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">Whether or not atoms look like solar systems, the atoms in the picture above aren't floating around. They and the parts that comprise them (protons, neutrons and electrons) are locked into rigid structures by the forces that operate among those various parts. [LB]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Aside from general interest, I have one real purpose here. That is to try to understand Gregg’s paradigm challenge in a clear and logical way, in order to be able to explain it to others.

I don’t know how large or powerful the coulomb repulsive force is, but I assume it depends on how much the elysium is heated, among other factors, and obviously the EM waves generated travel some distance. But Larry may be right about the spacing involved between protons.

It seems so far that the strength of Gregg’s theory is in how well it explains chemical phenomena, the area he specializes in professionally, not just theoretically but from long and successful practical experience.

The questions I pose for this post are about the weak nuclear force. Gregg, do you see this as being essentially the same thing as the chemical bond that holds molecules together? And related to that, do you see any significant difference between elements and molecules, (e.g., between C and CH4), aside from the number and configuration of the protons, and of course how they play out in the physical qualities of the substance at our scale.

Hmmm ... it occurs to me that with a three-sided pyramid with an open triangular base, the base could attach (form a seal) with any side of another proton, as well as base-to-base. This provides much more variability in the ways that protons could be aggregated to make elements and/or molecules. I don't like what it does to the elegance of the helium-3 super-fluidity however.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"It’s hard to imagine that at just a little smaller scale little solar systems are floating in vast amounts of 'inner space.'"

I have no problem imagining the billions of atoms that are depicted in this picture. But ...
[LB] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At the risk of sticking my neck out to make it ready for the noose of some <b>real</b> mathematician, I would have to say that I probably didn’t explain my point very well.

I posted the image of <b><i>Parameba eilhardi Schaudinn </i></b>(above) to show that it was only one order of magnitude (10^-9) larger than the claimed size of an atom (10^-10), maybe less. Judging from the scale indicated. So it seemed possible for a pixel or “dot” to represent ~1/10th of a nanometer, which makes it not a whole lot bigger than the supposed size of an atom. Therefore there may not be “billions” of supposed little solar systems imagined in the image but perhaps far less. That was my main point; as I said, I could be wrong if the math is wrong, or if the image is labeled wrong. This seems sort of like the fact that we are now getting real images in astronomy of the macro-universe that differ wildly from the established theory. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />Hmmm ... it occurs to me that with a three-sided pyramid with an open triangular base, the base could attach (form a seal) with any side of another proton, as well as base-to-base. This provides much more variability in the ways that protons could be aggregated to make elements and/or molecules. I don't like what it does to the elegance of the helium-3 super-fluidity however.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In short, if the proton were a three sided pyramid (not counting the base) then there cannot be two isomers of Helium-3. Yet that is what has been reported for liquid Helium-3: two phases. That led me to four sides. One has to check any speculation against actual physical data and that data prevails.

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 neilderosa</i>
The questions I pose for this post are about the weak nuclear force. Gregg, do you see this as being essentially the same thing as the chemical bond that holds molecules together? And related to that, do you see any significant difference between elements and molecules, (e.g., between C and CH4), aside from the number and configuration of the protons, and of course how they play out in the physical qualities of the substance at our scale.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Neil, I haven't given serious thought to this particular force, or energy, other than the following (and its a reach!!):

1) Side to side attachment of protons would not presumably trap any liquid Elysium except that Sir Flinders Petrie reported a consistent, inward curvature on the surface of the sides of the Great Pyramid. Either he, or Alan Alford, concluded that that was intentional. Both of them reported such an incredible precision to the structure, that it hardly seems to be an accident. Petrie was astounded by the precision (in 1881) and he had no "nuclear energy, space aliens, flying saucers" agenda at all. His world was the industrial engineering of Great Britain of the 1860s.

Obviously I can be accused of fantasy.

Chemical bonds are weaker than this "weak" nuclear force. Most of the radioactive decays involve - from my point of view - the breaking off of a helium nucleus from the parent nucleus. This gives the weakest energy release in radioactive decay: alpha. And this would be the release of any liquid Elysium encased between proton sides.

There is an obvious difference between the atomic structure and molecular structure in terms of the strengths of the bonds. Otherwise, alchemists would have succeeded in turning lead into gold.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is an obvious difference between the atomic structure and molecular structure in terms of the strengths of the bonds. Otherwise, alchemists would have succeeded in turning lead into gold.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I recall something you said when looking at the Mars faces I was posting at the time--this is not as easy as it looks.

Neil