newts

The evidence does suggest that time travel is imposible, as the fantasists in the physics community seem to have successfully imposed the idea on the general public merely by saying it is allowed by general relativity. Still I suppose believing that time travel is possible, just because you are told to by somebody who is supposed to be clever, is not really that much more ridiculous that believing that the earth was created in 7 days 4000 years ago.

Its ironic that the one time I try to be conciliatory, I end up being infuriating. The reason I used the word ‘decide’, is actually what you alluded to, that the process involves choosing 3 quarks from a assortment of 6. I suppose most things in physics are measured rather than decided; but it could still be argued that having measured the mass of a uranium atom, it was still necessary to decide how many protons and neutrons it contains. With most people, it seems that the more I criticise the current interpretation of physics, the more certain they become that my theory must be wrong; but no matter how annoyed you get, you still do not completely rule out the possibility that there could be something in my theory, which suggests you lack some of the religious instincts of a normal human. When a proper scientific theory exists, such as Newton’s laws, then it is true that deviation from experiment often tends to be the engine of reform. I would not say that applied in the case of Kepler, because the university professors of that time were none too eager to embrace the Copernican system. According to ‘The Mechanical Universe’ lecture series, Kepler went to great lengths to obtain Tycho Brahe’s accurate astronomical data, which suggests to me that he already had the concept of ellipses in his mind, and wanted the necessary measurements to confirm his ideas. Basically Kepler had the idea, did all the maths, wrote a book, but seems to have had his ideas largely ignored for about 50 years, even by Galileo. So it was hardly a case of the scientific community hankering after a new theory.

My claim is that a proton is a ball of around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges. A neutron is a proton with an extra 2 negative charges and 1 extra positve charge on its surface. If you can use that information to predict its electric dipole moment, why not share your knowledge? If all particle masses were known to 6 significant figures, it would only take a few minutes to verify or disprove my model. On the other hand it would do nothing to prove or disprove quark theory. That is why I am inclined to think that the main reason quarks can be claimed to work, is that they actually predict all possible outcomes. What is simplest possible experiment that could disprove quark theory?

Actually I did spend some time trying to disprove Newtonian mechanics, but soon realised why it was correct. I then tried to disprove the Lorentz mass dilation formula, and in trying to derive my own formula I eventually ended up deriving the same one as Lorentz. Because I have figured out physics for myself, I have a much clearer understanding than people who have merely been taught it. That is why I can categorically state that the Lorentz aether theory is a proper description of nature, whilst special relativity is meaningless. Still at least we can both see the merits of phlogiston, after all there is only one type of phlogiston rather than six types available in three different colours; and there is no anti-phlogiston, and it does not require glouns and Higgs particles to support it. When I was checking particle masses to test my theory, and I saw that physicists had gone to all the trouble of deciding which quarks make up each particle, it did actually make me feel a bit guilty that I was disproving so much hard work. But much the same situation existed when Kepler introduced his elliptical orbits, as doubtless people who had devoted their lives to epicycles must have felt a bit deflated. But that is how science progressed, wrong theories were disproved and replaced by better ones. Unfortunately nowadays almost everybody is so convinced that current theories are correct, that nobody will challenge existing ideas, hence theoretical physics has degenerated into a religion.

I know that, there is an graph of the earth's density here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RadialDensityPREM.jpg On other forums there are discussions about how to calculate the size of the bulge, and nobody seems to have a proper answer. I thought since I had already been posting on speculations, I would experiment to see if anybody here was interested in the bulge. The answer is apparently no, since nobody has clicked the link; maybe I should have been a bit more tactful in the way I started the thread.

