In this page I´ll depict the parallel way of
thoughts where my criteria lies in.
Nature do not repeat schemes, creates always
a distinct mechanics not so easy to classify in
tables, it seems follow a random criterium some-
times appearing as analogyc or symmetric others
digital or cyclic. Sometimes it seems play dice
but never exhibit a universal-general formula,
just a good deal of small ones; Nature is simple.
We´re who complicates and entangle things.
Anything we´re able to do in between the EM
field is always detected and useful far apart
the original site, be either an event in a fixed
point or a particle traveling the space.
Any EM wave irradiates omnidirectionally and
if there is some gradient of dielectric constant
the speed of both particle and wave is modified
accordingly the EM variation; and relativity will
account for any event related with the EM field.
Despite some classical descriptions of the EM
field related to electrical charges motion, it
is always present anywhere no matter if they are
particles, charges, life or an artificial local
electric field working in between.
How big, nice, flat or warm was the primeval
universe, at the present is merely story. Things,
particles and life are as they are here, now and
in the way we know them. Such speculations are
I think, huge extrapolated outputs.
Nevertheless they are always - to some extent -
useful and also yields a bit of fanciful induction.
When somebody has a chip of imagination, even
the reading of a tramway ticket shows a message.
Even some exotic and innocent use of analogies
that very often one finds on any publication.
I fear protons´s shape were like a toad crashed
by a lorry and dried by the sun that is: ugly and
I can see the universe as a thick spheric layer
of EM field; one can see any light throughout its
meridians or parallels and also diametrically but
until the limits of its thickness; because of its
yolk and its outermost surroundings are the very
No fear for expansion
back to page´s bottom
Other fields are also available in the same space,
similar to our well known one and cohabitant. Thus
when somebody wants investigate something
-say into the genetics field- a quite different
set of tools and apparatus must be necessary, and
notably quite different from our EM field one.
With regard to particles they also can well work
all and everyone of them, quite simultaneously
and independently in cohabitation with our EM.
I do not sympathize with messianic particles
and even nor with those sticking ones.
Classical methods are linear extrapolations
to obtain different results. It is not ascertain
use such methods to analyze femto-cosmical
events only by means of hitting particles.
Always decay never building. After such shower
of particles; particles production or discovery
is the main purpose, surely always it will be
new stock of particles provided new changes in
methodology are done.
They were 3 and now more than 18 constituents
of elementary particles. In fact I don´t realize
our lovely Proton be a cluster of those stuffs.
If really such pseudo elementary particles are
the proton´s compound, that is not ascertain nor
justified that the process used has a symmetrical
bidirectional or reversible one. And more if one
can be ascertain of that information then changing
methods would yield identical results.
I attempt avoid criticism even when my work can
arise something of unwanted revisionism, but I do
not agree with such kind of physical-alchemy.
I know I have my mind wandering among stars, my
heart in San Francisco and my feet on the ground.
Despite that often theories are dyed by hobbies
or other habits from childhood or adolescence.
Publish or perish
top of page
Print this Page