Over the weekend, in an attempt to cheer me up, a kind and generous reader sent me a link
\n[to a *really* wonderful site of crackpot science][adams]. It’s a crackpot theory about how physics has it all wrong. You see, there is no such thing as gravity – it’s all just pressure. And the earth (and all other planets) is actually a matter factory – matter is constantly created in the *hollow* center of the earth, and the pressure of all the new matter forces the earth to constantly expand. And the pressure of expansion creates the illusion of gravity. And according to the crackpot behind it all, the best part is that [*the math works!*][mathworks]
\nThe site is the masterwork of graphic artist Neal Adams. Mr. Adams is a computer animation
\nguy; he’s responsible for the obnoxious bumblebee “nasonex” ad. Mr. Adams believes that in
\naddition to drawing comic books and animated TV commercials, he’s also a genius who’s going to
\ntotally reinvent all of physics, and show how all of those bigshot physicists and geologists are all wrong about everything.
\n[adams]: http:\/\/www.nealadams.com\/morescience.html
\n[mathworks]: http:\/\/www.nealadams.com\/PhysicsOfGrow.html<\/p>\n
\nAccording to Mr. Adams, there’s really only one kind of particle in the universe, which he calls the “prime matter particle”. The prime matter particle is actually made out of two particles, a positron and an electron. But it’s all really prime matter particles, because the other two are just *half* particles. So when he says there’s only one particle, he means that there are really two particles, which always come in pairs. Now, all of the universe is completely covered in prime matter particles, jammed up against each other, except when they’re broken into electron\/positron pairs.
\nFurther, there are only two forces in the universe. One is the attraction of the electron and the positron, trying to get themselves back together into a prime matter particle. And the other is centrifugal force, because, you see, the universe is spinning, and the spinning tries to push everything apart.
\nIn his own words:
\n>This new model says, there is only one Particle, the Prime Matter particle.
\n>
\n>1. The Prime Matter (the “Ocean” that is our universe.) Which is 1 whole particle (the other
\n>two are thrust from this.)
\n>2. The Electron. 1\/2 particle
\n>3. The Positron. 1\/2 particle
\n>
\n>These single particles fill the universe from edge to edge. An ocean of Prime Matter
\n>particles.
\nAh, beautiful, isn’t it? But why do we ever see the half-particles? If the fundamental force of the universe is electromagnetism holding the two halves of the prime matter particle together, why do we see things with positive or negative charges?
\n>If one of these Matter particles is struck by a photon of energy, it is thrust in half, into
\n>two half pieces. These two half particles are the only two basic matter particles of the
\n>universe.
\nD’oh! It gets hit by a photon.
\nBut where’d the photon come from? Good question. Shame he never answers it. But more
\nimportantly: *how did it get to the prime matter particle in the first place?*
\nRemember: space is *completely filled* by these PMPs. It’s a complete packing of space. So,
\nsuppose that in this theory, we can come up with *some* reason for there being things like the sun that produce photons. How do those photons get to earth? If they hit a PMP, the PMP splits into an electron and a positron. And *there is no space between the PMPs*.
\n>Every particle of every sort is made of these three, or some combination of them, and the
\n>only field in the universe is the field between these two half particles, which is merely
\n>trying to bring these particles back together again, JUST as the universe is trying to hold
\n>the universe apart. (From spin.)
\n>
\n>These Prime Matter particles are invisible to us because their magnetic field is inward
\n>facing. A matter particle’s (electro)-magnetic field is by comparison to its field like a fly
\n>in a baseball stadium. If that same field is flowing only within, the electron shell (bubble)
\n>to the positron at the core this is a very small field indeed. Though as strong as an
\n>electron positron pairs combined field. And only when a photon strikes a Prime Matter
\n>particle and splits it, does its magnetic field blossom out and become revealed and apparent
\n>to us, as matter.
\nYeah, the magnetic fields are inward facing! That’s why we can’t see them! Of course!
\nAnd here’s where it gets *really* fun. Because, you see, the math works!
\n>Every electron in the universe is matched perfectly, energy for
\n>energy, mass for mass, by the
\n>single positron that is inside each
\n>proton. Commonly it is thought that the proton does not contain a
\n>positron … for a number of reasons … yet in positive beta decay a
\n>positron is ejected. Most would say the positron is produced, but it
\n>is truly in there. One day soon … a collider will pop out, (if it
\n>doesn’t find an electron first.)