My objection to quarks is that they are impossibly complicated. All atoms are made of the same ingredients, and the same must be true of particles. Saying that protons are somehow made of different ingredients to electrons, is not just wrong, it also inhibits proper science. If physicists honestly admitted that they have no proper theory to describe particles, then there would be less resistance to any new ideas. The reason particles fall apart, is that they are composed of pairs of charges which unravel in a similar way to electron/positron pairs. Obviously electrons and positrons cannot fall apart, because charges can only be created or unravel in pairs. The lifespan of particles depends on their structure, I cannot say what it is about the structure of protons that makes them so stable, indeed I do not even know exactly how many charges they contain, though it must be about 2501. Neutrons are protons with 3 extra charges stuck on the side, so the stability of the proton bit is already covered. Since a neutron contains equal numbers of positive and negative charges, then from a distance it will appear neutral. Closer up it would appear as a dipole, with perhaps the extra positive charge in the middle, but the extra negative charge stuck on the side. Only at minutely close range would it be a multipole. The advantage of this model of a neutron, is that it explains why neutrons are needed in order for protons to stick together in atomic nuclei; since a strategically placed negative end, can help overcome the repulsion between two protons. My theory covers the basics fairly well, for instance unifying the strong nuclear force with electric forces, and if you wanted a constructive debate you would surely acknowledge that. Your argument seems to be that quarks are superior, but that only a fully qualified quarkologist can understand why. I do not think things work like that, a proper scientific theory like atomic theory, certainly needed geniuses to discover it, but once properly understood it can be taught to schoolchildren.

In general I am a fan of Feynman, however it is a pity that he should have described nature as incomprehensible, because humans not only like to repeat what they hear, but they also prefer to believe that the universe is mysterious. Actually the only reason the universe is incomprehensible, is that humans are too stupid to understand it. Before Newton, people had very little understanding of science, now we know that everything is just a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons. Having come this far people should want to go the final step, and make sense of everything that can be made sense of; but for some reason modern physicists seem to see it as virtue to believe in the unintuitive and the mysterious. Surely the first step in trying to find a final theory, is to answer the question 'what is the universe made of?'. The Ancient Greeks, said indivisible spheres, I guess string theorists would say string. Saying string is better than saying nothing, but is it not obvious that the Greeks got that one right?

I think I made myself a bit unpopular on the speculations forum, by criticising physicists' religious beliefs, and making fun of their imaginary beings (dark matter, quarks, gluons, and Higgs). So to show that I am truly penitent, I have been trying to act like a proper physicist, by doing some pointless calculations about the size of the earth's equatorial bulge. The article is too long to post here, but can be seen at http://squishtheory....uatorial-bulge/. The highlights are, that by assuming the mass of the earth to be uniformly distributed, I actually got the same value as Newton calculated in the Principia, though by a very different method. To get the measured value of 21.36 km, I had to assume that the core of the earth is actually much denser than the crust.

I would like to thank you for the interest you did show in my theory. It was a specific reply to John who was making the very valid point that I should not be criticising current theories unless I had my own alternative theories. I do not really want to comment here about the specifics of my own theory; but merely to point out the reluctance of physicists, and even more so non-physicists, to consider the possibility that existing theories might be substantially flawed, is an impediment to finding a final theory.

Although our theories are very different, on matters of philosophy, Pantheory and I tend to agree, so I concur with what he has said. Actually I have tried introducing one part of my theory (‘an alternative to quarks’, currently down the bottom of page 5), but nobody was that interested, they preferred to just say how brilliant quarks are. The problem with your argument that correct theories tend to win out in the end, is that most people’s definition of a correct theory, is ‘one that is currently accepted’. The Lorentz aether theory is certainly a correct description of nature, but it is still not accepted even after over a hundred years. My point on this thread was that physicists’ religious attachment to general relativity and dark matter, prevents them from properly considering a genuine final theory. Everybody who has disagreed with me, has made it very plain that they are so sure that general relativity and dark matter are correct that they have no need to consider alternatives, qed. When I have finished studying epicycles and phlogiston, I may move on to quarks.

I realise that, but the point I was making is that when Newtonian mechanics failed to exactly account for the precession of Mercury, physicists started questioning its very basis. Yet in this more religious era, general relativity can fail drastically to account for the motions of the galaxies, yet all physicists are prepared to do is invent an imaginary being called dark matter, so that they can continue to worship Einstein. I think the correct spelling is 'indoctrination' not 'education'

What I meant was that it is wrong to claim that general relativity explains the large scale structure of the universe, when it only works for the solar system. People claim that it explains the structure of the universe a few seconds after the big bang, which is ridiculous when it does not even account for the orbits of stars. Were Kepler's elliptical orbits a fine-tuning of crystal spheres and epicycles? I thought it was an imaginary substance that was invented so that physicists did not have to admit the deficiencies of general relativity. And I thought it explained observations because physicists are free to put as much as they want wherever they want, and since it is invisible nobody can claim it is not there. But maybe it does exist, along with quarks and unicorns.

