mantraphilter

I've been thinking about the wave function and how it occurs. An electron orbiting a proton has to escape the gravity field of the proton. once it does, it is converted into a wave. But, what causes the gravity field of the proton to collapse? When you focus a magnifying glass under the sun, heat is created on whatever surface you focus it on. Enough heat and it catches on fire. I think the positive charge from the magnification of sunlight fills the space around a positively charged proton and causes the space around the proton to become equal to the space that is around it. The wall of space differential collapses releasing the electron as a wave. I do not think that the positively charged proton particle is converted to energy. But somehow the positive charge is released leaving an uncharged particle. Their has to be some sort of chain reaction going on to keep the fire burning. I think the collapse of the gravity field around the positive proton causes the proton to loose its charge, that proton is no longer a positively charged particle and is now able to accept a charge. Being able to accept a charge it is absorbed by the gravity field of a positively charged particle / atom and causes the gravity field around the atom to become unstable collapsing the wall of space differential and creating a chain reaction, and so the fire burns. The same process has to be going on in a star. As positive charged particles loose there charge and are absorbed by other atoms the chain reaction continues. I think this is what creates various elements within the star. My problem is, that If my hypothesis is correct, the particles in atoms are not being converted to energy, they are only being absorbed by other atoms creating new elements within the star, which means mass is not being converted to energy and, Einstiens E=MC2 is wrong. So I guess I'll be labeled as a crackpot. You wouldn't want to have a theory that is a contradiction to the "Great Einstien E=MC2" theory. Einstein is wrong.

I think I see the problem, Everyone is so impressed with Einstein and his E=MC2 theory that they believe math is the answer to explain the universe. So everyone studies math and comes up with these crazy formulas because they want to be Einstein. If you can,t support a theory with math, its not a theory, show the math formula. You are all a bunch of Einstein wannabees - sheep. Displaced space explains how gravity works at the quantum level and unites all the forces, like it or not. It predicts magnetic fields around black holes. It explains how four neutrons could be held in a nucleus. It explains why light does not escape a black hole. It explains why energy is quantized. It explains the confusion of an electron as a wave or a particle. It explains why gravity at the planetary level appears so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. and it does not violate any of your precious mathematical formulas. So you can either jump on board to a greater understanding, or continue to hide behind your PHD's, doctorate degrees, and mathematical formulas in ignorance. Your choice. If you want to see the completed theory - find it yourself.

If displaced space theory is correct it means all the measurements of distance as starlight moves through space are WRONG. Displaced space theory means as starlight travels through various gravitational fields it gets compressed and reamplified due to various fields of displaced space it has to travel through to reach your eye or whatever telascope you are looking at it with. Even a measurement is relative to the space you took the measurement in. So when anyone claims mathematical equasions can describe the universe we live in, they might as well be running around with there thumb stuck up there ass and drooling. this is the link to the, I hope completed theory, <link deleted by mod>

you must be getting a fat government paycheck.

I was having problems figuring out the right language to describe the details of my theory that unites all the forces, and needed to know acceptable language to describe my theory. I did this by posting the rough draft here, and learning language through the comments. The theory doesn't need mathematical equasions to prove it. IT'S A THEORY. My theory predicts magnetic feilds around black holes, and why energy is quantized. I am not interested in condemnation of the theory by egotistical college educated people who are blinded by their own education while waving their degrees, or do I have the patience for them. I have posted a finished version for anyone who is interested on a Wix website. It is called "mantraphilter" four forces united. If this post is considered spam I guess I'll get kicked off and deleted. Oh well!

People who draw salaries in local state and federal government have their own economy. Their wages are increased as inflation goes up. Their salaries are adjusted to the so called taxes that are drawn out of their paycheck. They live comfortable lives and can afford summer cottages and education for their children. Nepotism increases the gap between their society and the rest of the citizens. This is all done under the guise of government laws. Anyone who disagrees is drawing a government salary.

I was on a job site the other day and met the home owner. He told me he was a magistrate. The only think I could think was, so- for a career path you chose oppression.

