Follow by Email

Saturday, December 4, 2010

on carrier particles


Dear Reader,

I am keeping some information off this blog for a variety of reasons - but will give you all a follow up - on those experiments, possibly as soon as later on today - or tomorrow.  I started posting on Overunity ( having being banned from  Confusing similarity of names - they're actually different forums and different owners.   But that forum seems to have been withdrawn - without any kind of notification to it's members.  Hopefully we'll hear more in due course.  What I'm doing in a few follow up posts is to try and recover the sense of some of my contributions there as I am not able to access the original posts.

By the way.  Stefan Hartman at (where I'm banned) assured us that he would be more than happy to post results as and when they come.  I've written to him in 2 separate emails and he conveniently ignores both.  My suspicion is that he had no intention of posting those results.  My question remains.  Why is there is forum that is apparently anxious to advance overunity research when it also denies experimenters the right to publish that proof.  Could it be that they are not actually committed to advance all this new science?  Are they in fact suppressing this when all that evidence becomes too clear?  Not sure yet.  In fairness I think I should first wait and hear from him.  Not sure what's considered to be a reasonable time.  But right now we're only talking 1 week.

This first one is about the carrier particle.  Just a brief overview.  It does not justify it's use.  It only explains why it used at all.   Thereafter I intend explaining why it's entirely inappropriate.


The rule is that for any physical object to interact with another or other physical objects – then they must share a co-incident timeframe and a co-incident position in space.  And they must also share three dimensional properties of volume that allow them to be localised in a shared space. 

This is the essential puzzle of the forces.  How do nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational fields impact directly on visible and measurable matter when they do not appear to have the material properties associated with the visible three dimensional objects that are influenced by these forces?  The interaction of gravity, for example, appears to be immediate and co-incident on anything the size of an atom or larger.  Yet there is no apparent material object to transfer that energy as a ‘carrier’ in the sense that air would be the carrier of wind to move the trees, or in the sense that a ball is the carrier of the energy that moves it.

To get around this problem mainstream has proposed that there are ‘carrier’ particles.  And to get this solution to ‘fit the facts’ - to answer the variety of problems posed by this question  – their solution is to point to a variety of particles some of which are known and some of which must needs be purely speculated.   But the idea is this.  The force moves the particle that then moves the atom that then moves the object that binds that atom.   It’s logically an extension of what is observed.  Something along the lines of the wind that blows the balloon.  The wind would be the force.  The balloon would be the particle. 

Effectively all that’s actually been proposed is that the pervasive influence of the forces is just something that communicates itself on the very small scale of the particle.  Then that interaction, that movement – that exchange of energy on the particle level between the hidden force and the carrier particle - then unfolds to become manifest in our measurable dimensions.  But fundamental to this concept is the idea that this interaction still depends on a coincident timeframe.  Effectively that carrier particle is able to move as a result of an interaction with the invisible forces.  Then it communicates that interaction with the atom and with entire manifest material object that are made up of those atoms.  There’s no time lag.  It’s casual and it’s sequential – but that time scale is so subtle that it's also, to all intents and purposes, immediate.   The moment that the particle is moved by the force – is virtually also the same moment that all the atoms adjust to that movement in a sympathetic response.  Effectively, like the impact or interaction of three dimensional objects, it is here proposed that the forces rely on a coincident timeframe and a shared locality.  In this sense they are assumed to share our own timeframe and our own spatial dimensions.  And they impart their energy by interacting with these small particles that then share that interaction with the macrocosmic material that comprises these atoms.  

The electron is widely assumed to be the 'carrier particle' of the electromagnetic force.  The 'graviton' is assumed to be responsible for the gravitational force.  Unlike the electron this has never actually been seen.  The quark is proposed for the strong nuclear force - and it has the rare distinction of being required to answer questions of symmetry.  Nothing yet proposed for the 'dark' force - but the majority of our theorists don't actually subscribe to this force at all.  Surprising when you consider that it's been experimentally proven.  But I also think that our scientists are somewhat selective with what evidence they're prepared to accept or not.  This truth would be amusing if it weren't also quite so sad.  In any event our experts here are looking for a particle that is - by definition - invisible and thereby undetectable.  I'm not sure of the logic to justify this search.  But I think logic has long ago departed from mainstream theory.  It's now a kind of soup - a bouillabaisse comprising mostly fishy thinking and any 'spice of the month' for added flavour.


Btw. I'm just reposting this picture as it's again referred to.  And it has the very real merit of making me smile.  Would that I could be as contented as that.  LOL