2.13 A different concept of positively and negatively charged particles in Atomic Expansion Theory (no paywall)

New Age Physics - The New Physics of the Future (12 of 19)

Nov 18, 2023

Book cover of “New Age Physics” by Roland Michel Tremblay, showing an abstract fractal futuristic alien landscape or intergalactic highway. Theory of Everything based on consciousness, expansion, frequency and density of matter. Physics breakthrough in UFOs, ultraterrestrial technology and interdimensional worlds. — *New Age Physics* by Roland Michel Tremblay, book cover

2.13 A different concept of positively and negatively charged particles in Atomic Expansion Theory

Only the particles exchanging smaller particles orbiting between them, can be considered charged particles, positive or negative, as only they can either attract or repel other particles. The same goes for solar systems locked in with other solar systems (electrons) through orbiting planets between them, and galaxies (atoms) with orbiting solar systems between them. After that, a simple natural orbit effect between two particles, or the failure of one materialising for whatever reason, might also be interpreted as an attracting charge or neutrality.

There could also be an exchange of several neutrinos causing an attracting or repelling force, even when dealing with only two particles, such as an electron and a proton. An electron has orbiting neutrinos, and a proton is full of electrons with orbiting neutrinos, that can push back or attract simply by exchanging neutrinos, and by changing the speed and the size of the orbits of their neutrinos, whenever other particles come close.

As to why neutrons are neutral particles, and don’t appear to be exchanging smaller particles with other particles they encounter, must have something to do with how many electrons and neutrinos they have. A configuration which neither pushes back nor attracts other particles, or where, perhaps, no exchange of particles take place.

At any rate, the very idea of protons and neutrons will need to be re-thought, because I don’t see them when I look at a galaxy. And where are those quarks? I only see groupings of solar systems bonded together by rogue planets, each group representing probably a certain amount of energy, that we have identified as particles such as protons and neutrons. If two groupings don’t exchange any planets between them, because of their configuration, number of planets, or very likely because of relatively large distances separating them, then possibly they could be considered neutral, neither attracting nor repelling other particles.

The only true neutral particle in nature should be the neutrinos of all sizes, in my opinion. They are the only particles that do not exchange any smaller particles between them. But neutrinos do have orbiting smaller particles around them, just like planets have moons. It is just that planets don’t exchange their moons. However, it could be possible, and maybe we will witness this one day, if we ever visit other solar systems, that planets might have moons orbiting between them. If it turns out to exist, even the neutrinos could not be considered neutral. Only moons and sub-neutrinos would then be considered neutral particles.

It is in view of this that I thought it would be better to make the distinction between neutrinos and sub-neutrinos in the very small. There are neutrinos, our planets, and there are even smaller particles orbiting them, the equivalent to our moons. I thought we should recognise them and give them a proper name, because they might become important in the future. And of course, I decided to call suns super-neutrinos. I think Seth, in Jane Roberts’ books, did say that we would eventually discover a new particle even smaller than the neutrino. If it was not in Jane Roberts, then it was in The Urantia Book. And this is all becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As in the discussion in the previous section shows, such particles are not really charged particles, they simply contain either more or less smaller particles in higher orbit than their neighbours orbiting around them. If a neighbour comes close enough, and it has less particles than its neighbours, some smaller particles will start orbiting between both. And the natural orbit effect of the geometry of expansion will ensure a complete balance of all systems, changing all the orbits instantly whenever new particles pass by or go away. The natural orbit effect of the geometry of expansion will be explained in more detail in chapter 3.

Wherever there is a surplus of the smaller particles, the orbits will re-arrange themselves to patch any other place where there is a depletion. The orbits will equalise in size between systems, either enlarging or reducing their orbits to balance. And the speed of the smaller particles will also equalise, either going faster or reducing in speed. Again, this is all due to the relative motion of the geometry of expansion.

This is the attracting and repulsing force that bonds the atoms together to form molecules, and which bonds together electrons to form larger particles such as protons and neutrons, clusters in light and heat, and clouds in magnetic fields. This is the reason some particles are said to be positive or negative.

If there is a same number of smaller particles orbiting the larger particles, they will repel, as there is nothing to balance. And once balance has been achieved, these particles or systems are locked in through these orbiting smaller particles. This is when we have stable particles or molecules.

A charged particle, one that is either positive or negative, capable of attracting or repelling another particle, is no longer really a charged entity possessing an electric charge of some sort. It is just a particle or a system with more or less smaller particles orbiting it, and orbiting between the particles and systems, with an elaborate natural orbit effect to balance the overall system. An electric discharge is all the smaller particles becoming unstable and going everywhere, or more specifically wherever there are sudden large depletions of these smaller particles, like in lightning.

Neutrinos, which are planets, and sub-neutrinos, which are moons, don’t exchange smaller particles or objects between them, as far as we know. This lack of exchange of particles between them, means that they cannot attract or repel anything. They are considered neutral particles and objects, although they are still subject to the natural orbit effect of the geometry of expansion. And in their expansion, the distance between them will reduce, unless counteracted by their enlarging orbits.

In solar systems where there is more than one sun, or in electrons where there is more than one super-neutrino, suns and super-neutrinos are exchanging particles between them, so they are not neutral particles, unless there is only one of them in their system.

An electron has orbiting neutrinos within it, and can attract other electrons passing by through an exchange of neutrinos, if there is an imbalance of neutrinos between them. The same for solar systems who attract or repel other solar systems passing by, depending on the number of planets overall orbiting within the solar system, and between other solar systems already linked to it.

An atom has orbiting electrons, and is exchanging electrons with other atoms nearby. The number of orbiting electrons the atom contains, and that are being exchanged already with nearby atoms, will determine, through the natural orbit effect of expansion, if any new atoms passing by will link to the system or not, or if it will be attracted or repelled. This is what chemical bonds are and what defines the Periodic Table of Elements, and what kind of element the atoms will end up being. The same goes for galaxies with their orbiting solar systems within the galaxies and between galaxies. They will either attract or repel other galaxies and form cosmic molecules and elements at a higher scale universe.

Would you not like to know what element of the Periodic Table of Elements our galaxy is? And the molecule that it forms with its neighbours at a higher scale? And what about our solar system, is it linked to other solar systems around, in order to form the energetic equivalent of a proton, or a neutron? Although they look nothing like the balls or point particles we imagined them to be. With this new information, someone out there eventually might find out and tell us.

One last important thing. There is this idea floating out there that if the Sun were to suddenly be destroyed, this information would need to travel in space to the very last planet of the solar system, before that last planet could start changing its orbit. And there were discussions about gravitational waves or graviton particles, capable of travelling faster than light, which would transmit this information instantly. However, none if this is required.

The geometry of expansion is instant everywhere. As soon as the Sun would be destroyed, instantly all the orbits would change, not only in our solar system, but across many other solar systems linked to ours. It could even affect the orbits of everything in the galaxy, and perhaps beyond. It would be instant, because this relative motion of the geometry of expansion is all due to what can be seen behind the scenes, where we can see the expansion.

Behind the scenes, all we see are expanding balls moving in all directions, no orbits whatsoever, and it is the fact that we cannot see this expansion that results in our reality of orbits. If one dot disappears behind the scenes, it instantly changes everywhere the entire geometry of our resulting reality. No other dots need to know that one has disappeared, none of these other dots changed their path or speed as a result of one dot disappearing. They just continue on their existing paths and their expansion, which instantly changes everywhere the geometry of the resulting universe we see, moment by moment.

Go to the next section