John Lear's theory of elementary particles

John has published a fascinating theory of elementary particles on this forum (see the link).




I would appreciate it very much if John clarifies some of the elements left out of his original introduction:

a) how does one explain the mass of an electron?

b) what's the composifion of muon?

c) how does one calculate the masses of other hadrons, such as mesons and baryons? You can start with simpl stuff like pions and delta, and then we'll move up on energy scale.

d) which components in this theory carry spin?

e) how does one construct other quarks, i.e. "c","t","s","b"?


I have plenty of other questions and I can't wait to hear from John regarding this exciting theory of his!

John, thanks for bringing up this subject and carefully reading this post of mine.


[edit on 20-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

reply to post by buddhasystem


If I may, I would like to clarify the title of this thread.

Mr Lear does *not* have a theory of elementary particles.

Mr Lear *does* have a hypothesis, aka a vague guess, about elementary particles.

I await Mr Lears suggestions for experiments which would disprove the hypothesis... but I doubt we'll get any.

reply to post by Mudshark


Outside of science, hypothesis and theory are fairly interchangeable:
en.wikipedia.org...

However I question the utility of hypothesising about elementary particles if it has nothing to do with science. It's pretty similar in that regard to the theory of particles being little demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of the Sun.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I agree that the terms are often used interchangeably but that often lumps together well established *theories* which have stood the test of time and scrutiny and peoples pet *theories* which haven't.

But, I'm hijacking your threat so I'll shut up and wait for Mr Lears elucidation of his 'theory'.

BS, you have to remember that John stated he got his advanced understanding from a highly reliable and respectable source.......Bob Lazar. If that statement alone does not convince you that further pusuit of this topic with John is not worthwhile, then I don't know what will.

Perhaps, and this is only an idea, but you may get further if you choose to pursue this thread, by going outside, finding a large tree and repeatedly banging your head against it.

reply to post by Mudshark


Thanks mudshark. The problem I have with this theory of John Lear is that it flat out fails to explain a plethora of particle data... Then again I'll wait for him to clarify.

I would like to thank everybody for their interest in my presentation to BS. The presentation was made because BS said:

John Lear would probably refer to these particles as microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun, while deriding Einstein's lack of understanding all the way.

I presented the information which I have presented before here on ATS of the smu, singular mass unit and that it contradicted BS's statement that I probably refer to elementary particles as " microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun. I do not. I refer to them as singular mass units and chargons.

I also qualified my presentation with the following:

These are from notes I kept when Bob Lazar worked at S-4. I could understand when Bob explained all this but I doubt whether I could hold forth in a debate with a 'real' physicist which I am not.

But in any case I have never referred to "these (elementary) particles" as "microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun".

Somehow BS has transposed those words into "John Lear's theory on elementary physics when I made it clear who the source of the information was and I also made it clear that I was not a physicist and didn't represent myself to be one.

While I respect BS's firm grasp of mainstream scientific dogma I object to his mixing fact with fiction about my post on elementary physics.

I am not able to answers BS' questions or anyone else's on the subject of singular mass units or chargons. What I posted was what Bob told me and it was posted to counter BS's untrue statement "John Lear would probably refer to these (elementary) particles as microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun."

Please accept my apology if you have been mislead by either myself or BS.

Originally posted by johnlear
I am not able to answers BS' questions or anyone else's on the subject of singular mass units or chargons.

I see... May I ask then what value there is in posting a statement that (a) seems to contradict the availble data (b) cannot be corroborated by any means? You seem to dislike the idea of elementary particles being little demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of the Sun, and yet somehow you publish something that's equally unprovable and unfounded.

And plese don't call my statement "untrue". I said "probably", so I may be mistaken in assuming that you like the idea of demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of the Sun.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem

[I see... May I ask then what value there is in posting a statement that (a) seems to contradict the availble data (b) cannot be corroborated by any means?

Because I belive it to be true as I do:

a breathable atmosphere on the moon
gravity on the moon equal to 64% that of earth's
a civilization on the moon of millions
U.S. mining operations on the Moon and Mars
a civilzation on Venus, Mars and all other other planets in our solar system
Fleet 21 secret Navy battleship
Fast attack Sub that can do 120 knots
no planes on 911
Holograms on 911
Aristarchus is a nuclear reactor
NAZA is a gas giant

All of these also contradict (a) the availble data (b) cannot be corroborated by any means but the difference is I do not believe (elementary) particles are "microscopic demons controlled by a giant pulsating brain in the center of Sun."

But thanks for asking and thanks for your post BS.

Ok John, point taken: as you said, all your posts here are firmly in the realms of fantasy and cannot be taken seriously. Thanks for giving this thread your consideration.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Ok John, point taken: as you said, all your posts here are firmly in the realms of fantasy and cannot be taken seriously.

