READ THIS FIRST ---> one inch equation: TL = mc^2

Flux Particle Theory
by James Cranwell

Everything in the Universe is made from one type of thread.
All workings of the Universe are result from said thread.

The particle itself would be just the grey threads (or strings) in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron.
Actual thread (or string) length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough where 10 threads (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.



They say there are three quarks in a group and the individual quarks are shooting gluons (strong force) at each other to hold themselves together in a proton package.

And one of those quarks must also be shooting gluons at other proton packages (remember: "proton" is actually just the name for a group of 3 quarks).

So the quarks are shooting gluons to hold the proton together and also to hold protons to other protons.

And since a lot of atoms have more than just 2 protons it means at least one quark package is shooting gluons at more than one other proton package. (it would either be one quark shooting at 2 different proton packages or 2 different quarks shooting at the other packages.)

There are three different color charges and when a gluon gets shot at another quark it changes the color charge of that quark: RED, BLUE or GREEN.

If that's not enough... the quarks are also shooting photons at electrons to hold the electrons in their orbits.
As the electron goes round the nucleus -- is the quark that is doing the shooting at that particular electron changing? Or do the photons get shot right through the center of the nucleus if the electron is on the other side at the moment? Who cares... just ignore stuff like that. If you come across any deal-breakers like that just call them counterintuitive -- then they become accepted and allowed.

It must be wild when there is an atom with about 80 or so protons -- it would mean there are also 80 neutrons. So that would be a package of 160 N/P or three times that amount in quarks -- that equals 480 quarks.
And all of the inner quarks would be completely buried, but I guess that does not matter. Because sanity does not even matter.


Something like a quark would be impossible. If there are 3 quarks in a proton and the quarks are performing specific tasks -- that means the quark is NOT a fundamental basic thing.
And if a quark is not a basic thing that means it is also made from a group of smaller things -- that process would NOT be able to end. And it would keep getting more and more complex with more and more particles...

● 1 Proton
● 3 Quarks
● 9 Elfs
● 27 Dusters
● 81 etc.

More and more complex? Yes, the Elfs would have to do everything they do to keep themselves together plus everything the quarks are supposedly doing.
The quarks model turns into a nightmare immediately.
The only answer must be quantum thread theory

Basic Physics: They think quarks are absorbing and emitting gluons and quarks are shooting photons at electrons to keep the electrons in their probability cloud non-orbits?
If that is true (which of course it is NOT ) it would mean that quarks are NOT basic -- and they must be made from smaller components. And that brings us right to my initial comment of why the model of quarks -- that everyone blindly believes and defends -- is impossible.
There are dozens of reason to disqualify quarks -- but my favorite is: The quarks would have to be actually tracking the electrons around their supposed orbits so they can shoot the photons at them (whatever the electrons actually are does NOT matter).
The only way for a quark to work and preform the tasks they claim is if it has computerized tracking built-in. And the only way to hold an electron (or anything) in place without actually being physically connected is magic.
So, is a quark basic? No, it would have to be made from other things and that process cannot stop.


If you were holding a rope and I was holding the other end... we are connected.


If you have a rope and so do I and we exchange ropes... nothing is connected and we will fly apart.

● ---   --- ●

Someone must have realized if electrons are connected to the nucleus the connections will interfere with other connections. Like if you have a bunch of balloons on a windy day -- the ribbons will all tangle up. The same thing will happen with multiple electron connections.
You could have one electron connected to a proton and the whole package could revolve as a whole.


If you have a large number of electrons that still might work for one atom if the whole things was revolving as a whole but then there would be absolutely no way for atoms to attach to other atoms. It would amount to something like spinning spheres. And if you have two things that are spinning or revolving you would need axles or universal joints for them to connect and stay connected.
That means electrons orbiting / revolving around a stationary nucleus will not work and electrons revolving with the nucleus as a whole will not work -- they are impossible models.

So they came up with the intermittent photon exchange, where the electron connections can actually pass through one another. This is achieved by the protons (actually quarks) shooting photons at the electrons.
As the electron goes round the nucleus -- the quark that is doing the shooting at that particular electron must be changing. And the photons must be getting shot right through the center of the nucleus if the electron is on the other side at the moment.

∗ ~ ~ ~ ●●● ~ ~ ~ ∗

The quark on the left side (above) is shooting at the electron on the left side. What happens when that electron orbits over to the right side? Imagine this with about 80 protons and neutrons, 160 n/p ...three times that amount in quarks, that makes 480 quarks.
It is another impossibility but everyone believes it.
They call the concept a "force carrier" and they might say something like "photons are mediating the electromagnetic force between protons and electrons." That's what would be holding electrons in their orbits -- photons are being shot at them

● ~ ~ ~ ∗

The sad thing is they also used this concept for everything else. They think protons are held together by quarks shooting gluons at other quarks. And the real crazy one is gravitons -- they think gravitons are mass-less particles and they are traveling back and forth between matter at the speed of light.
So I guess the Moon is being held in place by gravitons being shot at it from the Earth. That sounds correct -- doesn't it?
Why did this happen? That's easy... the electron model is wrong and all of the stuff they explain is like a patch for it.



