Hi, there, in my opinion, the problem is that all great minds, dont give up about their ideas, powerfull ideias, but sometimes, we need to give up, and give oportunity to the ones that obey for certain creteria, the ones that include standart model, and other fundamental principles, all the best......

No, not really in trouble, just out of balance, theory and experiments should be reïnforcing each other♾

Physics is like a bus that is bound for "quantum gravity city", but has somehow gotten stuck in a muddy swamp.

Seems to be a really interesting theory with some radical predictions: neutrinos are Majorana, lightest neutrino is massless and no primordial gravitational waves, as well as dark matter being sterile neutrinos with a huge mass, and solves the matter/antimatter asymmetry.

Dr Neil’s approach Makes most contemporary theoretical physicists seem deluded. This might be the only interview you need. (I’m sort of joking, but not really)

Steve Thanks very much Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet

Echoes my sentiments

@@DrBrianKeating How CAN IN THE FIST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY we the NORMAL people go away physically from this Illuminati's Universal BLACK MATRIX WHO IS THE UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICAL PRISON LOPE OF THE REICHARNATIOM CREATED FROM THE ANNUNAKI, before our bio death?🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

@@CarlosElio82 taoism is obscurantist superstition, weak traditional thinking which as a fellow working class, albeit professional pensioner I advise you to reject. Take a class action against bullshit, as Turok is trynna do.

@@DrBrianKeating WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, as the rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution; as TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE. c squared CLEARLY represents a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky ON BALANCE. Great. It is proven. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). CLEARLY, gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy are linked AND BALANCED opposites (ON BALANCE); as the stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. Consider TIME (AND time dilation) ON BALANCE. Consider WHAT IS THE EYE ON BALANCE. Great. Consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON ON BALANCE. WHAT IS E=MC2 is taken directly from F=ma. Great. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). By Frank DiMeglio

Talking of bullshit, I would be interested to know how you feel about non-locality, which remains unexplained, and which no-one seems interested in explaining.

Find your favorite problem/ conundrum and solve it. Let your ego die from neglect. You'll think much clearer if you do. (From an old barber and gentleman science buff to a future problem solver.)

Consider that gravity can be understood as a local accretion of the lower scale substrate of our scale of reality rather than a remote attractive force.

No one seems concerned that complex numbers do not possess order --- faking it by assigning one doesn't count --- and therefore any physical activity relying on complex numbers should have factors that can be anywhere in time & space (sort of like Feynman's everything is happening at once, we see what doesn't get cancelled). Something important is being overlooked. Plus, number "types" is a series of infinite regressions, some with order, some without. Does that imply reality is a series of infinite regressions? Lots of weird questions need answering. Consider getting a "real" job that gives you sufficient free time to answer fringe questions. (Unless you're independently wealthy) Not being pressured to have a proper result is freeing.

@@havenbastion Brilliant - now I understand everything perfectly🙂

Thanks very much. Please do me a favor and share it with two friends!

Thanks very much

The only? What about Roger Penrose?

What is your designation?

I mean no criticism, but please see my comment, which is only meant to supply some necessity to physics. Mathematicians sometimes spare this need for necessity. Euclid's space can not be observed.

And what about Lawrence Krauss?

Thanks

I would like to see such high level test disproving a flat earth with modern sun sticks. Relying on something espoused 500 AD seems a little suspect. And the only photo is of the "blue marble" in 1972 everything else is a computer generated image. @@DrBrianKeating

I hope you enjoy it!

That wouldn't surprise me. Growing up in South Africas apartheid system, his parents couldn't even be seen walking on the streets together, I think that would give some experience about the realities for people without opportunities.

@@ingvarhallstrom2306 That’s really interesting. Didn’t know that bit about his background. Thanks for sharing

My pleasure. Please share far and wide.

Thanks Deniz please share it with two friends

Molly Thanks very much ! Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 If you haven’t already

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

That being said, physics youtube needed a Sabine to balance all the pbs space times pushing all novelty ideas without proper context before loosing people in technicalities at the 5 minutes mark.

Sabine is a breath of fresh air. Kaku entices journalists into publishing the most outlandish and nonsensical claims like a holographic universe, Elvis is still alive in another multiverse, there are an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse….