All Four Forces of Physics United The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale. Mass distorts the space around itself. Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why? I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become, the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a farther distance away from it. I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason. When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other? Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. At the quantum level, a particle also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that a particle displaces, gets stacked around itself. A particles density does not vary throughout its mass. The space being displaced by a particle begins abruptly at the particles surface and ends abruptly at a distance from its surface, creating a wall of space differential. When two particles are near each other, they do not attract each other. Each particle is not going to move into the regular space that is between them and their own “displaced space”, The displaced space is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the particle displacing it. As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force. As another particle is added into the “displaced space” there now exists a three-particle nucleus, but the wall of space differential does not end as abruptly due to the density of the particles in the nucleus, and any space that is between the particles. The particles are not yet charged and would be defined as neutrons. So how does the uncharged neutron get charged. Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron. For each particle added to a nucleus, the “displaced space” has to distort and overlap to represent the shape of the nucleus and the wall of space differential becomes weaker due to the density of the nucleus and any space that is not used up by the stacking of spheres. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the shelves of electron orbits around the nucleus, and is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As for the neutron being necessary as a buffer between positively charged particles (in order to hold them together), we don’t need this anymore, or any other glue, (gluons, up quarks, down quarks) to hold the nucleus together. I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge. As you add particles to the nucleus, the overlapped space grows, the particles get charged and the displaced space becomes full of electrons but, the wall of space differential becomes a more gradual transition which allows electrons to escape the displaced space. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Unless the atom is buried in a mass that adds pressure, the atom can no longer hold itself together. Once an electron leaves the “displaced space”, the wall of space differential adjusts to the loss, and the remaining electrons are again held by the wall of space differential. So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together? As an electron is shared by the two atoms it bonds the atoms together. I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons). The belief that there is an opposite negative charge that a particle could be, is a misconception, and is likely what has led to all the theories about anti matter and dark energy. As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and or develop covalent bonds until it grows into a larger mass. As more matter collects, different densities are created and pressure from outside forces effect it until a mass is created with a large enough “displaced space” That the pressure from the regular space farther out, compresses the mass into a sphere, a planet. So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space. All of the planets have their own displaced space around them, only it is being filled by the density of the various atmospheres of the planets. This is what creates gravity. As newton dropped his apple, it fell down towards the surface, and into the more space created by the photographic negative effect of the “displaced space”. In the case of our sun, the matter is so densely packed that any electrons close to the core are being smashed. As the “displace stacked space” collapses and energy radiates out as a wave of photons into the displaced space around the sun. The wave moves away from our sun and gets compressed as it moves into the less space farther from the displaced space of the sun, (Remember the displaced stacked space is like a photographic negative of its mass). The wave then renters the “displaced stacked space of a planet and is reamplified as it moves through the “photographic negative effect” of the “displaced space” until the wave collides around the mass, (like ocean waves around a buoy), Some of the wave now stacks up against the mass and creates electrons which are then absorbed by the mass and its atoms. The surface of the mass then becomes charged with electrons, while the opposite side of the mass is not charged, and so the mass rotates as the +charged side moves away from the +charge of the sun, and the uncharged side of the mass is attracted by the +charge of the sun. The planet is now caught in the “photographic negative effect “of the “displaced stacked space” of the sun. The planet does not move away into the less space that is farther from the sun and behind the planet, and the +charged surface of the planet is pushing against the +charge of the sun, like a giant solar sail. Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced space” around it must be great. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole. The mass of a black hole does confine its atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, the dense matter is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense, the atoms do not have any room to move. In a sense, they are fused together. All of the “displaced space” has been smashed out of its atoms, and the nuclear reaction has stopped. No photons can penetrate the atoms, and the black hole is like one giant particle, that light cannot penetrate. The displaced space would have an abrupt beginning right at the surface of the black hole’s matter, and an abrupt ending farther away, like a particle. This abrupt ending is popularly known as the “Event horizon”. The spiral arms you see extending away from the black hole are not being spun out. The space that is being displaced by the black holes’ mass is where the spiral arms are moving into. Again, the “displaced space” is the photographic negative of the mass inside the black hole, (whatever shape the black hole is). I believe this is why the star fields appear to get wider as they get closer to the black hole. If this definition is right, a black hole is not really a hole at all, it’s more of a giant particle.

you are correct, but then everybody seems to think I am a crackpot. we'll see who laughs last. The reason I started this thread was because I needed help understanding the language used in describing phenomena in physics in order to wright something coherent that could be understood by the amateur physics community. My first attempt was very confusing even to me after reading it again, the concept didn't quite show through the language. A few patient people, who replied to the thread, hopefully, helped me to overcome this barrier, so I tried to rewrite the paper to be more easily understood.