By the way:

What are all those different particles their talking about? They're just a certain amount of the thread particles from a busted up proton, that's why there's a distinct ratio between all the supposed different particles MeV, something might be three threads broken off but still balled up together something else might be nine threads still balled up.



...that's a mind bender.

Oxygen has 8 protons, 8 neutrons and 8 electrons making a total of 24 particles per atom.
Aluminum -- number 13 -- would have a total of 39 particles.
Gold -- number 79 -- would have 237 particles.
The properties of elements are known with great precision but they are in actuality just a different number of the same thing (that is true regardless of the theory).
Somethings might be soft, hard, liquid, gas, solid, different colors, magnetic, rubbery, stiff, etc. but they are all just a different number of the same particle. You don't know the properties of it... you only know the properties of a large group of it.
In other words... even though you might know a thread has a thread-like shape, you can't know what the thread is made from because it is what is used to make things.

A different number (amount) of the exact same thing makes completely different things (elements.)

If you do a chemical test and you find out something is Aluminum... you have only found out there are 39 thread particles in a group... not what the actual threads are.
So, it (a thread) is not an element and cannot be like any element or molecule unless it is by pure coincidence.
The thread (purely by happenstance) might be just like a bendable but non-stretchable fishing line or spiders web. But they also might be something that is completely inconceivable and unknowable to humans.

Also... when you look at Gold you can see it has a nice color, correct? No, gold is a group of atoms made from 237 particles each. And those particles are made from threads.
Color is only the frequency of vibrations that are traveling to your eye along the threads. No matter what you are looking at you are only seeing a different vibrational frequency from a different number of threads in a group.

Could a thread actually have a color anyway? Or even be white, black or grey? I have absolutely no idea. I'm sure it cannot be invisible though, because...
for something to be invisible it would mean that light passes through it. And light is only a vibration coming from that same type of thread. There isn't anyway to see it but it is not invisible.

Zeno? If you take any object like an iron bar -- you can crack it in half because it is made from individual atoms. At a quantum level the iron bar is NOT made from one continuous substance. But the threads in Quantum Thread Theory (or regular string theory) actually possibly are continuous. So if you took a (quantum) thread and magnified it until it was the same width as a pencil, could you snap it in half? It would be like having a big fat piece of fishing line. But, Instead of the fishing line being made from billions and billions of individual molecules of plastic... it would be just one continuous thing.

A thread is: Bendable not stretchable. Not invisible but you cannot see it. There is no way to tell if it has color. And I know about ten other things about it. See if you can guess any.


There is NOT anything that is complex and there is not a way for things to be complex and also work automatically (which everything must be doing).

You can use anything as an example: for instance -- electrons. They are supposedly being held in place in their orbits by protons (actually quarks) shooting (say 'exchanging' (if you like)) photons at them.
How could they possibly know what direction to shoot the photons?

Check out Gold -- 79 electrons...
The electrons are supposedly orbiting so the actual quark that is doing the shooting for whatever electron must be constantly changing as the electron goes round the nucleus.

And the quarks that are supposedly holding electrons in place by shooting photons at them are the same quarks are also shooting gluons at other quarks. https://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Color_charge

Get a good picture of everything that (they say) must be happening inside of an atom and you will realize it absolutely cannot be happening like that, what you are led to believe is actually bonkers.
The basic fundamental stuff cannot do advanced mechanical interactions, everything has to be automatic.

Gravity is also very simple -- impossible to be complex.

Complex quantum fundamental mechanics are impossible.


[3] Flux Particle Theory & Why the Speed of Light is "C"
  Authors: Seamus McCelt
  Category: Quantum Gravity and String Theory

Add a Comment

Font Size A A A A A A A
Font Family t v g a s m r

The particle itself would be just the grey threads in the picture (no color and a lot thinner of course).
It would fit perfectly inside of a dodecahedron.
Actual thread length is about one Ångström and it is fine enough where 10 threads (20 radii) could curl-up into the size of a neutron.

quantum thread theory quantum boom theory the one inch equation quantum gravity thunderbolt & lightning cosmic thread dipole repeller einstein did not say that einsteins light clock electrons are fixed position emergence gravitational constant gravitational waves gravitons & spacetime get ruled out gravity killed the dinosaurs instantaneous freeze everything can be correct with math orbital intersection theory quantum thread math Rainbows separate light and dark NO EXPANSION - NO DARK ENERGY - NO SINGULARITIES the ghost in the machine The Shape of Water time time is emergent You are 3-D but really 1-D but really 3-D black holes mighty jets why the speed of light is c

Note: As always - if you steal my original ideas - I will come to your house.

The McCelt Tartan