Thanks very much

Well said

Neil.

@@MrDino1953 Thank you, corrected my mistake.

Thanks very much. Please do me a favor and share it with two friends. Thanks ! Have a great week

Mary Ann Thanks - Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t already

Get well soon!

ty !

Thanks Phil Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list

Thanks very much Bari

Thanks ! Please share!

Sure Please share the channel

37 is definitely not too late. There are people in their 60s going at it.

Nice

How does something travel backwards through time? Youd only ever be able to see any such particle for a planck length of time, before it only existed in your past.. What would you expect to see in such a universe? If anti-matter was just matter particles travelling backwards in time, and at every point in time the particle is in a specific space, then for every single matter particle, there must be a corresponding antimatter particle that will annihilate with its future self when they reach the same place at the same time, which every particle must do. So, unless dark matter ends up being the shadow gravity of future Antimatter particles that are making their way back through time, somehow affecting the present from the future or something like that, this idea seems unlikely..

@@falseprophet1024 My thoughts on the matter (no pun intended!): Think of time behaving differently in the classical world and the quantum world. The direction of time flows forwards in the classical world, but in the quantum world, there is no such direction until the collapse of the wave function. what we consider 'backwards' in time makes no sense, as the particle that is considered to be travelling in such a manner in the classical world is still travelling forwards as far as it is concerned - its arrow of time is still moving 'forwards'. In the quantum world, before wave function collapse, the arrow of time doesn't make sense. Consider a particle vibrating in 3D space, such that we 'observe' it in the classical world because its time coordinate is the same as the observers, that's us. Now consider this particle vibrating in 4D spacetime, we would only still observe this particle when its time coordinate is the same as ours, but when it is vibrating with different time coordinates, we wouldn't see this particle because it exists in another time. We would call this vibrating 'forwards' and 'backwards' in time much like we would consider it moving forwards and backwards along the X-axis. I don't think such a universe is really in contradiction to our universe. If the aforementioned vibrating particles wave function collapses such that its time coordinate matches the observers, and we measure it as an antiparticle, its corresponding oppositely charged particle can still be the same particle with opposite charge and different 4D spacetime coordinates. Think of this paired particle like a single bar magnet with north/ south poles (positive/ negative) and the whole bar is vibrating along 4D spacetime. We would observe 'two' particles if the two ends of this bar appeared with the same time coordinates, but different space coordinates. This antimatter/ matter paired particle system extended to many particles would appear as particles bubbling in and out of existence (observed with same time coordinates). If you consider this paired particle system when entangled, we can replace observables like charge with spin. Similarly, we observe entangled particles as pairs with the same time coordinates, but with different space coordinates, which itself is the same particle vibrating through the quantum world and the classical word, where observations are made in the classical world. So, travelling 'backwards' in time is a misnomer, and if this vibrating system of antimatter/ matter pairs meet at the same 4D spacetime coordinates, then we would see an antimatter/ matter collision and annihilation. What we need is a theory connecting both spacetime and quantum field theory as quantum gravity...

@@jainalabdin4923 Thats just not how the quantum world works, though.. you can calculate how a quantum system develops over time. Its always one way. Think of time like this: cause preceeds effect. Thats it. You can measure the "arrow of time" by drawing an arrow from the cause to the event. That arrow points the same way in classical and quantum physics.. I dont understand why everyone is so convinced there is this unified field theory.. Gravity doesn't appear to be a field. Or they want to "unify the 4 forces", but gravity doesn't appear to be a force, either. Quantum Gravity is a nonsensical term to me. Gravity seems to be geometric in nature. It is caused by its relative geometry within the "fabric of space". None of the forces seem to act in the same way, as their interactions seem to be algebraic in nature. Quantum loop gravity seems like it could be fruitful because it attempts to explain how the fabric that mass warps to create gravity acts in a quantum way. Gravity is the only "force" that has an infinite range of effect. It never tapers off to zero. Why would it be surprising if its also the only "force" that has a minimum limit of effect? Basically, gravity seems to be fundamentally different from the other forces, so why are we so sure they can all be "unified"?

