A Non Fiction Trilogy



            I hope this is not too complicated to people. It is really the simplist of concepts, but in doing all the details it becomes surprisingly complex to settle on principles for simple motions etc. And from simple parts a very complex system seems to emerage, but that is good, logically that is probably best.

           I was, in an odd way, fortunate enough to not have any math beyond Algebra II in High School, and failed Physics.   So I was naive enough to think of physics in a simple way, and chanced upon a silly idea, the problem is it may be valid. Most physicists, being so well trained, take as non-controversial things like mathematical points or field forces, with qualities like gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. Many of these things are, in my logical analysis and hypothesis, incorrect. Many phenomena regarding the physics of the natural world DO NOT OCCUR ON A PRIMARY LEVEL, but are only MACROSOPIC results of primary interactions on the most primary level.

            I introduce, for those interested, a classical but novel atomistic idea, with surprising preliminary results for explaining the structure of matter and the universe. Of particular interest to the trained scientist might be chapter 6 & chapter 9. 

            I worked on a simplistic idea years ago while resting with a back problem. It evolved from those big dumbbell shaped things that spin around each other in front of some roadside businesses to get your attention. I naively thought that maybe atoms where composed of stuff like that that spun around each other forming a spherical spinning ball of “straws” rotating around a central point. I quickly realized that even two “straws” might not spin around the same point, and certainly not three or more. And was going to drop the idea but on thinking about the idea of impact and contact of bodies, it came to some other possibilities that lead to more and more possibilities that began to make a match with known ideas of the atomic world.

          I have had such surprising matches with current theory (including matching the periodicity of the periodic table) that I think some trained scientists ought to take a look at this idea and gauge if it has any possibility of being correct. There are many co-incidences that make this idea worth looking into in my opinion, some are


1. That any motion and interaction of particles could be postulated.


2. That any aggregation of particles could be reasonably postulated.


3. That a nucleon type particle could be aggregated.


4. That a scenario and situation for polarization of particles occurs.


5. That the nucleon can be found, with the most reasonable of postulations, to coalesce into elements in a way that matches the periodicity of the periodic table.


6. That a most interesting explanation for energy can be found in the dynamics of nucleon primary particle interactions, and with ramifications to the law of entropy also.   

7. Further work now in winter 2017-18 has lead to some interesting preliminary matches with ideas of electricity and magnetism, heat and cosmology.


8. That a possible unique type light particle emerges from the simple particle interactions, but whose wave properties are not a sure match with current theory, as not  "traditional" wave motion.


9. That traditional wave properties are possible also due to the combination of random and ordered particle interactions.


10. etc.


            These above co-incidences are why, despite many health problems, I have worked on this as possible. Not because I want to be famous or have a fanatical obsession, but that such co-incidences are statistically very unlikely, so I have felt this should be given some consideration, and a responsibility to do so.

            It of course has been frustrating for me, especially in this day of mass communication, to find no one interested in this for over 30 years, though I understand it is very very different from the current physics, so can be easily rejected on those grounds without much of a glance, let alone me being an amateur. But I have come to realize that the basis for physics actually stems from very basic ideas of mass and motion, energy, space and time, etc., which this theory, though from a slightly different perspective, is very much relevant to the same..

             But I have also come to realize that even if one were to makes a major discovery there is still the issue does anyone care? In other words, knowledge alone is useless unless people care.



            Chapter 1-4.5 goes over the mechanics of impact and rotation of primary particle. Chapter 4-7 cover the formation of nucleons and elements, and the dynamics of the interactions between them and the primary particle flow. This causes magnetism and electricity, heat and light etc.   Chapter 8 is on the macro-scale of universal motions. My latest, chapter 9, deals with a few ideas on trying to relate my hypothesis to current physics theory. Many Appendixes go into more on motions and logical arguments against current ideas. Current physics theories are illogical in some aspects, based on too many mathematical equations not referenced to concrete reality. In Appendix H, K and L, I argue against the concept of point forces, indeed any action at a distance force, and curved space-time, using simple logic to disprove them. Also that divorcing math from common concepts is ill fated to fail, that the two must and do go together. 

              I present this hypothesis as is, even with errors of ideas and calculations, as do to health problems I had to drop work on this for a decade, and though I have taken it up again am growing older. In fact working too hard and long on this was one of the main causes of my health problems. I feel that the general idea is correct, but of course needs a lot more work, but please take it easy and don’t think to hard!

              Now while the physics of the past century works quite marvelously mathematically, the concepts behind it are illogical and fall short of the full truth to explain the physics behind the natural world. The supernatural world is infinite, instantaneous, everywhere and one – God. The natural world as God created it has order and meaning and to overlap concepts like time, space and matter is illogical in my opinion.


    All Chapters – There is much work for many people for many years to fill out this hypothesis so it is up to the level of current physics.

   Chapter 3-5  These chapters have been re-done and are more complete now. but need going over with a fine toothed comb to make corrections/completeness  as its complex.

   Chapter 5 – Here there is tons of figuring that needs to be done, including perhaps re-configuring the nucleus( i ). And the interactions off of the Nucleus with the PP flow. 

   Chapters 6-9 General Ideas with many interesting new ideas since 2017 central to the most important questions of physics. Still needing much more detailed work.

   Appendixes'  Some might have been chapters, but did not want to go off the central topic of the direct Primary Particle system. 

          I have not been able to study field theories, and will not at my age and health, but I understand it has supplanted point forces as explaining physics phenomena, perhaps my same mathematical arguments against point forces will apply to field theory as well, I do not know.

           There seems to be a myriad of theory's out there. On must consider that physics deals with the connections of everything from the smallest to the largest items in the Universe, including the Universe itself. Its no wonder there are lots to theorize about, and amazingly many connections between seemingly disparate items. The parameters get tweaked here and there, and one has a theory that connects the Universe together, and quite rightly so, it seems there are underlying simplicity to all. But which ideas are right? Some say we need more experiments, but is there much more to test that has not already been tested for? Other say if you get a theory that explains all in a coherent and elegant way, you have it. But many are doing the same. Which one is correct? To me we must consider the logic of each hypothesis, is it consistent through all of the many connections, and experiments behind the parameters that are called upon? I'm afraid the age old question between voids and matter, less dense and more dense must be dealt with. I stares us in the face everyday and no amount of extraneous math can escape the logical facts in presents us. I deal with this in Appendix K. This is where, I believe many of the current theories, sophisticated as they may be, fall short. If basic logical parameters are bypassed the hypothesis doesn't pass muster.

          What difference does it make if we find the true nature to what really occurs in the world or just close enough relationships that give results. Perhaps none, perhaps much, perhaps a little, we may not know if the correct concepts are not understood. Only if they are will we perhaps learn a little more about the Universe, or learn that we know most of it already.