A more complex example of how we have to allocate resources are the synchrotrons. When synchrotron's are used to create X-rays, they can be useful for scientific research, but some of the most expensive synchrotrons are being used for "pure experimentation" in which atomic particles are accelerated to extremely high speed and then slammed into a target to observe the result of the collision.

These collisions produce lots of pieces of atomic particles, but so far nobody has been able to explain why we should care, or how this research will benefit the human race in some manner. If these particle accelerators were only a few thousand dollars, this issue would not be of much importance. However, they are incredibly expensive to build and operate.

When a group of scientists spent decades performing experiments without achieving any useful results, we should seriously consider two possible reasons for their failures:

1) The theory behind their experiments is nonsense.

2) They are not intelligent enough to understand what they're doing.

The theory behind particle accelerators is that neutrons, protons, electrons are made up of smaller particles, and that by smashing all of them together we reveal the smaller particles. However, the theory that electrons and protons are made up of smaller particles, such as quarks, is just a wild guess; there is no supporting evidence for it. We can just as easily create other theories that are equally lacking in support. For example, consider the possibility that particle accelerators are as idiotic as a magnetic bubble accelerator.

In case you don't know what magnetic bubbles are, they are still used in computer memory. However, their commercial value has decreased because other forms of computer memory have become more practical, so there's not much information available on the Internet for those of you who don't understand them. The June 1971 issue of Scientific American has a nice article about them, and considering that Scientific American lies about the 9/11 attack, maybe they will have the decency to post that article online for free.

A magnetic bubble has certain characteristics. For example, electrical fields can push them around, but there is a limit on how fast they can move. Also, only certain sizes of the bubbles are stable. Other sizes quickly decay and vanish.

What would happen if a scientist were to create a bubble accelerator and smash bubbles into each other? It is entirely possible that he would produce thousands of fragments of bubbles, and since the fragments were unstable, they would rapidly decay and vanish.

What would happen if the scientist watching these fragments came to the incorrect conclusion that all of the fragments were the components of a magnetic bubble? In such a case, he would give all of the little fragments a name, and announce to the world that a magnetic bubble is made up of quarks, bosons, gluons, and fermions.

The point I'm trying to make is that we have no evidence that particle accelerators have any value. We can easily create theories that are just as valid as their theory of quarks and fluons – or just as silly, depending on how you want to look at it. For example, consider that "matter" is "space bubbles".

The "space bubbles" theory

What is empty space? If all of the galaxies and everything within them, such as the dust, were to be removed from the universe, and if we could get rid of all of the electromagnetic radiation, all that would remain is "empty space". But what is this empty space? Is it a substance?

Consider the possibility that empty space is the three dimensional equivalent of a magnetic bubble material, and that this "space bubble" material has only two stable forms; the electron and the proton. In such a case, a synchrotron would be a waste of our money because all it would be doing is creating fragments of "space bubbles", and since the fragments are unstable, they would quickly vanish.

Magnetic bubbles have a limit to how fast they can travel, and space bubbles would also have a limit: the speed of light.

Physicists have noticed that subatomic particles have slightly longer lifetimes when traveling close to the speed of light. They assume that time slows down as you approach the speed of light. However, if you put an apple into a refrigerator, it will also have a longer lifetime. Does that mean the refrigerator slows down time?

Time always passes at the same rate, regardless of our velocity. The slowing of time is an illusion because the fragments of space bubbles decay slightly slower when traveling at close to the speed of light because space bubbles are a form of space and there is something about the decay process that takes slightly longer when they are traveling close to their maximum speed.

Scientists assume that the mass of an object increases as it gets near the speed of light, but that is an illusion, also. It is possible that a magnetic bubble would create the same illusion if we tried to push it to its maximum speed. The closer we got to its maximum speed, the more energy we would need to push it just a bit faster, creating the impression that it is gaining mass. Furthermore, pushing it to its maximum speed might distort its shape from circular to oval, creating the illusion that high velocities cause magnetic bubbles to change their shape.

The difference between an electron and a proton could be just a difference in the two stable sizes of space bubbles, or there could be two variations of space bubbles. One type of space bubble may have both a north and south pole, and the other may be like a bowl in which there is only one pole.

Magnetic bubbles are the same "density" as the material they exist in, but protons or electrons, or both, are more dense, or less dense, than space, thereby pulling, or pushing, on the rest of space, creating what we interpret as gravity. The effect is cumulative, so that when trillions of space bubbles are in the same area, such as our sun, space will be pushed, or pulled, by such a large amount that the effect would be felt through enormous distances. Also, the effect of gravity would travel at the speed of light.

When a massive object rotates, the space doesn't rotate, but what we sense as "gravity" appears to be rotating, and it will cause other objects, such as planets, to align along the plane of rotation.

If light is a shockwave in space, electromagnetic radiation will slowly increase in frequency and eventually dissipate. Also, if light is a shockwave, and if the space bubbles are changing the density of space, then massive objects will slightly alter the path of light.

Electromagnetic radiation appears to us as "energy", and the space bubbles appear to us as "matter". However, if they are both aspects of the same substance, then they could convert from one type to the other.

A hydrogen atom is one proton and one electron. It is commonly assumed that the electrons travel in a circular orbit around the nucleus, but in my space bubble theory the electrons arrange themselves in geometric patterns. If an atom was at absolute zero and isolated from all other atoms and radiation, the electrons would remain fixed around the nucleus in a geometric pattern. When an atom is hit by another atom, or when radiation hits it, the electrons will move, but they do not orbit. They simply bounce around, like ping-pong balls tied to a string and held above a Van de Graff generator.

The particles in the nucleus are also arranged in geometric patterns. There are lots of isotopes, but certain isotopes are more common than others because they form more stable patterns.

Graphite is black, but diamond is clear. The only difference between those substances is the geometric arrangement of the space bubbles. When the bubbles are locked into position, certain frequencies of light can pass through them.

If a rocket were to travel at half the speed of light, and if it creates a flash of light, the light would travel out of the rocket in all directions. However, if electromagnetic radiation is a shock wave in space, then when the light is created, it enters stationary space and begins traveling at the speed of light in all directions. The speed of the rocket has no effect on the light because only the rocket is moving, not the space.

If a rocket travels towards a laser beam, the laser light will appear to be at a higher frequency. However, if the laser is traveling towards a stationary object, the stationary object will not see any shift in frequency, although the observer would likely sense something different about the light from the moving laser because its light would appear more "dense".
 

An enormous amount of money is being spent analyzing quarks and other subatomic particles, but nothing has come from this research, and there is no indication yet that anything ever will. There is a point at which we have to face the possibility that the scientists are wasting their time and our money.