog

I find the standard model to be extremely flawed in its perception of mass, light and explanations of the weak force, strong force and gravity. I believe this stems from taking 200 year old ideas and trying to augment these old flawed concepts in a sincere effort to understand the unknowns generated by such archaic thought. Science is being lead down the wrong path by people who believe what they are taught in school is all true. Some of it is just a guess and a very poor guess at that. Strings, parallel universes, M theory are prime examples of trying to make a silk purse from a pig ear.

From the standard model a bad assumption has been made about the relationship between mass and acceleration. In deep space, we detect the presence of convergent acceleration fields and mistakenly assume there must be some form of mass generating those fields. We can’t detect this ‘mass’, but we are so blindly determined to make the standard model ‘fit’, we ignore what we see and say that some sort of mass has caused the presence of these fields, so they have called it Dark Mater.

Others, who have not done any study at all, refer to the ‘thing’ which causes cosmic expansion, (divergent acceleration), as Dark Energy. Or another bad label that is used as an ignorant response to the question like ‘What holds the stars in orbit about the galaxy center?’

Strings, parallel universes, M theory, Dark Mater, Dark Energy are all concepts that have been devised to make the standard model fit the observations of the behaviors observed in nature. All computer programmers know, garbage in garbage out, put garbage concepts in the mind, get garbage concepts out. String theory, M theory and parallel universes are garbage concepts. Dark Mater and Dark Energy are simply childish labels for convergent and divergent acceleration fields. It is time to get out of elementary school. Acceleration fields exists without the presence of any mass

And finally, when we hear the word ‘energy’, we all have an intuitive idea about what this word means, but it remains ambiguous, overused and undefined. Please don’t say ‘energy is equal to mass times C squared’, or mC squared is the maximum kinetic ‘energy’ of some mass ‘m’. Chemical energy, light energy, electric energy all have an intuitive meaning to each of us. But ‘energy’ is a made up word to describe something we really don’t understand. I really wish the word ‘energy’ could be removed from all scientific thought and vanish from all scientific papers. When I read posts on this site that give explanations of behaviors noted in nature, one can tell if the author has any knowledge about the subject being discussed by counting the number of times they use the word ‘energy’. In general, the more I see word being used, the less the author knows about the subject presented.

The study of expansion behavior functions explains the formation of mass, the strong and weak force, gravity, light, galactic formation and time itself. Yet, it is not taught in most universities for it shakes the foundation of current physics and lets the cat out of the bag. Science needs to be shaken to the core so the ambiguities and phony concepts can be discarded. Describe all of natures’ behavior in the basics, flux, impulse, acceleration, velocity, distance, surface area, volume and time. These factors are all that are needed to understand all the unknowns left by the current standard model.

Do the work, get the knowledge.

Happy thoughts…………Q7