All Four Forces of Physics United The effects of gravity are not well understood at the large scale. Mass distorts the space around itself. Distorted space causes other mass to move into this distorted space, but why? I believe that the effect of matter in space is of displacement. That is, that there is space through- out the area that the matter is occupying but, because the matter occupies this space, space in effect, gets stacked up around the matter. The closer to a mass that other masses become, the more they attract each other due to the space that is displaced and stacked around each body of matter. Therefore, more space is found around the surface of a planet than at a farther distance away from it. I believe that light is effected as it travels past a large mass. I suggest that this is the reason. When a mass becomes locked in orbit around another mass why are they not falling into each other? Because, each mass has its own space stacked around it, having more space stacked closer to its mass, it doesn’t move into less space, but is still effected by the distortion created by the other mass that it orbits. I believe further, that the “displaced space” around a mass is not necessarily symmetrical, although it can be. At the quantum level, a particle also has its own very tiny mass. But, the effect is still the same. The very tiny bit of space that a particle displaces, gets stacked around itself. A particles density does not vary throughout its mass. The space being displaced by a particle begins abruptly at the particles surface and ends abruptly at a distance from its surface, creating a wall of space differential. When two particles are near each other, they do not attract each other. Each particle is not going to move into the regular space that is between them and their own “displaced space”, The displaced space is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the particle displacing it. As two particles are forced together, the “displaced space” around them begins to overlap. Once the overlapped space becomes greater than the original displaced space, the particles move into the now greater overlapped space. This now combines the two particles into one nucleus, and the displaced space around the two particles into one “displaced space” around a “two particle nucleus”. Again, the “displaced space” around these two particles is like a photographic negative image of the shape of the two particles side by side in the center. I believe this is describing the strong nuclear force. As another particle is added into the “displaced space” there now exists a three-particle nucleus, but the wall of space differential does not end as abruptly due to the density of the particles in the nucleus, and any space that is between the particles. The particles are not yet charged and would be defined as neutrons. So how does the uncharged neutron get charged. Photons of light traveling through space as a wave, enter the “displaced space” of a particle. The photon wave decompresses relative to the displaced space. The wave cannot compress fast enough to exit into the regular space. The uncharged particle now becomes charged, creating a proton. Once all of the particles are charged in the nucleus, any further photon light waves that pass through the “displaced space” decompress and do not enter the normal space outside of the “displaced space” and instead, stack up against the wall of space differential creating an electron. For each particle added to a nucleus, the “displaced space” has to distort and overlap to represent the shape of the nucleus and the wall of space differential becomes weaker due to the density of the nucleus and any space that is not used up by the stacking of spheres. As the nucleus gets larger and a proton gets buried in between other protons, this is what creates the shelves of electron orbits around the nucleus, and is why we see different orbital shapes around the nucleus. As for the neutron being necessary as a buffer between positively charged particles (in order to hold them together), we don’t need this anymore, or any other glue, (gluons, up quarks, down quarks) to hold the nucleus together. I believe the language of physics is wrong when it describes the electron as a negatively charged particle. All particles are either charged, or not charged, and an electron is a charge free of any particle. If any particle deserves the negative designation. It should be the neutron, as it can accept a charge. As you add particles to the nucleus, the overlapped space grows, the particles get charged and the displaced space becomes full of electrons but, the wall of space differential becomes a more gradual transition which allows electrons to escape the displaced space. I think this might be describing the weak nuclear force. Unless the atom is buried in a mass that adds pressure, the atom can no longer hold itself together. Once an electron leaves the “displaced space”, the wall of space differential adjusts to the loss, and the remaining electrons are again held by the wall of space differential. So, how do covalent bonds hold atoms together? As