@@falseprophet1024 Quantum Gravity isn't clearly defined and is used loosely in various ways, but my meaning is how spacetime (gravity) interacts at the quantum scale. Quantum Gravity would be the glue that explains both the classical and quantum world. I'm disagreeing with the notion that quantum systems develop one way. The quantum world, before the wavefunction collapses, suggests a particle being everywhere, where everywhere is a place in 4D spacetime, which means both 'past', 'present' and 'future'. When the wavefunction collapses, it does so to the present for us to measure observables. The notion of the arrow of time comes from this in the classical world. Prior to collapse, there is no notion of this arrow. The idea that the quantum world develops one way doesn't consider particles vibrating in 4D spacetime, rather it constrains time with an arrow, and lets the system develop in 3D space.

K😊

Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

@@DrBrianKeating The thing that I loved is that , as far as I understood, physics may return to "simple theories" . I liked it because it was going to infinite universes, particles etc. So it was harder to grasp things for us ordinary people who like to follow physics and physicists 😊

Thanks very much ! Janet Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t already

Ronald *thanks for sharing favorite takeaway from this conversation!* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/mailing_list.php

Thank you, very much. Reward me by sharing it with at least two friends

Our wonderful UK indeed.

get rid of "gravity" being the answer to everything. Think electric, plasma magnetic fields.

Penrose idea runs forward in time, where as this anti universe has time and entropy going in reverse.

Thanks

Thanks very much. Please share it with two friends

Yes exactly what I hoped for. Please share with two friends 😀

@@DrBrianKeating I already have! Such a joy to hear an intelligent individual being intelligently interviewed. Kudos to you both.

thanks soooo much -- *Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 **briankeating.com/list*

My Son studying in University of Edinburgh BSc. (Hons) theoretical physics , He emailed you so many times to discuss about work he has been doing of very high level in quantum gravity and you also gave response to meet in September last year but you were busy. Your assistant also given time to meet in November last year but till now you haven’t given time my Son emailed you so many times. Please meet him as early as possible.

1. You just invented more untestable particles.. you sure you arent a string theorist? 2. Why do these new particles move out of the way if you try to measure the photon as it passes through the slit, changing the pattern the photon makes on the detector?

