How does this idea explain the fact that the gyromagnetic ratio for spin is roughly twice as big as for orbital angular momentum?
How does it explain the production of hadrons by e-e+ annihilation?
Name some predictions of your theory and how they differ from the Standard Model or General Relativity.
You don't get it. I am not trying to argue against anything that we can predict repeatedly through both equation and observation. In a huge percentage of our predictable equations of science for both classical Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics the effects of the separate relative self-contained polar coordinated pockets of space/time are so miniscule that our current levels of scientific precision can’t observe the subtle effects. Every interaction that we can observe is being affected by so many other objects but most are so minimal that they have no direct bearing on our expected predictions. You want a prediction. OK, I say that if my theories are correct then the orbit of our planet is subtly effected by our moon and I use tidal activity as an example of the pull. Now you think that is obvious and goes without saying but then why is it so hard to use the same logic to understand that Mars and Venus also have some minimal effect and take that to the extremes when examining particle physics and astronomy and then things like dark matter or the Casmir effect have other avenues of explanation.
My point is that when the effects of separate self contained centers of gravity or mass or energy interact with each other in ways that we can not explain with our current paradigm we fudge our interpretations or skew them or whatever term you want to use but what we end up with are imaginary particles and Feymann Normalization and a handful of other constructs that all boil down to the raw fact that our existing paradigm is relying too much on interpretation and general consensus and needs to step back for a moment and try to think outside the box.
I can’t argue with everything that science has proven and that is the farthest thing from my intent. I am trying to get some minds with the resources that could make a difference step back for a moment and really give some thought to questioning the existing paradigm and its flaws. What makes imaginary particles that much more likely than what I consider the more likely deduction that our scientific precision is lacking and we can not YET detect these particles and their infinite number of brethren.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.
Edited by nipok, : No reason given.