Przemyslaw.Gruchala

Like they said - they don't model it using different shapes.. Just reversed sign. If you have waves f.e. +sin(x) and -sin(x) and they overlap, result is +sin(x)-sin(x)=0.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

They believe in fields: one for photons, electrons, positrons, and yet another for quarks, and yet another for higgs... So what do you expect from them? It's not their own ideas, but what they learnt in schools from teachers. They're just repeating it. From their point of view electron is wave on field with negative amplitude, and positron is wave on field with positive amplitude. So from overlapping two such +wave and -wave there is nothing left (at least in that field).. Instead new waves are made in other fields.. There is actually needed just one field for everything. If you sit on decay table of the all particles and work it out with open mind.. And surprisingly you will have gravitation just like that for free.

What you're writing sounds to me like annihilation when particle and its antiparticle is colliding and producing photons. The only currently officially know way to create antiproton, is acceleration of proton to v > 0.9c and colliding it with proton at rest which results in: p+ + p+ -> p+ + p+ + p+ + p- From two protons there are made three protons and one antiproton.

Toroid is unnatural shape. Everything in nature wants to be sphere as close as possible. Nature is full of examples: stars, planets, asteroids (with enough time, with enough of collisions they're more and more looking like sphere; liquid, plasma in cosmic space vacuum is quickly forming sphere), molecules, atoms. Sphere is optimal shape. In toroid shape you would have to explain why particles don't collapse to inside. Your theory also doesn't explain what happens to electron bound to nucleus when it's absorbing photon, and what happens when it's emitting photon. You're modeling spin in electron. But every particle has spin, not just electron. Photon, electron, positron, proton, neutron, neutrino, all have spin which we can directly measure in devices. If toroid shape is causing spin in electron, toroid shape must be also shape of all other Standard Model particles? Do you saw this video? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quantum_spin_and_the_Stern-Gerlach_experiment.ogv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index v = wavelength * frequency = c - in vacuum (because refractive_index of vacuum is 1) and v = c / refractive_index = wavelength * frequency / refractive_index - in some medium f.e. refractive index of water is 1.333 so v = c / 1.333 = 0.75c and also wavelength = wavelength in vacuum / 1.333

I disagree. Annihilation of them and then absorption of gamma photons and then emission at lower frequencies is physical evidence of current Standard Model particles are made of even smaller elementary particles. You have 1 electron with E=511 keV, and 1 positron with E=511 keV, they annihilate, two gamma photons each E=511 keV are produced. Then gamma photon is colliding with other particle, which is emitting photon at lower frequency, and from 1 gamma photon with f0 we have 2 gamma photons with f0=f1+f2, then this process can be repeated over and over again, and result is such that energy accumulated in single point like electron and positron is spread across millions of particles as their kinetic energy..

Electron and positron are self antiparticles. Result of collision of particle and its antiparticle is annihilation and production of gamma photons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation And reverse- collision of gamma photon with other gamma photon with enough energy produces particle and its antiparticle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production Other example of particles and their antiparticles are: muon- and muon+ tau- and tau+ pion- and pion+ kaon- and kaon+ proton and antiproton This list is long for 260+ entries, because scientists gave different name to bunch of energies that live as short as f.e. 10^-22 second. List of baryons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons List of mesons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons Leptons particles and antiparticles are modeled in Standard Model as having no internal structure, because there is no scientific way to examine it.

I said GR is wrong? Rather reverse.. "If spacetime curvature is true, then it should happen at any scale, also quantum scale". Which means that electron should be "orbiting" "around" proton because of its influence on spacetime curvature. Shared electrons are orbiting around molecule couple atoms, because spacetime "blended" between atoms. With 2 spatial dimensions it should looks like this: On the left is object (proton) with 1836.15 higher energy than on right (electron). Up axis represents influence on curvature. Red circle represents hypothetical orbit around proton (with 3 spatial dimensions of course red circle wouldn't be circle anymore) Electron can absorb only photons with correct frequencies. If they're absorbed, electron gains kinetic energy and is starting orbiting farther from nucleus. And in extreme situation escaping and nucleus is becoming ion. Add more protons. 4 protons Add even more protons: 8 protons: 12 protons: The more protons, neutrons, nucleus, the more influence on time space. And the higher density. Notice how "ground" surrounding them is going up. That's summed up their influence. Photon passing through such concentration of nucleus is affected as well, and we observe it as slowing down of light. Refractive index higher than 1.0 is physical evidence of gravity existing at quantum level. You just have to stop modeling it as constant absorption and emission of photon passing through transparent material and route to QM gravity is open.. Proving is job for somebody believing in graviton, not somebody not believing in it. But if graviton exists it should be fired by any massive object, black holes (escaping it), also the largest black holes in the center of any galaxy and then going to entire Universe, in the all directions, and then going back to original particle that fired it. Of course such idea is violating speed of light limit and not possible to escape black hole by anything rule. Influence of 100 protons.

