There has got to be someone from NASA here... :)

The Great Particle Party

Deep in the heart of the quantum realm, where the rules of physics get a little strange, the Great Particle Party was about to begin. Every fundamental particle in the universe had been invited. The quarks were already bickering over who was “up” and who was “down,” the gluons were sticking together in clumps, and the photons were zooming around at the speed of light, flashing like strobe lights on a dance floor.

But the real stars of the evening were the leptons and the bosons.

The leptons were known for being light on their feet and independent. Electrons, muons, and tau particles danced freely, while the elusive neutrinos slipped through the crowd without a care. They barely interacted with anyone—true introverts of the subatomic world.

The bosons, on the other hand, were the life of the party. These particles were force carriers, meaning they made sure everyone in the universe stayed connected. The photon spread the electromagnetic groove, the gluons kept the quarks in check, and the W and Z bosons orchestrated the weak interaction—though they sometimes made particles disappear unexpectedly. And then there was the Higgs boson, the guest of honor, who gave mass to all the other particles, making sure no one floated away mid-dance.

As the music played, the electrons twirled, neutrinos ghosted through walls, and the bosons kept the energy flowing. But just when things were at their peak, a mysterious ripple spread across the party—an unknown force, possibly a brand-new boson, was trying to make an entrance. The leptons and bosons paused, intrigued. Could this be the discovery of a new fundamental interaction?

Before they could find out, the party ended as suddenly as it had begun—someone had turned on the lights in the laboratory above. The physicists had finished their experiment, and the quantum world fell silent once more, waiting for the next big collision to bring the party back to life.

And so, the leptons and bosons returned to their cosmic duties, shaping the universe in ways most people could never see—until the next experiment, the next breakthrough, or the next dance at the Great Particle Party.

Mainstream asserts that G is a constant throughout the universe. Alternative theories have asserted that G can change with the age of a galaxy, and may vary in denser and void appearing volumes of the universe. Conclusive evidence as to which is correct still remains controversial. The theory that I ascribe to proposes the G varies the most in transition volumes where a dense volume is adjacent to a relatively empty volume.

Forrest Noble

I derived G from the first principle and derived the laws of nature that reproduce both GR and SR successes.

In your homage, I am showing the parameterless predictions by my theory of Pantheon Data, corrected to the HU Epoch-dependent G.

I also showed how it explains how to solve the early galaxy formation conundrum. Here, you see the early galaxy formation times as a function of the time the gas clouds collided.

Here is the derivation of Natural Laws and the meaning of the fine structure constant.

https://youtu.be/7jVn47VQxfc

I explained Dimensionality Reduction by Surfing. All particles surf the inner dilation layer

https://youtu.be/KtBxfAH283k

I also corrected Lienard-Wiechert, Biot-Savart...etc... and showed that my theory reproduces all successes of Big Ban Nucleosynthesis and Quantum Electrodynamics.

Here is the evolution of M33 under HU's epoch-dependent G.

I explained how the universe cooled:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7296532270956335104/

I explained how the universe was created:

https://youtu.be/ZOKnI7506dc

I showed that the Twin Paradox was never lifted and that inertial frames are not equivalent.

I also explained that the velocity to be used in Lorentz transformations is the Absolute Velocity.

https://youtu.be/dviAaRgsWnY

I also showed that QCD can be replaced by the HU SU(4) GUT Pati-Salam model.

I also explained the Great Attractor and created the 3D galaxy density map for the universe.

So, I am quite confident that my work is correct...As they say, big claims require big evidence, so I provided Big Evidence.

That said, my work has been censored for 20 years already

Here, I presented a public peer review of the works:

• NASA's J.G. Williams on Laser Lunar Ranging Constraints on G-variability
• Mould & Uddin on SN1a Constraints on G-variability
• Sahni & Shtanov on Earth Thermal History Constraints on G-Variability

They screwed up their analyses by not seem obvious scenarios where their conclusions would fail. For example,

• NASA failed to realize that the observations could be explained by epoch-dependent G variations and that their own modeling of Earth's Moment of Inertia would change if they allowed for G to change. So, they screwed up the analysis, despite this being a highly celebrated achievement by NASA and Mankind. That happens all the time. Einstein is a celebrated scientist, yet everything he ever said about Relativity, General Relativity, etc, is just plain wrong.
• Mould & Uddin wrote in their Abstract the mistake they were committing in the body of the paper. They said: We consider that the 57Ni mass remains the same, independent of G. That is the same as saying that we will test G-variability, but we will keep the G-dependent observations assigned to a fixed G. Amazing that the paper was published.
• Sahni & Shtanov screwed up their paper on Earth's Thermal History by not considering the possibility that the Sun be born with less mass. We probed mostly within the Ecliptic. Most of the hydrogen rain would come along the direction of the Sun's propagation (Solar Apex, the direction of the Vega Star), where we don't probe. In addition, the flow is denser the closer we are to the Sun's surface. In other words, our only observation of a body traveling along that direction (Oumuamua) supports my hypothesis.

I hope Williams, Mould & Uddin, Sahni & Shtanov will be interested in discussing their work and my critique.

If I am criticizing here, the reason is censorship. I wasn't allowed to place this article even in Preprint.com, courtesy of Ivana Protic, whoever that is.

My paper is attached. Always feel free to criticize it... I am all ears...

Joseph Emmanuel Mullat Idiocy...:)

I submitted it for publication. Normally, my work gets rejected without a single comment or reason.

Let's see this time. These people should retract their papers since they led to an incorrect conclusion and blocked the advancement of Science for 20 years (just considering how long my work has been censored).

I am sure other people had their own (and incorrect ideas) that clashed with these "Seminal works".

I said incorrect ideas because there is a lot of crackpots out there...:) (just see the Mullat fellow).