I'm requoting so much of what he says because he says it well. I really enjoy the physics theories. I get a little weirded out, though, when physicists (or journalists) start quoting them as being simiply true. It may be a long time before we understand such things. And we need to keep open the possibility that we may never understand such things. A bunch of creatures with three-pound brains, located at what is essentially a single point in an astonishingly vast continuum, may have neither the opportunity nor the wherewithal to observe or explain all aspects of the cosmos. A little humility might be wise.

Sir,

Kindly go through this page for the benefit of the scientific world.

As per different report received from Internet that NASA is doing lot of scientific works on physics & astrophysics. It requires to more improve on the subject of the creation of the universe. I want to give suggestion that you may go through “Mystery of Origin of the Universe” and “Complete Unified Theory” written by me and totally scientific work in which NASA can get many information and may discover that in what way particle, stars, etc can give energy; in what way the particles, stars, galaxies, universe created. We know that Einstein energy equation is E = mc2, but do not know that what is the internal function of m with effect of c2 during emission of energy E ? You cannot answer of this from our traditional theories. But you can get answer of this from my books. Also we do not know about “Unification of Physics” and “Complete Unified Theory” till now, scientists are trying for this from 1873, many theories like string, super symmetry, GUT, Big Bang etc came into the picture, but no theory can explain abut the creation of the actual form of the particle, universe. With the help of single theory “Complete Unified Theory”, it is possible to explain all phenomena from the particle to the universe. I found that the quantum circulation of Black Hole is 3.0440727×10-26 m2 / sec , mass of a photon is 1.65961×10-54 gram; it can explain the structure of electron and can define the structure of electromagnetic radiation. There are till unknown to us. Likewise, lot of things is there which are most interesting.

You can search this book from Websites. So if you want to do work on this subject, may contact me.
Email: nirmalgopa@yahoo.co.in , Mob: India 09475089337

Dated: 06-03-2009 Yours faithfully,
Nirmalendu Das

Dave Webster

i don't know guys, sounds like macroscopic electrochemicals to me. I like it.

The server says posted 8:47pm whereas my PC clock here in the UK says 4:47am

You would get a time "increase" reading on your clock in direct sunlight and this would be curved due to the simple fact that as your path approached 90 degrees to the stream it would cut through more of them (like rain in a moving car seems heavier effect). and then decrease again as you went into the shadows, peaking at an all time low directly behind the earth, but this effect due to distortion by atmosphere and earth's mgnetic and gravitational effects would produce a non-circular distortion on our clocks reading if not continuously subtracting only the background influence on an identical counter at almost the exact same spot (or as near as can be).

This effect would mean that our atomic clocks would show an effect of time increase and decrease effects as if time were distorted by the earth's shadow.

That would certainly explain a few "time" issues and the problems associated with the "time-gravity well" theory in that it does not quite fit!

In fact it's a bit like re-inventing the sundial but keeping track of it digitally then wondering why it loses time overnight if you can imagine such a scenario.

1/3 mass of an electron is:
Mx=3.0397576194394586

Integerizing this slightly we can see the mass of a proton is very close to the mass of a neutron minus the mass of an electron, the rest can be possibly explained by energy release as some form of EM radiation and the kinetic energy required to keep the electron spinning around the nucleus, which may well be faster than the speed of light as if you read more carefully and correctly the equation E=mc² (wether correct or not is not the debate here) is possible as the speed at which all matter becomes energy is c² (not c as popularly misconstrued.)
Mn/Mp=1.0016559625853087
Is this the ratio of elementals in each particular particle.

IF electron is base unit(1) then should be integer number within proton.
Mp/me=1835.6439006576552
IF electron is base unit(1) then should be integer number within neutron.
Mn/me=1838.6836582770947
Could actually say fractional part is due to error at this level and for ease of sums say:
No. of electrons per proton is:1836
No. of electrons per neutron is:1839
As measurements increase in accuracy, there is a slight upward trend in the value of mn,mp and me but this is such that
The trend suggests mn/me tends towards 1836 while mp/me tends towards 1836. As increase in descrepency on mp is greater than that in me This is only a difference of only 3 units which as postulated by Quark theory that an electron is a group of 3 quarks(-+-) grouping is rather suprising, that is to say that by removing the same 3 basic units of an electron from a neutron you'd get a proton.

Even without rounding the figure is only:
1835.6439006576552/1838.6836582770947=-3.0397576194395697 or to put it another way accounts for a pretty accurate 99.83467750932817% of the mass of the electron, considering the errors that could creep in on such small scales this is pretty damn fantastic I'd say and so far involves no special case maths and quite possibly simply follows the same rules as the rest of the universe!

In fact these slight errors could be easily dismissed as errors in magnitudes of 10 from the true number of particles within each subatomic particle.

