Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />The term "antimatter" is unfortunate, however it doesn't mean "anti mass." The anti particle is exactly the same as its countepart, apart from charge. So, what do we mean by an anti neutron? A neutron has a magnetic field, and the poles are reversed for the anti neutron.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, there is cause to question the concept of positive and negative charges. What is it? How does it effect other entities?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
On another matter, how thick are the walls of this proton model? At the moment they have zero thickness, and therefore zero mass.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

About six inches. Same as the glacis plate on a King Tiger tank.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
Oddly, there is somethng called a pentaquark. [8D] Something with a neutron and a pi meson, it doesn't last long though.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am holding out for the penultimate quark.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
On the model itself, it might be an idea to look at the cone shape first. It's a conic section and there's loads of work on that particular problem.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here, Mr. Stoat, you might have a valid idea. The only trouble with a cone is that it is not perceptually obvious how they would attach to one another, side by side.

Gregg Wilson

Gregg, The process you layed out seems a lot like the White Dwarf or neutron star model-is that right or wrong? That is a standard model-right?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Gregg, The process you layed out seems a lot like the White Dwarf or neutron star model-is that right or wrong? That is a standard model-right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If large nuclear masses individually lose their angular momentum through collisions and fall downward toward the center of a star, they would finally act like monstrous deuterium nuclei. That is, they would not have an overwhelming "Coulomb" repulsion effect which would revaporize liquid Elysium. If this became a predominant phenomena, then they would undergo pressurization and tend to dollapse into a single nuclear mass - <b>at the center.</b>If this became the case, there would be no route of retreat for liquid Elysium. This Elysium would be rapidly heated up and vaporized. The result would be a nova or a supernova, all depending on the "perfection" of the central mass. One would then have a "neutron" star after it was over.

Possibly, its high rotation would offset the capacity for small nuclei to collide with its surface and cause incremental radioactive decay. If one finally has a surface completely covered by open base protons, then repulsion would be "perfect".

But this is speculation piled on speculation piled on speculation..

I would not bet my IRA on it.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
<br />Hi Gregg, Actually mass is constantly being accelerated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If some mass is being accelerated then the other mass which is accelerating it through collisions must be decelerating. If one could some up all momentum in the Universe, it would be a constant. So, in turn, some structures come together while other structures fall apart.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
....with out mathematics physics is a religion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The physical phenomena must be understood and measured. Then, one can possibly form an equation which will reproduce the data. If the equation works, then it can be used for extrapolations where effects are given numerical values. Nothing more.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
Matter only exists because of Antimatter. Fermi Labs discovers Sub b Mesons rotating between Matter and Antimatter states at three trillion times per second! Gregg if that is not extreme motion then what is????
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The axiom is that Existence exists. I have no clue as to what anti-matter is. If it "balances" against matter, then haven't you described a "zero sum" game where the totality is nothing?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
Equations are required in understanding cause and effect relationships of Physical properties.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, equations are needed to make quantitative predictions of what the effects are if one knows what the quantitative values of the causes are.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cosmicsurfer</i>
The only reason there is any accelerations at all is because of the matter and antimatter orbital relationships. In fact nothing would exist without this separation going in opposing directions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, you seem to have a "zero sum" description. What is the evidence and need for anti-matter? Why is matter impossible?

A description of physical phenomena has to be measurable and repeatable. Otherwise, one is testifying about "flying saucers".

Gregg Wilson

Hi Gregg,

I will start with your last comments first:

1) "Once again, you seem to have a "zero sum" description. What is the evidence and need for anti-matter? Why is matter impossible?"

A. To answer your question yes Antimatter does exist. Antimatter exists in its own time frame. During annihilations with matter--there is not a ZERO SUM but an explosion so energy cannot be destroyed and neither can the Universe. The energy is just recycled back into the two directional time frames with light and antilight gamma rays.

B. Why matter would not exist without antimatter. Simply because without antimatter there would be zero causation for required torque to drive engines of Universe. Matter is not self contained, it requires energy like everything else to maintain itself as part of a great cycle. Everything is trying to collapse back to ZERO, but it cannot because it just spins around itself...that is the key...to understanding how the cycling of energy in Universe works!

2) "A description of physical phenomena has to be measurable and repeatable. Otherwise, one is testifying about "flying saucers"."

Yes, I totally agree with that statment. The SEG research is repeatable, has been documented by film, and replicated and this technology has been around for 60 years. My goal is to help this technology to finally get developed so that we can advance away from an oil economy.

3) "The axiom is that Existence exists. I have no clue as to what anti-matter is. If it "balances" against matter, then haven't you described a "zero sum" game where the totality is nothing?"

You are right, the truth is that existance does exist...we are alive. Alright, here is why I came to the conclusions that a two way flow of time exists. Let's look at Big Bang scenario---Nothing existed except a fine point singularity. The Meta Model does not believe in Big Bang or Singularities, and neither do I...But, Zero Motion Voids where nothing can exist may in fact exist somewhere in Universe. So, supposedly this Singularity exploded,,,what was the cause?.no one knows...I find that almost hilarious! [other problems with Big Bang, no causation, entropic model runs down, not self sustaining...whereas, balance between matter and antimatter is self sustaining and recycles energy back to each time domain during annihilations] So, logically if space is infinite, and in an infinite Universe then there is a continuum that dictates a boundary condition must have something on the other side....So, I did away with the Big Bang theory it is useless and is not logical.

The Universe has always existed period. Next, was why antimatter, why does it explode when making contact with matter, why is there not very much antimatter found except during collider experiments, or in relativity jets. I explored the possibility that a two way time condition existed and my conclusion was that it does exist and this dual nature is the reason that MASS can exist at all. If the graviton cycle, which is a part of the greater cycling of energy between two succinct domains of matter and antimatter [this relationship is just beginning to be understood so everything is in beginning stages], disappeared tomorrow everything would stop running [then Nothing--ZERO SUM--would exist], just like turning off the lights.

My view is slightly different than Meta Model in that graviton frequencies are demodulated as currents not an impact per say...because all spining waveforms in what ever shape, even pyramid shapes such as your proton must interact in such a way that for the most part integrity is maintained otherwise life or fine structure of a crystalline nature could not evolve...the exchange is more eligant at finer levels that is until the circuits are overloaded then all bets are off and we are looking at EPH!

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmicsurfer
Equations are required in understanding cause and effect relationships of Physical properties.

---

4) "No, equations are needed to make quantitative predictions of what the effects are if one knows what the quantitative values of the causes are."

I would agree with your statement. I also agree with my statement that equations are necessary for describing natural processes.

5) Hi Gregg, Actually mass is constantly being accelerated.

---

"If some mass is being accelerated then the other mass which is accelerating it through collisions must be decelerating. If one could some up all momentum in the Universe, it would be a constant. So, in turn, some structures come together while other structures fall apart."

I agree with your statement, what I was referring to was graviton bombardments/demodulations within all atoms---transferring momentum, creating orbital accelerations on large scale on all planetary bodies in Forward Time. This Graviton current maintains equilibrium of waveforms, but as you stated other conditions can arise causing things to go Supernovae.


John Rickey

Is this what your carbon atom would look like? It looks pretty, we could always sell them as a toy building set [][8D]