- Thank you received: 0
The entropy of systems
19 years 11 months ago #11875
by Leland
Replied by Leland on topic Reply from Leland
WoW! Thank you north for posting this! My own research has been indicating that something like this must be going on and I have used a binary pair model ala earth moon sizes for some time now.
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.
There is only one kind of stuff!
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.
There is only one kind of stuff!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 11 months ago #11876
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />now can this help you or hinder you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How could I possibly tell from your post? What interests you about the book?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-
<br />now can this help you or hinder you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How could I possibly tell from your post? What interests you about the book?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 11 months ago #12075
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leland</i>
<br />WoW! Thank you north for posting this! My own research has been indicating that something like this must be going on and I have used a binary pair model ala earth moon sizes for some time now.
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.
There is only one kind of stuff!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
WOW!! yeah me too. i hope you are considering plasmas for they are electromagnetic etc. in case you missed it look at theuniverse.ws. i see plasmas to be, instead of gravity, to be what the nucleus and electrons are revolving around.
enjoy!!
enjoy!!
<br />WoW! Thank you north for posting this! My own research has been indicating that something like this must be going on and I have used a binary pair model ala earth moon sizes for some time now.
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.
There is only one kind of stuff!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
WOW!! yeah me too. i hope you are considering plasmas for they are electromagnetic etc. in case you missed it look at theuniverse.ws. i see plasmas to be, instead of gravity, to be what the nucleus and electrons are revolving around.
enjoy!!
enjoy!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 11 months ago #12076
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />now can this help you or hinder you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How could I possibly tell from your post?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What interests you about the book?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons. by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />now can this help you or hinder you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How could I possibly tell from your post?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What interests you about the book?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons. by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 11 months ago #11877
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours? If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours? If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 11 months ago #11001
by north
Replied by north on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours?
If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
then you have not read the papers on Cosmic Plamas plain and simple.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours?
If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: <i>Not</i> "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
then you have not read the papers on Cosmic Plamas plain and simple.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.373 seconds