Unless a theory explains everything in the universe in terms of the one type of particle of which the universe is ultimately composed, it will not be a final theory. If the question was about what physicists will accept as a final theory, then the answer might very well involve putting all the nonsense physicists have come up with over the last century inside a pretty shape, much like Lisi’s exceptionally complex theory of nothing. The major hurdle physicists need to overcome to find a proper final theory, is their religious attachment to current theories, in particular those of Einstein, which is reminiscent of the renaissance attitude to Aristotle. It may be true that general relativity describes the solar system better than Newtonian mechanics; but when applied to the motions of galaxies it does not work, it is disproved by observation, therefore it is wrong. Of course physicists could not accept that, so they invented dark matter. But if the galaxies are crawling in dark matter, why isn’t the solar system? It would only have taken a sprinkling of dark matter to explain the precession of mercury, and revive Newtonian gravity. But back in the 19th century physicists were open to even questioning the inverse square law, until Gerber came up with a formula to explain the precession of Mercury, which was later incorporated into general relativity. Trying to join general relativity to quantum mechanics, is never going to result in a proper final theory. What physicists need to do, is realise that real scientific progress comes from disproving existing models, not from holding a religious attachment to them.

Obviously we agree about the need for an absolute frame of reference, however I was not aware that this idea is particularly surfacing again. I have read that Rutherford considered relativity nonsense, and thought that matter was created from the aether, as it is in my model. I also read that Dirac wanted to return to the Lorentzian aether model. However I have not read about any mainstream modern physicist criticising special relativity. On the BBC we get Prof. Al-Khalili enthusing over the intriguing possibility that the vacuum might not be completely empty, as though it is a fascinating new idea that physicists have just come up with, but I am pretty sure he is not questioning relativity. I think there have always been rationalists who have accepted the fullness of space, but I fear their numbers are decreasing rather than increasing.

I do not think there is any disagreement over what the evidence is, rather the difference of opinion is about how it is interpreted. Most people would accept that things move through space. To me that is proof that space must be full of a substance that enables things to move around. Others would disagree because they believe that it is possible for things to move through empty space. There is general agreement that Michelson Morley experiments give null results in a vacuum. To me that proves that matter deforms according to the Lorentz attraction, based on its speed relative to the fabric of space. The special relativists argue that since the two-way speed of light appears to be constant, then that means the one-way speed must be constant, which I would say is an extraordinary way to interpret the evidence. To create a satisfactory mechanical model of the universe, one needs to accept that the speed of light is constant relative to the fabric of space. Special relativity says the speed is constant relative to the observer; the only way to build a mechanical model on this basis, is to assume that photons can predict who is going to observe them in the future, and are able to increase and decrease their speed accordingly. Galilean relativity is an inevitable mathematical prediction, based on absolute motion and the Lorentz mass dilation formula, so it is actually evidence in favour of an aether model. I did not set out to disprove special relativity, rather my model is based on the idea that the universe is just a collection of identical spacebubbles, which is by its nature an aether theory. The idea that electrons behave differently according to how they are orientated in space, probably explains some magnetic phenomena, but I do not really have a theory of magnetism. However the inverse square coulomb electric force law can only be an approximation, because it is based on Newton’s mathematical universe, where things move through space by magic under the influence of mysterious forces. To understand the universe properly, it is necessary to accept that it works on the basis of energy rather than force. The most obvious example of the coulomb force law failing at close proximity, is that if we integrate the force of attraction between an electron and a positron down until they are a distance 0 apart, then we ought to get an infinite amount of energy out, when clearly the amount of energy released will be exactly the same as the mass of the original particles. When a proton and an electron combine to form a hydrogen atom, they release 13.6 eV of energy. Since their electric fields have lost this energy, the force of attraction between the particles should be reduced correspondingly. On the other hand if two protons are forced together, the energy in the field increases, so the force of repulsion should become increasingly greater. The energy released by nuclear fission indicates that this is the case, as it is far greater than would be calculated by the coulomb force law and the quoted diameters of protons. How does the standard model deal with this issue? I was referring to Galilean relativity. The photoelectric effect is normally modelled by saying that an electron absorbs all the energy of a photon, less the work function. In a universe based on absolute motion, it would be possible for the electron to be ejected in such a direction that it ends up motionless relative to the fabric of space, so it would have lost all its energy. This means that the photoelectric effect must involve the photon squeezing the electron out of the metal, such that the energy can also be absorbed by the metal, according to the conservation of momentum. With things like Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, it is important to distinguish between the theories making useful predictions and the fact that they are not complete descriptions of nature, as Newton himself did. I think Aristotle correctly concluded that space must be full in order for things to move, but that might be the only major idea he was right about.