For example would the same hold true to the figures if the unit of mass of the absolute small particle was not 1/3 of the mass of an electron… but by moving along the scale of the figure 3.03646062906… recurring, we could equally say this is 303 particles and the 0.646062906666..7 is the error. Would it still hold true for the rest of the workings to the same level of accuracy in that
The proton+electron = neutron. AND neutron/mass of particle AND proton/mass of particle are whole numbers (near enough) and that these hold true to the numbers above in that
particles/neutron = particles/proton + particles/election. And also that if particles/electron is odd then particles/neutron=even and particles/proton=odd.
In a C program this could be written as fullfilling the requirements.
(ParticlesPerNeutron==ParticlesPerProton+ParticlesPerElectron) &&
((ParticlesPerElectron & 1)==(ParticlesPerProton&1)) &&
((ParticlesPerElectron & 1)!=(ParticlesPerNeutron&1))

This I will not go into here as there is no need, for the basic rule should follow of all the groups and subgroups within whatever particles are found until the ultimate singular particle is found (if indeed it ever can or will be and isn't some singularity as some suggest blinking in and out of existence).

In theory other conditions could be met too, such as ParticlesPerParticle should be able to fit in a perfect equal sided lattice of perfect spheres in each case, that's assuming they are to be spherical and all equal in size, as there a lot of gumph on sub-atomic physics and it seems almost anyone can make it up but irrelevant of this I think it is most likely that the very very basic building block, no matter what it is would be spherical in overall effect as particulate form.

Not spherical objects would defy most common sense of equal distribution due to equal forces throughout the singularity which is at least possibly the one thing most physisists can agree upon when dealing at the level of a single unit with no outside influences at all except its own internal binding, however completely unlikely or indeed impossible such a possibility would exist anywhere in the universe!

A similar theory was postulated by the man who predicted the existence of quarks!

The reason the "Dark matter" was invented is in fact that scientists are arrogant enough to think they can estimate the mass of the universe when they do not even know what percentage of it they can yet see, much like answering the conundrum:
"On the other side of a piece of paper is a length of cotton, through a small hole you can see only 2 inches of the cotton, how long is the cotton in total and what percentage of the cotton can you see?"

The whole problem with quark theory is how do you arrange only + and – in a clump so that there are no ++ interactions and no–interactions… when there is not another force at this "primary" level in fact it is theoretically and practically impossible.

Going along this line obviously facilitates the need for a neutral particle in the model so either there is +- and neutral or just a minus and a neutral (or a plus and a neutral for that matter)

In fact it feels better in the gut to think of a positron as having a "lack" of electrical charge than the opposite of it and so these are the neutral part. After-all it was at once standard scientific practice to measure the well know Volts as "Potential difference".

In fact though simple is possibly the best explanation that we have at present.

An electron is thus a minus-nuetral-neutral combination as this is the only possible combination where there is no — repulsion from itself wherin it would tear itself apart.

A proton is in effect 1836 of these 3 bit combinations and A neutron is in effect 1839 of these 3 bit combinations in this simple model.

If we break this down further then the sum totals is 1839 (neutron):1839 (electron+proton).

The proportion of these particles in the universe is thus most likely to be 1:1 in the universe.

A "positron" is thus (N-N)
An "Electron" is thus (-N-)

A note on the apparent occurence of positrions in a Neutral-negative model. The effect of magnetism in one direction is the result on the interaction on a particle that is
-N- or where charge outweighs mass. Whereas under reverse conditions when neutral particles outnumbercharged particles then the effect is reversed.

Conclusion:For the above to happen all substances must have some effect under magnetism, even uncharged. [After looking this fact up]:This is found to be the case and so fits the results.

From these figures I would conclude that there is a 99.83467750932817% chance that the explosive composition of the big bang was a 1:1 mix of "neutral" and "charge", though what as the name is just that it could be the neutral is a plus and then negative is a 0 if you catch my drift. Whichever perspective you take on that, the ratio will be 1:1 for one to the other overall.

Thus if you ask me, there are two points to be made, the big bang (if u believe in it) would of been a uniform explosion from that point of singularity. The quantity of mass in the universe would be about 1:1 charged to non-charged, including all forms (energy too I guess).

As for the 90% inaccuracy, isn't it a bit pompous to think we can guess the mass of an unknown volume of mass and energy, maybe it's the 90% we can't see or calculate for and even with our best efforts we are still only a tenth of the way to knowing what scale we are really dealing with.

Time: Was einstein's theory actually not trying to simply say, if something travels as fast or faster than light, it would APPEAR to do so instantaneously to us as viewers, well not instantly (wrong wording), we would not be visible until we reached our destination (that's a better way of wording it)

If I'm sat on a ship at light speed and I travel for one second of my time, that time still passed for me. It still passes for you too, but you can't see me until I slow down again below the speed of the very light that our primative eyes use to detect our 3D environment. We as a species are limited to light speed or far less at present because we have no direct thrust sytem that can approach the forces required to attain any greater speed for much larger than small particles.

Now at the quantum level we are told a similar ratio exists between pion and neutral-pions and still the theory holds true.