> There are force carrying particles associated with each: graviton (postulated but not yet
> seen);

This, of course, is pure speculation! Well, the entire concept of what a particle really is speculation!!!

> W and Z bosons; photons; gluons.

OK, so if all of these things are "particles", then what is really a "particle" anyway since by your "orthodox" definition it can be so many different things!!!

> The forces differ in strength: if strong = 1;
> electromagnetic is 10^-2; weak is 10^-5; and gravity 10^-41 and they differ in
> effective range (in meters); strong =10^-15; weak =10^-18;

So what makes these forces "differ" in strength. How can one of your silly "particles" have much more force than another? What gives it (that particular "brand" of particle) that extra force?

> gravity = infinite.

More silly speculation from an orthodox point of view since those silly particles have never been seen or detected! What is "infinite" anyway from your orthodox point of view!?

In summary, the building blocks of matter, or these silly "particles", went from being atoms which are now properly viewed as complex systems with multiple energy layers to a bunch of other things but still called particles when they clearly act as waves...

So, in the "infinite" orthodox wisdom of trying to mainatin the same silly view of the Universe, it silly continues to call them things particles vs. standing waves that are held together by certain forces...

Now, I could go on and on on this, but then I will probably make Simon go a little more upset...

+-wirelessguru1