.3875 does not work very well. I checked it for the mesons; 23 and 25 charges both work but are at each extremity, so slightly lower tolerances would disprove it. Since .7 works, then obviously so would .7 divided by an odd number, but no value below .5 would really be consistent with how I visualise things. Apart from gravity, the only force would be electric repulsion, but it could vary depending on how the electrons are orientated in space. My model has electrons/electric charges as completely squashed spinning spacebubbles; which is why electrons are the smallest possible particles that can be at rest, and why massive particles have discrete masses. Photons are seen as waves, where spacebubbles are only partly squashed, and can therefore take any mass/energy value. In one sense gamma photons must be made out of a electron/positron pairs, but lighter photons are made from part of the field of positive and negative charges overlapping. Because my model is mechanical, it has to be based on the Lorentz aether theory; so the speed of light is constant relative to the stationary spacebubbles, and the Lorentz contraction is real. The mass dilation formula is based on the idea that for a particle to move through the spacebubbles, it needs to be carried along by a wave of squashed space; and the equation can be deduced from conservation of momentum and energy calculations. Since my model is based on absolute motion, in a sense it is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics; in fact arguably Newtonian mechanics are nonsense, because the mass of energy is never included in the equations, so energy appears from nowhere. On the other hand in Lorentzian mechanics the mass of the energy of motion is included, so the equations balance perfectly. That said Newtonian mechanics are one of the most useful theories ever; whilst Lorentzian mechanics have little practical use, because of their complexity and the need to know the exact speed of the earth relative to absolute space. Because of the difficulty of doing calculations based on absolute speeds, using Lorentzian mechanics but always assuming the earth (or other vessel) is motionless, could be seen as an acceptable compromise. But special relativity is more than that, because people argue that since it works it must therefore be a proper description of nature, which means that they can claim the universe is strange and mysterious, and in turn dismiss anybody who disputes this as an infidel. However building any kind of mechanical model based on special relativity is completely impossible. Quantum mechanics may well be one of the most useful scientific theories; but since it is based on relativity rather than absolute motion, it cannot be a complete description of reality. My theory of gravity involves space squeezing masses together, rather than an attractive force between masses; but here again Newton's mathematical model is in most cases far more useful. To me the idea that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime, is meaningless, in particular because I model the universe on the basis of space/speed. However I accept gravitational redshift as necessary for the conservation of energy; and the bending of starlight and the slowing of clocks in a gravitational field are things I cannot dispute. Where general relative fails, is in the motion of galaxies, as it requires the presence of dark matter. I would not recommend throwing away any theories, rather try to find out why they work, and what their limitations are.