I don't know if that's an exactly accurate representation of what John is saying. The way I understand it, John has a lot of friends in odd places and there's a kind of subculture out there of old pilots, ex-military, fringe scientists, etc., who like to discuss this kind of stuff for fun. I equate it to a kind of "liar's club," which includes people who like to hypothesize and fantasize, as well as those who know some weird stuff that sounds ridiculous but may actually be true. Sometimes the truest stuff can sound like the biggest lie. Whether or not any of the people he talks to are really paid disinformationists is anybody's guess, but John would be an excellent conduit for disinformation.

Of course, of all of the stuff he purports to know, and the stuff he posts here, none of it can be backed up with documents from "official sources." It's either off the record, or there's no official record to begin with.

John has his personal beliefs, probably derived in the same way we all get our personal beliefs, through people we know and generally trust. In the case of Bob Lazar's notion of atomic structure, it's Lazar, of course, but also some people who have discussed Lazar's claims and found them to be reasonably accurate, according to whatever secret fringe information they're privy to.

But John isn't going to say exactly who those other people are. So he presents a variety of public source information with the suggestion that it backs up the things he says, and invites us to research it ourselves. Maybe some of it is true, maybe a lot of it is tall tales cooked up by his buddies. You have to decide for yourself how much credence you want to give it, or how much you want to research it, according to the amount of information provided.

As for the above, it does have some interesting similarities to problems in bubble physics and interactive monopoles, which I've always been kind of amused by. Note:

Originally posted by Nohup
As for the above, it does have some interesting similarities to problems in bubble physics and interactive monopoles, which I've always been kind of amused by.

Dear Nohup,

in what regard are the "chargons" and "shmus" similar to bubble physics and interactive monoples?

thanks!

I cannot pretend to have studied any Physics theories in any detail but I did just happen across this:

An impoverished surfer has drawn up a new theory of the universe, seen by some as the Holy Grail of physics, which has received rave reviews from scientists.

Although the work of 39 year old Garrett Lisi still has a way to go to convince the establishment, let alone match the achievements of Albert Einstein, the two do have one thing in common: Einstein also began his great adventure in theoretical physics while outside the mainstream scientific establishment, working as a patent officer, though failed to achieve the Holy Grail, an overarching explanation to unite all the particles and forces of the cosmos.

Source

I am posting this here only to throw a pebble in the pond and confess of no knowledge of the subject.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Nohup
As for the above, it does have some interesting similarities to problems in bubble physics and interactive monopoles, which I've always been kind of amused by.

In what regard are the "chargons" and "shmus" similar to bubble physics and interactive monoples?

Well, just off hand, you can see that the warping interactions of the spheres of influence result in 120 degree angles, suggesting that there is a roughly similar interplay of mutual repulsion and attraction. In bubbles, the attraction is created by surface tension, and the repulsion by the internal pressure of the bubbles. Of course, rather than a physical bubble, we're talking about EM fields, but the interactions between the components is interestingly similar.

I also wonder if there is any suggestion of conical transdimensional interaction. With a magnet, for instance -- one of the simplest and funnest multi-dimensional toys we can play with -- it's easier to see how it works if you imagine fields as being composed of trandimensional shapes similar to ice cream cones -- pointy at one end and round on another. When you put the round ends together (similar polarities), they roll off each other. Pointy ends (opposite polarities) "sink" toward each other, but not in our standard four dimensions. Chargons would appear to have a similar tendency to slide off and away from each other. Who knows?

Of course, I've not studied this stuff in detail. I'm just a dilettente, so I could be way off. Like I said, it's just an amusement. But this wouldn't be the only alternative to standard atomic particle/wave theory, and some of the alternatives work pretty good. Lately I've been pondering the old quantum vortex theory, which was looked down upon for quite a while until the whole notion of virtual and multiple spatial dimensions became more accepted, helping work out some of the bugs.

A "particle" defined as a kind of event horizon between dimensions? Hey, maybe there's something to it. Can't hurt to look into it. Maybe we can find a few of those elements missing from the Periodic Table.

reply to post by Nohup


I've said it before, Mr. Lear reminds me a lot of John Titor. All he provides in the ned is an interesting story with a built in excuse for why it can't be put to the test.

He's full of vague answers, and he is always willing to shoot holes in someone elses data, but will never provide his own.

What's really sad is he acts like he is unveiling an amazing truth us dumb commoners can't grasp, when all he is doing is telling the biggest lies here.

Dear Nohup,

Originally posted by Nohup
Well, just off hand, you can see that the warping interactions of the spheres of influence result in 120 degree angles

It appears to me that all you are saying here is that there are 3 identical objects and you divide 360 by 3. That's called symmetry and it's a pretty shallow analogy imho. To make things more complicated in the sketch that came with Lear's "theory" (by the way I don't have issues with John on this matter) there are dots designating "chargons". It is clear from quantum mechanics that such location of a point-like object is impossible.