Split from "Is physics about "why?"" Because you're using incorrect model since beginning. And you can't move further with it, cause it's wrong. Going in circles. Bending of space must happens at any scale either quantum, macro and cosmic scale. When light is passing through water which has refractive index = 1.333, v=c/1.333=0.75c Every mainstream physics is saying that c is const, but while passing through some transparent material photons are constantly absorbed and emitted. That's wrong basement. We know how such absorptions and emissions are looking like in electrons: spectral lines, missing photons at one wavelength, and more photons at other wavelength. When nucleus is absorbing photon it's accelerated and we see it as increased temperature. And it's lost from point of view photons passing through transparent material to other side. If you would model from beginning that any particle is attracting any other particle, the less distance is between them, you could explain slowing of time, slowing of velocity of photons in water and other transparent materials, and also understand true nature of gravitation at quantum level. It is impossible to detect something that doesn't exist. It's very good example! It shows that mainstream physicists are ignoring what they don't understand pretending it's not existing, and not wanting to discuss weaknesses of current model. newts doesn't understand relativity, can't even calculate relativistic velocity what he showed in thread "Relativity". But that's different story. But he at least doesn't ignore weaknesses of current model that you ignore everyday. When mainstream physics are founding, yet another violation of their rules, they're 1) ignoring it 2) trying to mix it to inside of mainstream by finding yet another 'symmetry'. And it's going and going. C, CP, CPT.. Do you want to break Baryon Number conservation? That's easy. Just make quark-gluon plasma. Take f.e. 100 hydrogen, so B=100, make quark-gluon plasma. Split it to half. You will never be able to measure energy at half with precision 50:50, it'll be 49.999:50.001 if you're lucky. from one "half" quark-gluon plasma will form 49 hydrogen back, and from another "half" 50. And remaining 1 will create other particles that will quickly decay to smaller. And you have violation of Baryon Number, one of the main rules in QM! Which is nice to hear. But why are not you using it where it's the most influencing particles at quantum level? Because some said that c is const, and you're continuing repeating it over and over again, without rethinking how it's possible that light in water (18 protons+neutrons; density 1g/cm3) is travelling 0.75c, in silicon (28 protons+neutrons; density 2.33g/cm3) is travelling 0.25c. etc. etc. That was me who complained about quark model, not newts. I gave you already much easier model that can be used to simulate over 260 particles baryons and mesons, leptons, their decay models that are in SM long for another hundred possibilities, and transformations to photons. And from photons to them back. And that was probably you who said, you don't imagine proton made of billion of billion elementary particles, if I recall correctly. Energy-E is quantity of elementary particles, when you divide it by Planck const h, and multiply by 2. Charge is excess of one of kind of elementary particles. When there is excess of positive particle above negative, there is e+, muon+, tau+, pion+, K+, B+, p+ etc. etc. When there is excess of negative particles, there is e-, muon- etc. etc. Using this model it's completely logical how K+ can decay to pion+, pion- and pion+ and other time to pion 0 + pion+ etc. etc. Scientists made from the each piece of energy independent particle, even if it's living 10^-20 s, gave it its own name and then analysing how it's breaking apart, to another hundred possibilities. In normal world if you would come to somebody and give list of possible f.e. B meson decay models long for hundred possible cases, you would be laughed. Prediction must be precise. Input source giving precise result on output. Prediction of thousands of possible cases, it's not prediction. It's total lack of precision. Collisions of particles remind me car/airplane crash tests- you don't know in which direction each newly "created" chunk/debris of car/airplane will fly, until you actually destroy it. You can only predict it with quite low precision. If you have "particle" composed of 1 million elementary particles, it can be split only to elements with less elementary particles (not more). It's what you call conservation of energy. f.e. particle with 0.5mln of positive, 0.5mln of negative elementary particles, can split to two also neutral 0.25mln of positive, and 0.25 mln of negative, And you have decay model similar to f.e. Kaon 0 short K0s-> pi0 + pi0 or Kaon 0 long K0l -> pi0 + pi0 + pi0 or pion0-> y + y If it'll split to 249999 positive and 250001 negative and another one with 250001 + and 249999-, quantity still match, but charge is different, in each of newly made particle. And you have decay model similar to f.e. pion0 - > e- + e+ + y or K0 -> pi+ + pi- Then they exist a fraction of time, and again split to smaller and smaller pieces, until you have bunch of photons, electrons, positrons, and neutral neutrinos. And what is funny, none of them has any quarks inside. And electrons and positrons can also be converted to high energetic gamma photons. And gamma photons can also be converted to less energy photons by absorption and emission at lower frequency. Hundred and thousands times absorbed and emitted at lower frequencies. From annihilation of just 2 the smallest leptons "elementary in Standard Model" there can be accelerated thousands or millions particles. Decaying should stop at particles with charge -1e and frequency 1 Hz, and +1e 1 Hz. If -1/+1e is charge of elementary particle. Or at -1/3e and +1/3e if there is needed 3 of them to sum to -+1e.

Excellent logic. But you need to bear in mind that physics-believers do not believe in logic, they believe in imaginary beings, so they would argue that protons are made of quarks, but electrons are not, therefore your hypothesis is wrong. Then somebody should come and say that: - pion 0 is supposed to be made of quarks, but it's decaying to 2 gamma photons, or other time decaying to electron and positron and gamma photon. - pion+ is supposed to be made of up quark and antidown quark, but it's decaying to muon+ and muon neutrino, or other time decaying to positron and neutrino, and other time to pion 0, positron and neutrino.. (etc. etc. countless examples of decay modes) And then interlocutor, usually mod, will press negative arrow on such post..

Everybody can make experiments. Prism costs $10. Laser pointer $3-$30 Building cloud chamber cost $13 (at least here) for detecting particles. Unbelievable..

Do you know at all what AD and BC means? From AD to BC? AD = Anno Domini BC = Before Christ Calendar didn't change. People hundred years later did that. Roman Empire people used its own calendar for hundred years after Christ (dating from the founding of Rome)

It's all because of you mentioning quantity of your nation. In science quantity of nation doesn't matter, but quality of individuals. Bad/none educated nation is less capable to discovery and 1.2 billion of people with large part not even capable to read, has less chance to find something than 100 PhD in western country. So you should make experiments confirming existence of your dimensions, and show us results for verification. Original Poster. You.

Quality is more important than quantity, when it comes to knowledge and technology. One Einstein is worth more than billion cave mans.

It would break whole economy - imagine billions of people taking annuity for life. Immortality = infinity long taking money from government... If governments would work at it, they wouldn't tell this to people, and it wouldn't be freely available for everybody.