an electron is shared by the two atoms it bonds the atoms together. I do not define the electron as a negatively charged particle. This is misleading, and leads to the belief that there are two different types of charges, and there are not. Only charged particles (protons and electrons) and not charged particles which will accept a charge, (neutrons). The belief that there is an opposite negative charge that a particle could be, is a misconception, and is likely what has led to all the theories about anti matter and dark energy. As atoms become larger and collapse, they give their particles to other atoms and or develop covalent bonds until it grows into a larger mass. As more matter collects, different densities are created and pressure from outside forces effect it until a mass is created with a large enough “displaced space” That the pressure from the regular space farther out, compresses the mass into a sphere, a planet. So why is gravity so much weaker than the strong nuclear force. A planet has more density as you come closer to its core. As matter accumulates, the “displaced stacked space” along with the atoms are being put under pressure by its mass. Different elements are created depending on the amount of pressure and density. As density increases, more space is being displaced around the total mass. At the surface of our planet, it appears weaker because, the “displaced stacked space” is being occupied by less concentrated matter at its surface. Again, the “displaced stacked space” existing around the planet is like a photographic negative of itself. The closer you are to the center of the planet, the denser the matter becomes and so more of the displaced space is filled. Likewise, the closer to the surface (but within the matter) the less dense the matter becomes, and so less of the displaced space is being filled. As you travel way from the surface of the planet (through the photographic negative effect) of the displaced space, the space gradually decreases until you hit the wall of space differential and enter the vacuum of space. All of the planets have their own displaced space around them, only it is being filled by the density of the various atmospheres of the planets. This is what creates gravity. As newton dropped his apple, it fell down towards the surface, and into the more space created by the photographic negative effect of the “displaced space”. In the case of our sun, the matter is so densely packed that any electrons close to the core are being smashed. As the “displace stacked space” collapses and energy radiates out as a wave of photons into the displaced space around the sun. The wave moves away from our sun and gets compressed as it moves into the less space farther from the displaced space of the sun, (Remember the displaced stacked space is like a photographic negative of its mass). The wave then renters the “displaced stacked space of a planet and is reamplified as it moves through the “photographic negative effect” of the “displaced space” until the wave collides around the mass, (like ocean waves around a buoy), Some of the wave now stacks up against the mass and creates electrons which are then absorbed by the mass and its atoms. The surface of the mass then becomes charged with electrons, while the opposite side of the mass is not charged, and so the mass rotates as the +charged side moves away from the +charge of the sun, and the uncharged side of the mass is attracted by the +charge of the sun. The planet is now caught in the “photographic negative effect “of the “displaced stacked space” of the sun. The planet does not move away into the less space that is farther from the sun and behind the planet, and the +charged surface of the planet is pushing against the +charge of the sun, like a giant solar sail. Now, Imagine a black hole. The “displaced space” around it must be great. The common belief is that light cannot escape a black hole. The mass of a black hole does confine its atoms into a smaller and smaller space but, the dense matter is not what attracts more mass. In the case of the black hole the matter has become so dense, the atoms do not have any room to move. In a sense, they are fused together. All of the “displaced space” has been smashed out of its atoms, and the nuclear reaction has stopped. No photons can penetrate the atoms, and the black hole is like one giant particle, that light cannot penetrate. The displaced space would have an abrupt beginning right at the surface of the black hole’s matter, and an abrupt ending farther away, like a particle. This abrupt ending is popularly known as the “Event horizon”. The spiral arms you see extending away from the black hole are not being spun out. The space that is being displaced by the black holes’ mass is where the spiral arms are moving into. Again, the “displaced space” is the photographic negative of the mass inside the black hole, (whatever shape the black hole is). I believe this is why the star fields appear to get wider as they get closer to the black hole. If this definition is right, a black hole is not really a hole at all, it’s more of a giant particle.