\n>
\n>The positron is the “plus one” of the proton. All other particles
\n>balance out neutral, unless you ‘manage’ or ‘fudge’ the physics. In
\n>this theory it has to be there … it is what built the proton and
\n>it provides the ‘strong force’ that binds it. It had to be in
\n>there! All other 919 particles that make up the proton are neutral
\n>prime matter “WHOLE” particles.
\n>
\n>Why such an odd number as 919?? Well the positron is the 920th (half)
\n>particle in the proton. When we add the other half- particle, the
\n>electron, we get 920 or…1840 electron 1\/2 electron weight!
\n>
\n>Just as electrons in shells exchange energy, the Prime Matter particles
\n>that make up the Proton and Neutron, exchange energy,…and so are
\n>mistaken for, what we call Quarks and such. Still, they are Prime
\n>Matter particles. At this level stronger than the electrons exchange
\n>rate in atom’s shells. Prime matter particles, also, exchange or
\n>borrow and share CHARGE. Inner particles need greater charge so they
\n>borrow from the particles we call quarks.
\n>
\n>Too simple?
\n>
\n>It has to be….simple, doesn’t it? And first….the math works.
\nFunny. When I first heard that one of his claims for the validity of his theory was “the math
\nworks”, at the very least, I expected something like a demonstration of how, using his theory,
\nyou can derive equations showing that the PMP theory’s fundamental forces can explain
\ngravitational forces… Or even better, some attempt to explain something that
\nthe standard model’s theories have a problem with – like reconciling gravity
\nwith quantum effects. Or even just explaining quantum effects *at all*.
\nBut no. In fact, when he says the math works, what he means is: if you take any particle in
\nthe standard model, by looking at its mass, he can tell you *how many* PMPs are in the
\nparticle. Yes, the math works because he arbitrarily set the “mass” of a PMP as the lowest
\ncommon denominator of the masses of the basic particles. And that’s *all* that he means
\nby “the math works”.
\n*Why* is a proton made of 919 PMPs plus one positron and one electron? *Why* is it that *only*
\n919 unbroken PMPs plus one broken PMP is a stable charged particle? *Why* is there only one
\nstable configuration of PMPs that forms a stable neutral particle? There’s no math to explain
\nthat. There’s no math to explain how gravity works. There’s no math to explain why\/how PMPs form common matter particles.
\nHell, even ignoring that, just think about simple things. What does *mass* mean here? It’s the number of PMPs in something, right? But PMPs are *everywhere*. In a dense packing, covering
\nevery bit of space. So why do *some* areas of space have mass and inertia? Why is the
\n*earth* a large body that interacts with photons, gravity, etc., and yet all of the
\nPMPs in space surrounding it don’t? Why does a moving body like the earth not get slowed down by pushing all of those PMPs out of the way?
\nWell, here’s his explanation.
\n>Let’s say…for a minute we can use our small matter Galaxy as a model
\n>of this big super-universe, and some of the same rules apply relative
\n>to, say, movement. We say there are some areas of movement that our
\n>perception would consider random, (but which is probably not random at
\n>all), like the movements of galaxies. We actually see galaxies pass
\n>through other galaxies out there.
\n>
\n>Let’s say a portion of the super universe rides by another
\n>portion…like, say galaxies….or the gases on the outer surface
\n>of Jupiter. On the surface of Jupiter gases ride BY each other in
\n>layers. When this happens the layers are traveling at differing speeds,
\n>like trains riding by each other at differing speeds. One train going
\n>faster than the other causes a series of whirlpools of air between the
\n>trains.
\n>
\n>On Jupiter we see the same thing. Two streams of gas side by side, one
\n>is faster than the other and so BETWEEN THE LAYERS we see rolling balls
\n>of gas. (The same thing happens to initiate the eddies that become the
\n>suns in a galaxy like ours.
\n>
\n>In the super-universe one of those spinning balls of gas is our universe.
\nSee, we’re sort of the three dimensional version of the great red spot on Jupiter. The drag of
\nall of those PMPs moving past each other in currents produces eddies, which turn into balls
\nwhich are planets and stars. And in a larger version of the same effect, our
\nuniverse is just a *larger* eddy.