The points you make are valid, and the root cause is that particle masses have not been measured accurately enough to verify my model. If they had have been, then doubtless somebody would have already noticed the pattern, and the standard model would presumably have been modified to account for it; but it does at least mean my model makes testable predictions which distinguish it from the standard model. There are a neutral and a charged charmed-sigma with a mass difference of roughly 1.7 electron-masses, which would provide an ideal test, because to fit my model the range of values would have to contain either .7, or 2.1; so the particle masses would not need to be measured too accurately in order to test my model. The evidence so far, suggests that without clear experimental data to back it up, few theorists will even consider my ideas. So I wondered whether I could contact some experimentalists to see if they could be persuaded to measure some particle masses more accurately. Does anybody know who I could contact, and whether such experiments can only be done at Cern or the Tevatron. It is a pity ajb has lost interest as he apparently has Brian Cox under his thumbs. Mine is a mechanical model, based on the idea that the only thing that exists are the spacebubbles that fill space, and the squashed spinning spacebubbles that comprise charges. The squashed spinning spacebubble at the centre of an electron is shaped a bit like a triangular propeller, and the idea is that it circulates spiral compression waves which create the electric field. I was hoping that model would be able to explain all the characteristics of an electron, but I do not have a proper theory of magnetic moment or particle spin. In my model the force normally attributed to gluons, is instead accounted for by electrical interactions, so gluons are unnecessary. The situation with electromagnetic forces is different as we both accept their existence, so I suppose you are asking whether I think it is a good idea to say it is caused by photons. The reason I don’t, is that as the sun emits photons it loses mass, whilst an electric charge does not continually lose mass. In my theory all mass/energy is some kind of compression wave in the spacebubbles, but it makes more sense to give different names to different types of energy.

Thank you for addressing the point, but your answer does not make it clear whether the appearance of a neutral particle with the same mass as a charged particle would positively disprove the standard model. Nor do you say whether there is any other combination of particles that is incompatible with the standard model. Also since you scrutinised my data on particle masses, you are surely aware that for my theory to hold, the difference in mass between a neutral particle and a particle with a single charge, must be an odd multiple of about .7 electron masses. So if the experimentalists would abandon the hunt for the imaginary Higgs, and instead concentrate their efforts on measuring particle masses more accurately, not only would it test my theory but it might also reveal other interesting patterns. However I doubt this will happen, as physicists seem to have invested too much of their credibility in the Higgs to let it rest; so it seems more likely the experimentalists will continue their fruitless search, whilst the theorists devote their time to trying to think up better excuses as to why the Higgs is undetectable. I have set up a website, where the chapters from my book that relate to particle physics can be read: http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/

I did mean that quarks are deemed undetectable in isolation, such that their mass and charge cannot be measured directly as it can for a particle such as a muon. The point is, that once it was accepted that quarks could never be isolated, it meant proving they did not exist became very difficult. Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly, or perhaps people should not be so keen to look for bait. I have explained my theory in so far as it relates directly to particle physics, and I have shown some calculations. When people respond by saying I have no theory and I have shown no calculations, all I can really do is try to explain these responses in terms of human nature. The most obvious way that my model could be disproved, would be if a neutral particle was discovered which had exactly the same mass as a proton. It seems that the standard model cannot be disproved by the discovery of any type of new particle. In that sense my model is falsifiable, whilst the standard model is not. Unless people are able to acknowledge that, how can the two models be usefully compared?