The starlight wave as it enters the "photographic negative effect" of the suns "displaced stacked space" would decompress relative to the space it is traveling through, then as the wave collapses around the sun, (like the ocean wave around the buoy) and moves away from the sun, it would then compress again due to the "photographic negative effect" that the suns "displaced stacked space" is creating.(it is entering less space).

Think of a buoy floating in the ocean, the wave approaches the buoy, the buoy does not stop the wave. the wave only slightly peaks at the point where it contacts the buoy and then sort of collapses around the buoy to reconnect on the other side of the buoy, continuing on its way. Depending on the angle the wave approaches the buoy, more or less water will move around either side of the buoy as the wave collapses around it, and reconnects on the other side. The same thing is happening as the starlight (A three dimensional wave) approaches the sun. (the buoy). My picture is only a two dimensional attempt to describe this. The wave of light could move to either side of the buoy, and maybe travel both sides, as a wave does but, you have to think of this in three dimensions. " both sides"? that's two dimensional language. The starlight wave could be surrounding the three dimensional sun as it passes it, and depending on its angle of approach, well, you get the idea! So. I have a very small ruler, and I am standing on the surface of the planet. I measure the distance the electron is from the proton of an atom. Then, I pack up the atom and the ruler, hop aboard a rocket and blast myself into space. Then, I perform the same measurement with the same atom and the same tiny ruler. Of course it will measure the same, the tiny ruler is made of atoms also, Duh! Its electrons will also be the same distance from its protons. Relativity.

couldn't sleep, I just realized by reading your post again that my language is improper, area refers to a two dimensional space, I should be using the word volume, as it applies to three dimensions.

Does light not travel in a wave? I've always thought it does. Is the wave length the same in the starlight as the sun light? or is the wave length relative to the space it is traveling through. Would the waves cancel each other out? If light does not travel in a wave and is only a photon or (boson?), your point might be valid. OK, so density would also have to be a variable in the equation. If we could find the "imaginary" point at the center of the mass of the planet, and compare that to the distances where we took the measurements of our, proton area, and farthest possible electron orbit, at both surface and vacuum point. would that not somehow include the density factor? So, all the information that would have to be included in the equation would be as follows. The "weight of the planet", the "area of the planet" the "middle planetary area point distance to the surface location point" at which we calculate the "area of the proton", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton". Then "middle planetary area point distance to the vacuum point" at which we calculate the "proton area", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton", and also, the "distance between the surface point and the vacuum point" If we used all of these pieces of information in our formula, what order would the calculations have to be made?, and, wouldn't that give us a number value of gravity for said planet? Or would this be futile because gravity changes with mass. As soon as a meteor comes down you would have to recalculate the whole thing. What good would knowing a number value for gravity do anyway, it does not change the world we live in.

This answer does explain how the light from the star could travel and bend around the gravitational warping of the sun. you just cant accept it because it means you have to adjust your already complete, without a doubt, understanding, of how gravity works. We do not need to count every atom or figure the density, only take one atom, place the atom at the planets surface, calculate the area of the possible orbit from its proton, then calculate the area that the proton occupies, and subtract the proton area from the possible orbit area, then calculate the same thing for the atom at the point where space becomes a vacuum, then compare these figures to the distance between the two points where you took both measurements, would this give a formula for gravity? Somehow I think that the area that the planet occupies would have to play a role in the formula, if it's going to tell us anything. So the information we need is, proton area, possible orbit area, taken at surface location, and vacuum location, the distance between the two points where the measurements were taken, and the area that the planet occupies. how to arrange them in a formula? I'm still thinking about that.

The light from the hidden star travels toward the sun. The space around the sun is filled with light radiating out from the sun. The sun light and the star light share the same properties. The star light does not enter the space that is already filled by the radiating sunlight, but instead seeks the path of least resistance somewhere farther from the sun where the vacuum of space, and the space filled with light from the sun would be equivalent to each other allowing the star light to travel through it. This point of equivalent space would exist as a sphere around the entire sun, and would be unique to each starlight that comes near the sun, as every star has different degrees of brightness and would there fore find its own equivalent point between the sunlight radiating out from the sun and the space farther away where the sunlight is not as concentrated due to the more space that it is entering, the same space that is being displaced by the suns mass, but also being filled with the suns radiating light. We already know that mass warps space, in the case of the sun that space is filled with light. In the case of a planet, that space is not filled with light, allowing the light to enter the "more" space that is being displaced by the mass of the planet. this is my explanation of gravity. On the whole "wave vs mass" thing. I am thinking that the light is a wave until it gets obstructed by mass at wich point the waves stack up on themselves creating an electron. or "wave vs particle" If the sunlight charges the mass of the planet does the dark side of the planet loose its charge? because if this is true, It could explain the rotation of the planet through electro magnetic attraction. On a lighter note, I bought some glass beads and krazy glue so I can build a model of an atom in order to find out if the Fibonacci sequence has anything to do with how the protons stack themselves together in the nucleus. It's hard to count the space in close stacked orbs with out being able to mark where you have already counted it is also theoretically possible for them to cancel each other out. Not likely, but possible

