It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Wikipedia Erases the A-B-C Preon Model From Its Database

page: 2
1
share:

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 05:48 AM

Oh, okay; so you did include time - thanks for the clarification.

Still, I think the number of preon is independent from the number of dimensions.

For instance some models have more than 3 preons.

posted on May, 31 2014 @ 01:58 PM

Yes with my initial reply, I meant in no way that there was a relationship between ABC 123 preons and 3 dimensions. I merely was wondering if the entirety of this universe was a network of 3 different flavors of preons, according to the theory, and if they were lined throughout the universe touching. I was asking if that preon model suggests the entire universe is a grid of 3 different preons, like a computer screen or tv is a grid of 3 different pixel; red, green,blue, and from this simplicity comes all complexity by having different frequencies of energy interact at different points for different durations and sequences of time, creating larger clusters of coherent assemblage and the largest cluster, being the entirety of the networks energetic projection at any given moment.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:17 PM

This would imply that

-there is three fundamental frequencies

-these three things are present in vacuum also (since pixels are present even though the screen is black).

I think your proposition is actually very elegant - if a ToE was developed and happened to exhibit the properties you describe, I would pretty much support it. But for now we just don't know.

So far scientists are far from resolving everything to only 3 fundamental values. So far I was able to reduce gravitational patterns to 8 "fundamental values" (compared to about a dozen for the Standard Model), which is still two times the number of dimension this universe has.

But I think we'll get there eventually. The fact that you came up with this ideal model makes me hope that efforts will be made to reach this said model. May it be tomorrow or in a thousand years, we'll get there.

edit on 2-6-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:58 PM
And to think, I sent them a donation. I feel cheated. There are ways to work around "zero citations," and it is a shame that Wikipedia has such anal nerds running its website these days. There was another post that they deleted very important information regarding the topic, and you could tell the people removing it had a bias towards its deletion. It really is shameful that even wikipedia has been corrupted with politics. Time to make a new free encyclopedia.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:14 PM

Is string theory a kind of preon model? Or at least having in common, the suggestion that there are smaller fundamentalities of quanta then the standard models fundamental particles?

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 04:19 AM

No, string theory still assume that quarks are not composite particles. It simply states that instead of being points, all particles are strings.

Preons are rejected by almost every authorities on physics.

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:06 PM
Hi. I found this thread and wanted to thank many of you for your supportive comments concerning the ABC Preon Model.

I am now of the opinion that it is a correct model of elementary physics. I came up with the start of it about 30 years ago, and then attempted to publish about 20 years ago when I thought the data were highly suggestive of it being correct. But with the more recent data, including what is thought to be the Higgs, there is even more evidence for the ABC Preon Model. So much so that I think it is likely true. And that is why I thought it belonged on Wikipedia. I still think it belongs there. While the Standard Model theorists can only explain the decay channels, the ABC Preon Model predicts both the decay channels AND the center of mass for the HIggs events. So I believe it is an important physical theory. A couple of self appointed "defenders of truth" disagreed, and the article was deleted. My hope has been to get a few secondary references and then put it back up, since a lack of secondary references was supposedly the reason for its deletion. But I have no idea how long that may take, and I'm not really sure where I can even start to find people willing to reference the work.

Del

top topics

1