@@falseprophet1024 Thank you for the reply. I am most certainly not a string theorist, I just can't accept this theory at all. I have been working on two hypotheses, one is to do with quantum mechanics, the other with an alternative to the big bang and the idear that the universe inflated and is expanding. To help you make sense of what I am saying, I will list below a few of the anomalies of the standard model that led to me proposing an alternative hypothesis. I will also post a brie extract from my hypothesis, which you may find interesting. I Personally do not believe that the double slit experiment proves anything, because the parameters that are being used are wrong. 2. In answer to this question, it is because whatever is being used to fire at the double slit barrier, are not solid discrete particles, but a culster of very much smaller particles. These particles are negatively charged monopole particles, which are repelling each other in every direction. As these clusters of particles are travelling through a cloud of the same particles there will exist a wave pattern before the double slits are encountered, so there will exist an interference wave pattern the other side of the barrier, no matter what passes through the slits. Any measureing equipment will either be absorbing or emitting the same particles, therefore having an effect on what is passing through the slits. a). How is it possible for a single electron as in the case of the hydrogen atom, to form an ' Electron Cloud ', that fills the whole area between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom, at every moment in time, when this area is millions of times that of the electron? b). If the electron does act as described in the standard model, by whizzing around the nucleus, changing trajectory many thousands of times a second, where does it get its energy from to initiate and maintain its momentum? c). Following on from b). This momentum and changing of trajectory would require energy to be expended, and thus dissipating heat. Therefore, every atom and therefore all matter would be emitting heat, which plainly it is not? This proves that the electron, as described in the standard model, cannot be moving, but must be at rest, unless exited by an external influence, therefore the standard model is wrong. d). How is it possible for the electron to have the same charge holding capacity as the proton, which is around 2,000 times its size. It would be like a tiny watch battery having the same charge holding capacity as a very large tractor battery? e). In the standard model the proton and the neutron are each made up of three quarks, these in turn contain neutrinos and electrons, which is a contradiction of the accepted statement that the electron has an equal but opposite charge to the proton. If the proton is made up of three quarks, and in ‘ Beta decay ‘ these quarks can change into their opposite quarks, with the ejection of a neutrino or an antineutrino, and an electron, then there exists three electrons contained within the proton, and three within the neutron. This would mean that there are six electrons in the nucleus. This proves that the standard model is fundamentally flawed, since the electron in the space outside the nucleus has a charge value of one, negative, and the proton is one positive, the presence of these electrons in the nucleus should make it negative. F}. The accepted view, according to the standard mode, is that space is a vacuum. If this is the case, how is it possible for light and all electromagnetic radiation or gravitation waves to travel through space? Since it is accepted that all electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves are ' Waves ', there has to be a medium in which a wave can propagate and travel, therefore, space must contain a cloud of matter particles, such as I describe in my hypothesis, to facilitate this propagation. I hypothesize that everything in the universe is composed of just two incredibly small particles that I have proposed. One is a negatively charged monopole particle called a ' Harveytron ', which fills every available empty space between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom, and every available empty space throughout the universe, in a cloud called the ' Harveytron Cloud '. These particles make up the ' Dark Matter ', and the negative force of repulsion that is produced by them trying to repel each other in every direction, is the ' Dark Energy '. This is the force that keeps all of the planets suspended, and stops them from being drawn to each other, and is what is causing the expansion of the universe ( if it is ). It is also one of the forces of gravity, which I believe is a force of both attraction and repulsion. The second, is a corresponding positively charged monopole particle, called a ' Dannytron ', which, in combination with the ' Harveytrons ', make up all of the nuclei and therefore all of the nuclear matter in the universe. They are what makes up the other force of gravitational attraction between the nuclear matter of the universe. Starting with the atom, I believe that all of the particles making up the table of particles in the standard model, are man-made, and just pieces of nuclear detritus following collider collisions. I believe that the nucleus is composed of successive layers of the two positive and negatively charged monopole ' Harveytrons ' and ' Dannytrons ', that I describe, like a gobstopper sweet. The different elements being determined by the number of the positively charged ' Dannytrons ' contained in the nucleus. Beyond the last layer of positively charged particles there exists just the negatively charged ' Harveytrons ', which fill every available empty space between the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. This boundary is determined where the point of equilibrium is reached between the attractive force of the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus to the negatively charged particles in the ' Harveytron cloud ', and the repulsive force of the ' Harveytron cloud ' and the negative charge of the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the nucleus meets. Beyond this boundary, there exists only the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' monopole particles throughout every available empty space in the universe, creating a negative force of repulsion throughout the universe, and is one of the two components of gravity. I would contend that these monopoles, do not give up their charge, and the forces of each, extend through each particle, which in the case of the positive extends to the boundary of the atom and the negative extends to the centre of the nucleus. Electron. I contend that the electron is not an elementary solid particle, but a cluster of the negatively charged ' Harveytron ' particles that I propose. These clusters form due to the mass of the ' Harveytron Cloud ' trying to reach the nucleus, and as any force is applied to the atom, a pulse of energy is ejected from one atom to the next as happens with the photon. The quantity of energy in these pulses is always the same and is a constant. The charge held by these clusters, is not equal to the positive charge of the nucleus, but just a proportion of it. the amount of charge equal but opposite that of the nucleus, is distributed throughout the ' Harveytrons ' contained in the area between the nucleus and the boundary of the atom. I would be intrested in your thought, Kind regards, Tony Marsh