\nAnd “the math works”.
\nWithin the eddies, gravity, according to him, is magnetic effects of broken PMPs:
\n>It’s a mighty tug of war between and on these ‘lines’)
\n>
\n>This one small ball of …universal spin makes ‘our’ universe…..! That’s all.
\n>
\n>Though this, our, universe is NOTHING (to our perception). The spin pulls outward at this
\n>nothing.
\n>
\n>But this….NOTHING doesn’t ‘want’ to be” thinned out”,…IT RESISTS!
\n>
\n>THE PULLING WINS! But we don’t get one big bubble of less
\n>emptiness. Planke sees to that. Billion upon billions of tiny bubbles
\n>are created, stretched out. Held by tendrils of force, (The same stuff,
\n>stretched out. The magnetic “lines” are the stretched stuff in-pulling.
\n>the spaces between the lines are the tear-aparts and they are negative.
\nSee, he can invoke names of smart people like Planke, and wave his hands
\naround, shouting “the math works! I’m a genius”
\n>This asks the question, do the magnetic line around the Sun hold
\n>the planets “ON” the lines, or does the space between the lines
\n>”PUSH” the planets to the lines? (Or both?)
\n>
\n>Each bubble holds a portion of that pulling apart….At the core OF
\n>each bubble is the “Attracting” in-pulling point object. We call it a
\n>positron.
\nSee, that’s what replaces gravity. The earth orbits the sun because there’s a magnetic line
\nholding it there. ‘course, that “magnetic line” is invisible, and unmeasurable. In fact, all
\norbits are just things stringing along magnetic lines. Can he explain how, for instance, the
\nshuttle maneuvers in orbit? Well, apparently, there *must* be an infinite number of these
\nmagnetic lines, because we can alter orbits of spacecraft and satellites in almost
\ninfinitessimally minute ways, and they behave pretty much exactly how newtonian gravitation
\nand relativity predict that they should. Does he have any math to support this?
\nNo.
\nHe’s got one more tiny bit of math in there, explaining how awful the standard model is, and how much more perfectly brilliant his system is:
\n>Solid reasoning says…if there’s a way we can use Positrons, Electrons
\n>and prime matter particles, to make all the other particles then we can
\n>show and prove there are only two basic particles.
\n>
\n>It turns out that all these particles can be constructed from
\n>Electrons, Positrons and prime matter particles. Anti particles simply
\n>need a positron.
\n>
\n>Even if this were only an outside possibility, this is far more valid
\n>and logical than the standard model…which REQUIRES NEW particles of
\n>unknown origin and fantasy far-out theory.
\n>
\n>Two simple examples, the muon and the tau, (and their anti-particles).
\n>
\n>>The Muon: weighs 207 times the mass of an Electron.
\n>>It has 4 layers of prime Matter particles with 5 added to each corner .9 extended by the field.
\n>>That’s 64 with 40 added (5 per each corner equals 104 (times) 2, (electron\/positron ) minus 1, that’s 207.
\n>>
\n>>The Tau: Is an electron with 14 layers (in successive cube layers of prime matter particles with corner particles limited by the same field and ending abruptly.
\n>>That’s 92 from each corner, times 8 corners
\n>>That’s 726 Prime Matter particles which totals
\n>>2018 prime Matter particles. Double that and you get
\n>>4036 Electron weight.
\n>
\n>Anti-particles, remove the core electrons and replace with positron.
\n>
\n>Neutrinos:….Remove electrical.
\n>
\n>All protons and neutrons have a core positron and 919 Prime Matter particles. The neutron has
\n>an added Electron.
\n>
\n>That’s 1838 wt. for the proton and 1840 for the neutron.
\nMore of the same. His theory *must* be correct, because *the math works*. And what *the math works* means is nothing more than the fact that he can say *how many* PMPs are in any of
\nthe particles. That works, right, so the entire theory must be dead-on.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Over the weekend, in an attempt to cheer me up, a kind and generous reader sent me a link [to a *really* wonderful site of crackpot science][adams]. It’s a crackpot theory about how physics has it all wrong. You see, there is no such thing as gravity – it’s all just pressure. And the earth […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-physics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-41","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}