I use the word ‘religious’ to denote those instincts that make humans want to believe that the universe is magical and mysterious; and to believe what they are taught, and what those around them believe; and to chastise people who do not share their beliefs. Dawkins might argue that to stop people being religious, all that is needed is to stop teaching people those beliefs which are normally classified as religions; but somebody with a better understanding of evolution would surely realise that religions are the result of humans’ religious instincts, rather than vice versa. 60 years ago, Alan Turing, who was supposedly one of the most important contributors to the war effort, was chemically castrated for a consensual act; yet not one of the 600 MPs questioned whether the punishment was appropriate; because they had a religious duty to hate homosexuals. Nowadays Elton John adopts a baby, and not a single MP questions whether it is right to deprive a child of a mother; because they have a religious duty to hate homophobes. This shows how easily people can be led to adopt a position at either end of the spectrum on a particular subject. Physicists certainly are not as bad as politicians, but humans do need to be specifically taught not to behave religiously, and it does seem that this lesson is missing from the modern scientific curriculum. It appears that Feynman was the last physicist to address the importance of questioning everything, with today’s celebrity scientists being more inclined to tell everybody how correct our current model is. So we have Dawkins and Hawking telling people that religion is a fairytale, and Cox saying what rubbish astrology is; yet all three are apparently prepared to contemplate the possibility of time travel, which to the unindoctrinated is every bit as ridiculous as anything mankind has ever come up with. 400 years ago astrology was seen as part of natural philosophy, so no philosophers (except Shakespeare) would attack it, indeed Kepler made a living casting horoscopes. Nowadays time travel is considered part of physics, so scientists do not attack it, and people who call themselves physicists make a living writing books on the subject. Astrology is no more ridiculous, and time travel no less ridiculous, than it was 400 years ago, the only thing that has changed is the fashionable belief. Things like time travel, which make the universe appear mystical and magical, I do consider religious, but not quarks. The appeal of quarks is that knowing all the names, and the rules about which ones can join together, creates the illusion of knowledge, without requiring the sort of understanding that accompanies all proper physics theories. Squish theory is not that appealing; because it is mostly about understanding, rather than learning facts; because it simplifies and demystifies the universe; and most importantly because it contradicts some of physics most popular theories. Probably everybody thinks that they can put such things aside and merely judge a theory on its merits; but the evidence suggests it is not that simple, indeed Galileo rejected the idea of elliptical orbits, and described Kepler’s idea that the moon caused the tides as childishness. I am not expecting anybody to accept my theory immediately, but rather hoping that they might give the ideas proper consideration. Garret Lisi’s exceptionally complex theory of nothing, made the scientific press without anybody accepting it was correct, but then again that theory had the massive advantage of not contradicting the standard model.

The more evidence I find to support my theory, the more hostile physicists seem to become; perhaps they are beginning to fear for the future of their beloved quarks, gluons and Higgs. But I don’t think they need worry, because modern physics is based on observation and experiment; and it seems that the standard model is foolproof, in so far as it cannot be disproved by evidence. Since quarks have been officially deemed to be undetectable, and experiments cannot be done at high enough energy to detect the Higgs, in that sense they are unassailable. It appears that the standard model is sufficiently flexible to account for any particle imaginable, which might appear to show its amazing predictive power, but does make it unfalsifiable. Gluons must be one of the worst theories ever; and I guess that there is no way to experimentally distinguish between a quark that fires out a trillion sticky gluons a second, and a quark that fires out a billion extra sticky gluons each second. However I still would not describe gluons as ‘not even wrong’, because they do at least have a mechanism of sorts. Can anybody describe the theory that inspired Pauli’s famous putdown?

Arguing that an idea must be wrong because the Ancient Greeks held it, is just as likely to hamper science as arguing that everything Aristotle said was right. People instinctively want to believe what they have been taught, and what other people believe; Occam’s Razor is a the best test because it ignores these things. My theory started with the idea that the universe is made from a blob of compressible indivisible spacebubbles, as a way of allowing the universe to keep going indefinitely in a continual cycle of implosions and explosions. The only way to create matter in such a universe is for the spacebubbles to get squashed; since a squashed spacebubble can only spin clockwise or anticlockwise, it means matter can only be made from two types of charge. I don’t know which philosopher first came up with the idea, but I have read that the word ‘atom’ was originally intended to apply to what I would call a spacebubble. Once or twice I have read other people suggest the idea. In a sense it ought to be obvious, but I think the problem for physicists was that they thought of the electron and proton as the twin particles for so long, that when they came across the positron they could not accept it as proper matter. What I have done which I think is original, is explain the way protons and neutrons stick together in atomic nuclei on the basis of electric forces between the surface charges of the nucleons. The information is somewhere in the thread, buried amongst a lot of negative comments telling me I have no theory. Thanks for expressing support for the idea, it really helps to balance the thread if there are some positive comments; the problem is that most people will not express support for a new idea unless other people do first.