the particle is called a tetra neutron I do not believe magnetism holds the atom together, have only seen articles explaining the strong force with electromagnetism photons have zero rest mass but never rest, and can move a solar sail. so this implies mass. "wave vs particle thing" is referring to light as a wave or a particle. you can know either the velocity of a single electron or the weight of a single electron but not both about the same electron. and your posts read like you think you are the definitive authority on all things nuclear, my- what an ego you must have.

So, the area of the electrons possible orbit, subtract the area of the proton, would be the amount of space being displaced and if you measure the same thing at the point where space becomes a vacuum, comparing the two would give you what? I'm not even sure if an electron would have any space between it and its proton in the vacuum of space. But if "displaced stacked space" is true, there would have to be. Although very little. If you put a pocket watch in a stationary orbit in space and keep a pocket watch in your pocket, the one in space moves faster, because there is less space farther away from the planet. The electron does not have as much space to travel to orbit its proton, that is why the watch moves faster. Is this not common knowledge?

This morning I found an article about a hadron collider in France where something happened they are having a hard time explaining. It appears during their experiments they saw the formation of a new particle with four neutrons in a stable nucleus, only thing is they cant figure out what is holding it together being that all the neutrons are neutral. Their is no magnetism happening, which is what is believed to hold an atom together. In my model there are only charged particles, uncharged particles and electrons. In my model you don't need magnetism to hold the particles together in a nucleus. While a four neutron nucleus would be rare, the space displaced by all of the particles would be enough to hold them together. I am not sure where or how to link you to the article, but if you search "four neutron particle, France hadron collider" you will probably find it. This newly found particle supports my "Displaced stacked space theory" I also found an article about a guy named "Thomas Royen" and a problem he has recently solved called "Gaussian Correlation Equality" I believe his solution, if you could apply It in three dimensions might be helpful in describing how particles are held together with out magnetism. I'll admit I didn't under stand the mathematical part of the article, only the problem he was trying to solve. I can't remember who it was that chimed in with "photons do not have mass" but, from what I have read, this argument is not solved yet either. I guess they are still on the fence about the whole wave vs particle thing. I am trying to figure out what information I would need to calculate how much space is being displaced by a proton, if space is being displaced. I understand the whole electron weight vs velocity and that you can't know both variables, but all we need to know is the farthest distance that it could possibly be from its proton from the center of its protons mass, and maybe the area of the proton. Couldn't a person just calculate the area of the farthest possible orbit and subtract the area of the proton from it. The problem I think would be relativity. The electrons distance from its proton changes as space changes, so depending on where you measure the distance it could be more or less relative to the space it is in. Maybe if that distance were measured in the vacuum of space, and then compared to the measurement in space that is not the vacuum. Would this calculate Gravity?

I think lord Antares is grasping the concept, If space is being displaced by mass, this would happen at both the large scale and the small scale, relativity would still apply, so I think it would be easier to measure it at the small scale. If the electron is trapped by the displaced space next to the proton, can the distance between the electron and its proton be measured. If it can, it seems to me that the distance from its proton would be an important number in determining how much space is being displaced. As the electron does not enter the less space farther away from its proton. this is my starting point for a formula that I haven't figured out yet. We would have to know the mass weight of the proton also. Then I have to ask myself, does every proton have the same density? because if they don't, this is going to be real hard to figure out. If you can identify any other variables that would need to be considered, please do so.

