Lewis and Barnes

Dr. Alas Lewis and Dr. Luke Barnes are a duo of physicists from Australia who create outreach videos and books. I spent some time watching their YouTube videos and making comments, which I have pasted here as well.

They also wrote a book directed at hobbyist enthusiasts who have ideas and want to help physicists. I have mixed feelings about the book because of the overall situation with particle physicists and cosmologists being lost narratively and then giving advice about what is required of an amateur to make progress from this low point in physics history. Although Alas and Luke appear to be decent blokes, and I believe they intend well, the cloud of physicists misinterpretations makes their work a near useless anachronism. This is even more true because they don’t recognize the number one problem driving physicists generally aloof reaction to hobbyists is in fact due to the physicists being lost.

Hi Alas and Luke, I’m reading your book and watching your videos. I am building a model of nature and the universe based on equal and opposite immutable point charges with a radius near the Planck length. Please note that I am reusing concepts from the physics bonepile but with a twist. My point charges are immutable and they present as a spherical volume with point charge |e/6| with a point of action and field emission at the center.

My question is about the simulation discussion at 13:00 to 14:30. Would simulating point charges that follow Maxwell’s equations and classical mechanics be more or less efficient in cpu, memory, and non-volatile storage than today’s methods? Assume neutrons and protons have 36 point charges (N = 18 electrinos + 18 positrinos; P = 15 electrinos + 21 positrinos), generation I fermions have 12 point charges (electron = 9 electrinos + 3 positrinos) It’s easy to derive the composition of the other standard model particles and here is a chart.

Assume that Einstein’s squishy spacetime is implemented with a dense detritus of old tired photons (6 electrinos + 6 positrinos) and old tired neutrinos (3 electrinos + 3 positrinos for generation I). In other words, spacetime aether is alchemy soup. Insight: you could have hybrid simulations where spacetime is modeled mathematically, while all reactant and product particles are modeled discretely as point charge structures.

If you reorient yourself to think of expansion as galaxy local, driven by intermittent QSO activity in each galaxy over billions of years then you can retain the concept of expansion and redshift from expansion in a steady state universe where galaxies only appear to be moving apart but aren’t in reality.

Could QSOs implement the big bang in a distributed and ongoing process that intermittently occurs in each galaxy?

Energy is most assuredly conserved. The problem here is the lack of the correct physical model. If you model nature as equal and opposite, immutable, energy carrying point charges with a radius around the Planck’s length it becomes obvious. These point charges are the only carriers of energy.

I appreciate that these outreach physicists try to keep it civil with the independent ideators who attempt to contact them. Probably 99% of the hobbyists have a vague idea where they have recognized a pattern and it blows their mind and they try to craft a solution around that pattern. That’s fine. However, with billions of people in the world, and the amazing outreach material, and the internet, these hobbyist ideators now have access to all the teachings and doubts of physicists and cosmologists and some are bright enough to see where the weak points are and trace the history.

However all, this is a moot point, because the next era is already upon us whether physicists like it or not. Although it is difficult to believe, the solution is far simpler than scientist would imagine. This is a challenge because If we don’t get these ideas across it very well could be decades or a century until physicists figure it out. Physicists have blinders on due to incorrect decisions about the narrative story although it turns out their math is pretty good. And observations are observations of course.

Regarding the big bang – dividing it into galaxy size chunks and assigning that to the recycling process through the SMBH, has very nice characteristics 

  1. The universe is self renewing at the galaxy level (and the galaxy lifecycle – mergers, clusters, etc.).
  2. there is no issue about what is before the galaxy local bang – there was matter-energy that existed and fell into the black hole and was in there for some unknown amount of external observer time until the core breached the event horizon and the jets started up.
  3. a physical implementation for spacetime with a physical mechanism for inflation and expansion.

Scientists are still conflicted on the gig science economy. I don’t know all the constraints and considerations but the new generation of smart gig scientists are establishing their own identity independent of the universities. Oh my gosh, some day scientists could even self-publish. What do the top scientists need the publishers for? Just enable comments on your blog and deal with them accordingly. I’m sure some enterprising physicists could whip up cloud based science gig economy supporting software. Why didn’t they think of this already? Because they are chained in the low compensation dungeon by the universities and research institutions.