Of course, rather than a physical bubble, we're talking about EM fields, but the interactions between the components is interestingly similar.

Could you please elaborate the analogy between the EM field and a bubble. ?

With a magnet, for instance -- one of the simplest and funnest multi-dimensional toys we can play with

I must be forgetting something, could you please tell me the multi-dimensional aspects of a constant magnet? Thanks!

A "particle" defined as a kind of event horizon between dimensions? Hey, maybe there's something to it. Can't hurt to look into it. Maybe we can find a few of those elements missing from the Periodic Table.

How do you define the event horizon? And how that "particle" of yours can help find "missing elements"? And what are these "missing elements"?

Interesting discussion...

Science and learning march on, as always. The more we study, the deeper our understanding. At the risk of repeating myself, I can't help but wonder what Einstein, if he were alive, would think about string theory, 10 or 11 dimensions, and all the rest. I believe Dr. Einstein rejected the notion of quantum physics, his famous 'God does not play dice...' quote.

Well, Einstein is dead...so is Newton. Their contributions add to the foundation, others always come along to build, or sometimes modify, that which came before. Thus, we continue to learn, and grow.

Open minds and dogmatic stubbornness are mutually incompatible.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Open minds and dogmatic stubbornness are mutually incompatible.

Well, they are not compatible alright.
And how does it relate to the topic?

reply to post by buddhasystem


buddha, it relates to the topic in that great discoveries can sometimes begin with simple questions. Rocking the boat of established dogma is not a bad thing --- ideas need to be floated (sorry for continuing the analogy) and if the idea holds water, it will gain acceptance...or if it gets holes blown into it, it will sink.

I had the idea of dogma in mind, whilst thinking about Galileo...he fought a valiant battle, and was punished for it.

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFactsIf that statement alone does not convince you that further pusuit of this topic with John is not worthwhile, then I don't know what will.

Aw leave him be ITF... he needs the points... and has to occupy his free time somehow...

As to Bob Lazarr...

You do know he runs United Nuclear yes? And that he is currently employed at Los Alamos?

Of course this could be another one of those crazy rumors...



You know I think BS's crusade might be better applied to our school system... seems the students these days have some crazy ideas on gravity on the Moon... Imagine the good he could do there with these young minds...

So here is the test question....

If a pen is dropped on a moon, will it:
A) Float away
B) Float where it is
C) Fall to the surface of the moon

Astronomy 150 - Physics for humanities majors

"The gravity of the earth will pull it more than that of the moon, so it will float toward earth"

"It'll float away because your body is not able to stay completely still. So it would float in the direction your hand was shaking"

"It will float away because the gravitational force is less than here on the Earth where it would fall. I think it will float away because of what I have seen of the space rooms NASA uses to get astronauts ready for flight."

"There is no gravitational pull on the moon to cause pen to come back towards surface. The pen would float away probably toward the gravitational pull of the earth."

Your future Astronomers Lets check in on the Physics Department... surely they are better...

Physics 221 - First Semester Calculus-based Introductory Physics

"It will fall to the earth by force of gravity and by the attraction between the earth and the moon"

"Because the gravitational pull of the moon is much weaker than that of the earth. And object such as a pen is so lite that it will float"

"The force of gravity on the moon is a fraction of the gravity on the earth, so the moon would not be able to attract the pen to inself. Rather, it would only be able to suspend the pen"

Here is one that puts a formula in and uses that 'angular momentum'

"It will eventually fall to the surface of the moon because of the slight gravitational field plus the moment of inertia about the moon. Also with angular momentum being conserved, it must fall. I=MR^2" [We were studying conservation of angular momentum when I gave this quiz]

"The pen will fall to the surface of the moon. As we let go we will introduce some initial enerty into the pen thus putting it in a forward downward motion. Since on the moon there is no force of resistance the pen will fall very slowly towards the surface"

I would give that last one an A+

Physics 324 - Modern Physics for Engineers

Newton to the Rescue...
"A body is at rest tends to stay at rest, plus there's no gravity"

Well at least they share your view of the Atmosphere...
"The gravity of the moon can be said to be negligible, and also the moon's a vacuum, there is no external force on the pen. Therefore it will float where it is."

"The pen will float away because the gravitational pull of the moon, being approximately 1/6 that of the earth, will not be enough to cause the pen to fall nor remain stationary where it is. The gravatational pull of other objects would influence the pen"

SOURCE and many more...


So I might strongly suggest that as a physicist BS might use some of the free time he has making silly "I love John" threads he help these up and coming successors to his profession see the error of their ways