As I said earlier, the simplest disproof of my theory would be if there was a neutral particle with the same mass as one with a single charge. I also asked earlier if quark theory is similarly falsifiable, but nobody answered. If a neutral particle turned up with exactly the same mass as a proton, would that falsify quark theory? My only first principle, is that the universe can only be made out of one type of thing; from that I deduce that particles can only be made from charges, and from there comes the theory that electric forces must be responsible for sticking nucleons together. I cannot do the calculations from my first principle, but no calculations in physics are done this way. Before I can answer your question, you would have to tell me which parts of my calculations you find unsatisfactory, and also define what you mean by first principles. I did not know you had the authority to redefine a ‘physics theory’, still less to redefine the definition of the word ‘definition’. I would say that a physics theory is anything that explains the workings of the universe; even without the maths, atomic theory would have been useful to Newton, because then he would not have spent hundreds of hours trying to turn base metals into gold. If quarks are by definition what nucleons are made of, then all alternative theories are by definition nonexistent. So you followed the thread, waiting for ideal opportunity to regurgitate Pauli’s classic putdown, so that your colleagues could pat you on the back for putting the infidel in his place. That makes perfect sense, humans are religious animals, and that is entirely normal human behaviour.

Humans tend to instinctively behave in a religious manner even if they are not aware of it. The great thing about scientists, is that if one tells them that is what they are doing, they do usually stop for a while. In some ways I have had a better reception than I expected, but it has also been hard work because people tend to be reluctant to tell me whether they have understood an explanation. Since the standard model contains so many ideas, I do not think it is possible for it to be either correct or incorrect. Throughout history physics has been partly right and partly wrong, nowadays it is surely more right and more wrong, because there is more of it. My argument is that the standard model with so many fundamental particles is far too complicated to allow a theory of everything. My theory of everything did in a sense start with particles being made of one type of charge, I soon realised this could never explain the universe. With two types of charge I have made some progress, so I will stick with that until it fails, at which point I would have to either consider something new or conclude I was just not clever enough to make the model work. Thanks for taking the time to describe multipole forces. Originally I just did a quick calculation for a dipole, then assumed it would also apply to a multipole. On consideration, in my model the force would be nothing like inverse cube, and would probably not really be calculable because: the surfaces of the nucleons start curved but then flatten as the force takes hold, the attractive force can only really start to act once there is sufficient torque to align the surface patterns, the patterns themselves are not known, the particles are not like onions with separate skins so there would not really be distinct surfaces charges, and the inverse square law between individual charges so close together probably does not hold. I would expect the force to only take effect when the particles were virtually touching, and I would be surprised if that could be accurately measured. I am not sure how much of the thread you have read, but the binding energy of .1 electron-mass per charge-pair, was calculated elsewhere and not chosen to fit the model for the strong nuclear force. The whole point of the calculation was to show that the value .1 gave acceptable answers. It is not a very stringent test partly because the value of .1 is not necessarily accurate, and partly because the squishiness is not independently determined. But it is still a test that a wrong theory would likely have failed. That is an excellent attitude. But just to clarify, I did not actually misinterpret what you said, rather you replied to a part of my post that was actually addressed to Uncool.

If I am left alone with physicists, all they seem to want to do is burn me as a heretic for disrespecting the standard model. But it only seems to take somebody to make a comment which could be interpreted as supporting me, for them seems to lose their religious instincts and not even mind considering the possibility that my idea could be correct. I put 4 tennis balls together, I next marked on one the three contact points, then I drew a circle round the ball connecting the three points. This meant I could estimate the area of contact to be about a sixth of each nucleon, assuming that within this area the nucleons would distort, but that outside the area they would remain spherical. Unless nucleons are a bit squishy, but not very squishy, it is impossible to explain the strong force in terms of surface contact, and none of my calculations would have worked. My whole theory of everything is based on the idea that the constituent of space is squishy but not fluid. Perhaps the expression "push the concept of flexibility to its logical limit" was unfortunate. My calculations are not accurate, clearly if my model was out by a few percent the figures I used would be nowhere near precise enough to detect that. You appear to be trying to claim that however wrong my theory was, the calculations would not have detected the error. That is certainly not the case. To take the simplest example, if the binding energy per charge-pair had been 40 times lower, then my model would have failed the deuterium test even if we assumed that all of the surface area of each nucleon was in contact with the other. To summarise your last post; you accept that my model could adequately explain the basic fact that nucleons stick together, but there is other experimental evidence which you think it most likely cannot explain. That seems to be a very reasonable stance, I will have a think and try to get back to you tomorrow. Do you know of any experimental evidence that conflicts with my model of the weak force?