Physicists love transformations so I assert that we can divide up the universe into galaxy neighborhoods and it would be true that spacetime is expanding in each. Ok, so my task is to now demonstrate a focused source of new spacetime within each galaxy. No problem!

@12:30 my view is that expansion is internal and in opposition so we need to convert your idea of expansion velocity into the gradient of energy loss of the spacetime aether. The mechanism of cosmological redshift is a bit of a mystery to me. The gradual loss of energy in the photon may be due to a continuous phase shift from passing by spacetime aether particles that are expanding very slowly due to loss of energy. I suppose it is possible that the continuous redshift may depend on the gradient of the spacetime aether energy. There is a lot at stake in that redshift function. Is it linear? a curve? what equation describes the shape? In particular, if astronomical distance is a variable, that is a huge deal. If our distance estimates are off, so are our scale estimates. What trends match both distance and scale and look unusual or like cosmic evolution?

I am a fan of the immutable point charge formulation of nature and the universe. In that model black holes don’t have singularities and it is possible for supermassive black holes to build up a core of point charges that is packed to the Planck density. That Planck core can overpower the event horizon at the poles and jet an inflationary minibang. Of course this results in the structure formation for immense amounts of baryonic matter.

Since spacetime is also made out of point charges this inflationary minibang will create products such as photons and neutrinos that will eventually redshift to low enough apparent energy that they make more spacetime.

@3:00 it is technically incorrect to say a neutrino is not charged. In fact a neutrino is a structure with 6 electrinos @ -e/6 and 6 positrinos @ e/6. So neutral is a better term but it’s probably even better we just say what it really is until the point charge concept sinks in. At the rate it is going chemists and biologists might be the first to get onboard with the new era.

One of the funniest experiences I have had was hiring a physicist through Sabine Hossenfelder’s program and asking him what happens to photons when they continue to redshift? His answer was pure scientific method : if it redshifts beyond what we can observe we don’t know. No speculation. This is a big deal. Why is physics ignoring it?

I am wondering more and more exactly how spacetime is produced. What percentage of aether comes from tired neutrinos? What percentage of aether comes from tired photons? Where in the grand cycle of cycles is aether produced in significant amounts?

@6:00 Neutrino oscillation is a solved problem in the point charge universe. The issue is the particle physicists do not understand energy shielding due to the point charge dipoles that are the energy cores of Fermions. This is all standard physics. Who dropped the ball on checking the idea of making point charges immutable and tying them to the Planck scale?

@11:00 Alas, why do THEY say temperature here when THEY mean energy? If THEY knew an electron neutrino was three coupled point charge dipoles THEY would realize that there is electromagnetic potential energy as well as kinetic.

Good video. I appreciate both of you being completely open about what physicists do and don’t know about these issues and their nuances. It turns out that if you make one small but sensible change to LeMaitre’s reductionism then it starts to make more sense. That is, change the concept from backwards to a single event to parallel independent minibangs distributed in time and space. Then correlate those with the most powerful events we observe which are SMBH jets. How do you get a bounce in an SMBH? With point charges that are immutable. Point charges have a closest approach around the Planck length. That is the ultimate bounce point.

This is a great episode. Keep thinking about point charges. Specifically, the electrino -e/6 and the positrino e/6. So your fields ARE real in my opinion and they wiggle all the electrinos and positrinos especially locally. And then those wiggles will propagate outwards in THEIR fields and our original point charge will sense those and wiggle. Of course there is attenuation happening.

@11:00 The inflaton is a behavior of the tau dipole, the electrino and positrino chasing their tails in an orbit or wave equation. Quantum mechanics really screwed physicists up. I mean it’s correct of course, but it distracted physicists from the plus ultra, the search for more beyond. It’s just one more layer down from the standard model. The neoclassical universe of the |e/6| electrino and positrino.

Each of you has sufficient knowledge (way more than mine) and intellect to do what I have done, and work out the universe from |e/6| point charges the electrino and the positrino with a sphere of immutability defined by a Planck length great circle circumference. It is remarkably easy and closed form if you subtract arriving perturbing gravitational waves, photons, neutrinos, and other detritus.

Despite my efforts I never received a single reply from Alas nor Luke.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s