@Tony Marsh Sure thing. I was just making a nerd joke with the string theorist comment. Its an interesting idea, and i like trying to come up with new explanations for stuff, as well, so please dont take this the wrong way, but i think you have a few fundamental misunderstandings leading to some flaws in your thinking. The Double-Slit experiment proves that the universe is quantum at its base.. and honestly, a probabilistic universe makes the most sense to me.. I still dont understand why you would get the 2 different results according to your hypothesis. Or how your particles that actually fill the universe changes anything. The detector is only registering the position of the photon. It seems like you should get the same result, unless the 2nd detector is somehow clearing these "aether particles" from the path of the photon.. 2. If electrons were constructed as you propose, made of a cloud of distinct particles that all repel each other, atoms wouldnt be able to hold together. Okay, now let me try to answer your questions. a. Because the electron is in a superposition, actually existing in every place within the electron shell, until it is "measured". b. I dont really understand the question. It doesnt take energy to maintain your momentum, aka inertia. The electron "gets its energy" from the nucleus, more specifically it is bound to the opposite/attractive charge of the proton, and because the electrons angular momentum must be conserved, it has to act like the standard model describes. c. The "external influnece" on the electron is the protons in the nucleus through the electro-magnetic force. d. What do you mean by "charge holding capacity"? They dont exert the same force, which is why the electron spins around the nucleus, and they dont spin around each other. An analogy would be asking how the Earth has the same gravity holding capacity as the sun? e. The presence of electrons in the nucleus doesn't make the charge of the nucleus negative, due to their relative size. The nucleus has a positive charge that is slightly reduced by the presence of electrons in the nucleus, but the nucleus still has an overall positive charge.. f. The accepted view since Einstein is that space is a fabric that has an energy value (zero point energy) and can be warped. See quantum loop gravity as an example of a theory that tries to explain what the fabric is made of. You haven't actually proposed what you think you have. Your two fundamental particles are somehow both fundamental, and made of the particles in the standard model that we know exist through observation. And honestly, unless your 2 fundamental particles are quantum, and therefore probabilistic in nature, then they dont agree with observation. Which of the unbelievables do you have the hardest time accepting? A. The probabilistic nature of reality, and the idea of superposition? B. Non-locality (spooky action at a distance)? C. The measurement problem in QM? (The electron deciding where it actually wants to be, but only when we measure it.)