Let me put this as simple as I can, If a person thinks gravity is a magical force where mass attracts other mass, that person is wrong. What about magnetism? Would not the light from the sun and the light from the star have the same charge, yet, people are still saying that the light from the passing star is bending towards the sun due to its attraction to mass. So my animation is not perfect, the point is, the starlight follows the curvature of the space created by the mass of the sun, and not pulled magically by the mass of the sun. It's like asking if you believe in love, because two different masses do and that is why they are attracted to each other. The sun is round . If the star were centered as directly behind the sun as it could possibly be, you would still see its light during the lunar eclipse. If gravity was only the attraction of mass, that same starlight would be attracted by the mass of the sun and you wouldn't see it during the lunar eclipse. Starlight as it travels past the mass of the sun is not simply bending due to attraction by gravity, it is following the curvature of space. I never said that gravitational lensing is wrong. I am saying that why it occurs is not because mass is attracted to mass. The reason I believe that the "displaced stacked space" theory describes all of the nuclear forces? I am very good at building things, I can imagine a three dimensional model in my head and examine it from all perspectives before cutting my first piece of wood. I can do the same with my model of the universe, and the simplest solution to all the differences that exist in the astronomical and the quantum, is "displaced stacked space" you can stand behind all of the complicated formulas, and confusing language, but all you are really doing is confusing things in order to argue your position. I believe most people do not really understand these formulas, and only reference them in a debate so they can say, see, you are confused because you don't understand these formulas, and therefor, wrong. How did you know these complicated formulas would confuse me? Could it be you are confused by them also and so you knew I would be. I skimmed over a lot of the links you have provided, of the things I could understand. I did not see anything that disproves the "displaced stacked space" theory. I did see a lot of complicated formulas and long words paraded about as a, " look see how smart I am" billboard.

The light does not bend back towards the sun, the starlight follows the space that is warped by the mass of the sun and to your eye. Gravity is not the magical force of attraction that we are typically told occurs between two masses. When a star has a planet in orbit behind it, and we see the red shift which tells us that a planet is there. This is not caused by magical attraction between two masses. It is cause by the space being warped as the planet moves around its star, and the star and the planet moving into each others warped (displaced stacked space). The reason this excites me is because, this, (if true) is like the holy grail of physics. This one, simple Idea, can describe all four forces at the astronomic and atomic level. You say math can disprove it, but are not showing me the math. I am not a mathematician, I get bored with all the numbers and formulas. Math can pretty much describe any situation if you tweak the formulas right. Show me any experiment that can disprove this theory, and I will have to re-adjust my own understanding of the universe and the way things work. No big deal, all part of the learning process. I'm not scared.

You still are not getting it. If this is true, it describes gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and how the magnetic force occurs. To me, this is exciting. I do not care if I can do the math. If you are so keen on proving it with math, why don't you? or at least disprove it with math.

This is a better representation of the path I believe the starlight takes. As the starlight moves pass the mass of the sun. The starlight bends away from the sun because there is more space for it to move into (the space farther from the sun is not already filled with electrons). This is the same reason the sun radiates light into that space, and is my explanation of the weak nuclear force. The same thing happens at the atomic level when the space that is displaced by the mass of the atom stacks around it, and becomes so filled with electrons that an electron will move into the space farther away from the "displaced stacked space" that closely surrounds the atom because, there is more space to move into (that space is not filled with electrons). I believe this describes how an atom decays. if this is true (and I believe it is) this describes gravity at the astronomical and the quantum level. A planet also displaces space that gets stacked around it, but, that space is not being filled by a nuclear reaction that fills the space with electrons, and so newton's apple falls to the ground into the "more space" that exits immediately next to the mass of the planet. The reason the electron does not fall into the mass of its atom is, the particles in the atom are already charged, and like magnets, the protons and electrons push away from each other. The electron will not enter the space farther away from the atom because there is more space stacked up around the mass of the atom and it will stay in that space until, again, that space becomes so full of electrons that the space around the atom and the space farther away become equal, allowing an electron to escape. But, once the electron escapes there is a difference between the two spaces trapping the remaining protons and electrons inside the "displaced stacked space" until the condition of friction creates more charge and fills the space again. I believe this is the simple explanation that describes all of the forces. You do not have to believe it. I am not a mathematician, I can not come up with the mathematical formulas to prove it, this is no reason to discredit it. Maybe somebody who is better at math than I, will.