A simple model of elementary particles

The point of modeling in science is not the edification of the modeler but to determine accurate models of nature so that we may understand and control it better. Let's all be honest and admit the purpose of science is not just to understand things; we want to control them. Human beings are not satisfied with simple understanding; we want to dominate nature; it's our God given right after all, right? It's our right to create nuclear weapons so that we can threaten our neighbor with them. It's our right to develop biological weapons with the same threat .. i'm being sarcastic for what should be obvious reasons.. i most certainly believe we have a right to understand and develop any kind of technology we can imagine however, i don't believe we have a right to use that technology to dominate/exploit one sector of the human population over another. We won't point any fingers just yet but i think you know who i'm talking about.. Back to science.

David Bergman and his associates at commonsensescience.org have matured an interesting view of elementary particles and atoms/molecules. i mention them because i must. Not that they contributed to my model of e.p.s in any way; just that they have a realistic alternative view of them which rivals mine. Back to the model .. If you've read any of my recent essays on science, you know i've been working on a theoretical framework for this model - not just the model. So behind the model realize there's another model of spacetime which we'll simply call Iam space in honor of the Creator. ;) (Btw, you'd think the guys at CSS would embrace me for this perspective, but i guess everyone's gotta have their unique view of the cosmos/Creator.) [sigh..] Back to the model 8|.

i'm going to attach two images to this essay: one shows a model of e.p.s if we detect/confirm Lense-Thirring; the other shows a model of them if we don't. Lense-Thirring allows twisted space; no Lense-Thirring doesn't. Basically, the difference between them is this. With L-T, the spinning flux in image one creates a torque on spacetime which indicates spacetime is somewhat elastic. Without L-T, the spinning flux in image two cannot create torque on spacetime, but we still must account for both kinds of time-dilation. So in the second scenario, we must propose that some energy of e.p.s resides in time-dilation only.

At the risk of boring a dead horse, i must repeat above for absolute clarity. If we confirm Lense-Thirring, that implies spacetime is elastic; if we don't, only time is elastic. It directly affects how we may model elementary particles.

The simplest model of elementary particles is presented above but Bergman argues we must allow for a twist in flux to account for observations. Whatever the case, it appears to us that e.p.s may successfully be modeled by spinning flux rings. Bergman does not account for any 'twist in spacetime/time' but he's had remarkable success with his version explaining things.

Spacelet theory allows for the twisting of spacetime and more explicitly - the storing of energy in the 'fabric of time' due to temporal elasticity. This is why we must formally develop Iam space, temporal curvature theory (our analog of QFT), TR (temporal relativity), and ST (spacelet theory). All of this must be done without dependency on QFT or other technique involving virtual particles.

A simplified version of above is two bits of charge orbiting a spacelet. Each bit of charge has no mass but only mass equivalent energy. They orbit the spacelet at the speed of light. It's proposed each bit has mass equivalent of E/4 so combined it's E/2. The other E/2 resides in spacelet/time. The mechanics of bit energy is h-bar/2 = (E/2)cr which explains why we determine the spin of elementary particles to be 1/2. Whether r is 'classical electron radius' or something else must be determined.. The equation above was discovered several years ago but at that time, i assigned the halving-factor to r because then, i believed e.p.s were little 'twist and folds' of TEWs/photons. i could not prove 'auto/self-confinement' so i neglected the model.. Reconsidering in the context of Iam space and spacelet theory, i must revive the equation.

The fact e^2 only approximately equals h-bar/Z0 indicates we're missing something or perhaps it simply indicates charge distribution. Whatever the case, we must explain why it's not exact. So there's much work to be done in terms of understanding the model.

The fact impedance and elasticity are core to the model indicate they're critical to Iam space. Whether or not spacetime is elastic or exclusively time will be determined very soon. But in the very least, time is elastic (as argued in previous essays). In either case, spacetime may be modeled by R^5 which includes space-coordinates, time-coordinate, and measure of spacetime/time curvature. It's proposed Iam space is much more however. It must include all particles and locations including all the 'translation machinery' to determine their next locations. This is necessary for both simulation and reality. It also must encode/include impedance and elasticity somehow. Some may argue T can include them but i contend they must explicitly be associated with R^5, the part of the model that represents spacetime and curvature. So a simplified representation of Iam space is {{R^5, Y0, Z0}, p, p0, T} where the first part represents spacetime, curvature, elasticity of space, and impedance of space, second is cosmic particle set, third is their initial positions and momentum, and fourth is particle translation machinery.

To consider the richness and diversity of life can be encoded in three parameters: Y0, Z0, and T is quite amazing .. Then again, it's probly a piece of cake for God. ;)

The fact we can somewhat comprehend our universe shows we were lovingly created in Her image.. i've argued previously that creation of our universe coincided with the event a proto-God declared "I Am!" simultaneously becoming God and creating our universe. In that case, we likely reside in the 'mind of God' which is our universe.. Our individual lives and bodies could correspond to 'thoughts in the mind of God'. Otherwise, it's all random and meaningless.. Which perspective do you prefer?

.. As an aside (not really an aside in this context), any personal attacks on me could indicate 'Satanic forces' trying to divorce us from God. As you can see from the direction of my conversation above, i believe we're all children of God, that we simply must decide to discover our divine Selves, explore our relationship with God, and decide to develop it or not. In the first instance, we must recognize that God exists. If we deny God and all her divine Beauty, we deny a part of Ourselves - a big part! What's the point of that except two things: independence and ego. We all have a Right to independence/freedom but not to the point of coercing the rest of us into believing a framework that promotes meaninglessness - as the Standard Model does. So even the Standard Model can be looked at as a product of 'Satanic forces'.. This may sound totally insane to those who lack faith in the Divine but.. Yesterday, i had the crushing feeling of murderous intent behind those who oppose me and my ideas.. However, one of my purposes is to remind others: that we're not alone, we can find Her within, we can develop that relationship or turn away.. So not to worry, you Know in your heart of hearts - they cannot defeat Her.

sam iam