@@falseprophet1024 Thank You for your considered reply. Obviously, without seeing the whole of my hypotheses, it is hard to convey my thinking. I will try to respond fully tomorrow, but for now, I will just copy a section of my QM hypothesis regarding the electron. In answer to the last part of your reply, I don't agree with the SM view all three of them, and these points are discussed in my hypotheses. Anyway, have a look at the following and give me your thoughts. Kind regards, Tony Marsh. Electron. It is proposed that the accepted view, that an electron is an elementary solid particle, is incorrect, and that it is in fact a collection of the much smaller negatively charged monopole particles that I have just described as ‘ Harveytrons ‘. I believe that these particles would be the finitely smallest particles in the universe, and would constitute everything that exists in the universe, with the exception of the positively charge component contained in every nucleus that exists. Also I propose that these particles would form a cloud ‘, the ‘ Harveytron ‘ cloud, that fills every available empty space within the atom and the universe. Just to emphasize the point, I believe that the electron, as a solid particle does not exist. It is proposed that the electron as it is described in the standard model, is in fact a parcel of the much smaller negatively charged monopole ’ Harveytron ‘ particles described in my hypothesis, and is the quantity of negatively charged particles to be contained together, before the charge they contain is released as a Photon, or as a pulse of energy outside the spectrum of visible light. This quantity of charge is a constant, throughout the whole of the universe,and is the quantity of charge contained in a quanta of light or electromagnetic radiation, when the threshold quantity of charge able to be held within the boundary of the atom is reached. This is analogous to an electrical circuit, containing a power source, a capacitor, and an SCR, whereby, when power is applied to the circuit, the capacitor begins to charge, until the trigger voltage of the SCR is reached and it fires, at which point the capacitor discharges in a pulse. The way that these clusters form, is due to the interaction between the opposing positive and negative forces in the nucleus and any external force applied to the atom pushing the negative particles up to the point where the pressure cannot be contained by the atom, and the energy contained in these bunched particles is released to the adjoining atom. The quantity of negative charge surrounding each nucleus, is strongest nearest the nucleus, and gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus. At the point where the force of attraction to this charge from the nucleus reaches equilibrium with the force of repulsion between the negatively charged monopoles is reached, this is the boundary of the atom. This is also the boundary that the positive charge forming the strong nuclear force extends to. From this point out, there only exists the negative force of repulsion in every direction in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘. I contend that the whole of the available empty space within the boundary of the atom, as described in the standard model, is filled with these particles, and the amount of negative electrical charge equal and opposite to the positive charge carried by the nucleus, attributed to the electrons, as described in the standard model, is distributed throughout the mass of these particles. The negative electrical charge that would be carried by the electron in the standard model is in fact, just a small proportion of these particles, and of the negative charge within the area surrounding the nucleus and the outer boundary of the atom. I also hypothesize that these particles do not fly around at speed, but are at rest unless exited by an external force, other than trying to get closer to the positively charged particles contained in the nucleus, and contributing to the strong nuclear force. Beyond the last layer of the positively charged monopole ‘ Dannytron ‘ particles forming the nucleus, as I will describe later, there are only the negatively charged monopole ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles in a cloud that encompasses every space within the universe. This cloud is negatively charged, and forms a negative force of repulsion exerting a repulsive force in every direction. As these negatively charged particles cluster around the nucleus, they are held very strongly by the positively charged particles making up the nucleus. As the positive and negative particles are monopoles that do not give up their force of attraction and repulsion, there exists a complex interaction between these particles in the nucleus. The attractive and repulsive force of each particle, extends through adjoining particles. Although the negatively charged particles are trying to repel each other, this repulsion is a standard pressure in the ‘ Harvetron Cloud ‘. However, because the positively charged particles are trying to attract the negative particles from every direction, and their force of attraction extends beyond the boundary of their neighbouring oppositely charged particle , there is in effect, a double force pulling and pushing the nucleus extremely tightly together. This is the ‘ Strong Nuclear Force ‘. As more negatively charged particles try to get to the nucleus, a dense shell of the negatively charged particles forms due to the very strong attraction of the positive particles in the nucleus. As these negatively charged monopole particles can’t get any closer to the nucleus, this is the boundary of the atom. From this point out, there exists only the negative force of repulsion, and equilibrium is reached in the ‘ Harveytron Cloud ‘. The negative force of attraction to the nucleus gets weaker the greater the distance from the nucleus until the force reaches equilibrium within the cloud, to become the weak force, and a constituent of gravity. At the point where the boundary of the atom would be defined, it is possible that the negatively charged monopole particles, might bunch up, as they are being pulled by the positive particles in the nucleus, but also being repelled by the negative particles already in this region. This could be what is visualized as an electron. Any applied force would then cause the energy contained in these bunches, to be released as a photon. Elements, Isotopes, chemistry. My model of the atom would still respond the same as in the standard model. The different element are determined by the quantity of the positively charged ‘ Dannytrons ‘ contained in the nucleus. The larger the number, the higher the atomic number element it is. As the quantity of these particles contained in the nucleus are not constrained by any given quantity, such as a whole proton or neutron, as in the standard model. The variation is infinite, as the particles are so small. There may be thousands of these particles that would make up the equivalent quantity of positive charge as one proton. This explains the capacity for Isotopes to exist. Chemical bonding. This works the same as in the standard model of the atom, the only difference, is that instead of a single solid electron forming a co-valent bond, a cluster of my ‘ Harveytron ‘ particles, or the energy they contain is what moves. The fact that there exists a threshold level in the outer boundary of the atom that has to be reached before a quanta of energy is released, means that there is a potential deficit or excess about a mean value of charge contained in the outer boundary of the atom, allowing it to receive or eject energy from or to other atoms.

@@tonymarshharveytron1970 The problem is that any theory you build that doesnt include those 3 "unbelievables" you are seeking to avoid is observably inconsistent with reality.

Wow, thank you! Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you haven’t yet. *_And stay tuned for more._*

My pleasure Ian. Please share far and wide.

GMT -8 (PST/PDT)

Thanks again Shawn

Thanks very much. Please share with a few friends

Thanks

Thanks, will do!

Thanks please share with two friends

They have become "Scinetific Religion" as far as I can see. The proponents state if you don't believe your not smart enough. They can't prove or predict, you must beleive. They sound great... like a good Sci fi story. Then you have the "if it can happen it did/does somewhere in the (marvel😂cough cough) multiverse!

Thanks Daniel Please join my mailing list; click here 👉 briankeating.com/list 📝 if you’re not already

It's also become so politicly corrupted in it's funding mechanism. Science now more than ever overwhelmingly funded by government either though direct grants or government funded proxies. Scientist in certain fields understand full well that if they don't provide the predetermined information the government desires to achieve their political objectives they will not only never receive another dime in grant money, but also have their name and reputation falsely slandered, tarnished by the massive machine who's become totally dependent on continued government funding and subsidies....