Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

Perhaps it is best to move on before we end up in a pub drinking warm beer. Yuk.

Given the alleged structure of deuterium, such an entity would reflect light but not emit light. That is, no active repulsion. The Elysium around deuterium would have a tendency to cool down and become more dense.

Let's look at a sunspot. We see a very black center and a not very bright iris. This is not a delusion, unless someone wants to insist that photographic plates can be deluded. I propose that the black center consists of deuterium becoming a random polymer. The creation of deuterium would be occuring at the interface between the iris and the surrounding, brilliant Sun plasma. The iris looks very much like dark matter falling inward. No force of attraction is needed.

If one examines all the isomers of all the isotopes of all the elements, we have about 20,000 distinct nuclei. A grand design or random fragmentation?

Sunspots begin small and are usually not at the equator. As they grow, they slowly move toward the Sun's equator. Then they "disappear". Such entities would have incredible inertial mass and collisions betweem them could lead to massive explosions where the internally trapped Elysium is released.

Suppose we could look at the Sun when it was much larger. A growing sunspot would perhaps not collide with another one. Its growth would exhaust the surrounding supply of protons and elysons. The sunspot would maintain its orbit while the rest of the Sun shrank inward. This would be the birth of a planet.

Once such a planet loses the protective embryonic fluid of cool, dense Elysium, the surface of such a planet would be subject to collisions by protons or heavier nuclei. We would have radioactive decay on the surface. One can imagine that the surface would be incredibly random and complex. Any radioactive decay would beget further radioactive decay by successive collisions. In this way, all the isomers of all the isotopes of all the elements would be born. The process would proceed randomly with radioactive nuclei first, finally decaying to stable nuclei.

But what is the nature of the initial polymerization of deuterium... and what is the physical difference between radioactive nuclei and stable nuclei?

These issues involve a further refinement of the shape of a proton. If this be high treason, I shall make the most of it....


Gregg Wilson

I'm completely lost. Where did you describe the basic particles? A naked proton, naked electron and naked neutron? I think I need to look at those descriptions again, but I can't find them.

And what do you mean by "no force of attraction is needed"? You have used this phrase in enough different contexts now that I'm no longer able to grok your meaning. (And of course that suggests that my initial belief that I could was in error.) If you mean that apparently attractive forces are actually the result of pushing forces, we already know that. But if you are trying to say no force is involved ...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />I'm completely lost. Where did you describe the basic particles? A naked proton, naked electron and naked neutron? I think I need to look at those descriptions again, but I can't find them.

And what do you mean by "no force of attraction is needed"? You have used this phrase in enough different contexts now that I'm no longer able to grok your meaning. (And of course that suggests that my initial belief that I could was in error.) If you mean that apparently attractive forces are actually the result of pushing forces, we already know that. But if you are trying to say no force is involved ...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Okay. Well, at least we both read Heinlein. One could do a lot worse.

The naked, stand alone proton is a right, circular, hollow cone. When elysons pile up against it and become liquid like, such a liquid would flow from the highest elevation point - the outside tip of the cone - to the lowest point - the inside tip of the cone. It is all downhill; it is all push. If the proton has an opened, exposed base, the elysons at the bottom of the inside of the cone are still exposed to the graviton flux. Since we have estimated the velocity of gravitons at 20 billion times the speed of light, it wouldn't take long to vaporize these "bottom of the well" elysons. This would be the origination of the "Coulomb Repulsive Force"; that is, electromagnetic waves.

The electron would be this vaporization of elysons. It would be a dynamic "construct" of elysons brought about by the geometry of the proton and the graviton flux. Going out at the speed of light, it would present a repulsiveness to any other proton like particle approaching.

If two protons come together, base to base, this occurence would trap the dynamic "construct"s within the hollow of the two protons. All else being equal, the outside graviton flux would hold them together. We would then have two "neutrons".

There is no such thing as a stand alone neutron. Any neutron expelled from a nucleus "decomposes" to a proton and an electron in about 10 minutes. A neutron expelled from a nucleus is simply a high speed proton with one helluva sendoff.

We know that nuclei can have more than one proton like particle. We know that they are compact. We know of a weak nuclear "force" - or energy - and a strong nuclear "force" - or energy.

I now propose that the proton has the shape of a hollow pyramid. It has to have at least three sides or more. If the structure of two protons - mated base to base - has no "Coulomb Repulsive Force" then they can come together side to side - under great pressure from ultimately the graviton flux. Such a construct can build and build. At the proton to proton scale, there is a geometry pattern. But as the construct grows, at a larger scale it becomes random. That leads towards a sphere by sheer randomness.

We know that helium-3 has three particles. Since the nuclear fusion reactor at the University of Wisconsin used helium-3 as the reactant - and produced only protons, it is reasonable to conclude that helium-3 is three protons attached side to side. If one puts together three pyramidal protons, with all three bases exposed, the entire assembly is mostly repulsive. That is what we expect with a Noble gas - no chemical bonding. It is experimental fact that when helium-3 is brought very close to absolute zero in temperature and is put under very high pressure, as it becomes a liquid, it forms a dimer. The dimer is totally repulsive and acts as if it were "gravity independent" and has no measurable viscosity, etc.

The interesting part is that the liquid helium-3 forms two phases. If one analyses the geometry of the possible helium-3's, this determines that a proton pyramid must have four sides. One helium-3 version is a "straight row" of protons. The other possible version is having the third proton being attached at a right hand angle or left hand angle. It doesn't matter.

If a four sided, pyramidal proton is sheer fantasy, why does it predict and explain so many observable phenomena?

A radioactive nucleus would simply be a nucleus with a "shortage" of open proton bases. That is, it is vulnerable to nuclear collision. Collisions typically cause breakdown and that is what we observe in radioactive decay. The type of radioactive decay is set by the structure of the nucleus. When the decay will happen depends on when the right kind of collision occurs. Attributing radioactive decay to being a spontaneous event is simply a silly way of saying that we don't know what happens.

A stable nucleus has enough open base protons to repel almost all collisions from other nuclear bodies. However, this distinction is arbitrary. When a lithium-6 nucleus is hit with a neutron (a high speed proton) it decomposes into two tritium nuclei - which are radioactive and have a rather short half-life. This particular phenomena is why we should be careful about radiometric dating. The assumption is that the radioactive isotope has had the same environment over millions or even billions of years. Maybe not.

If the birth of a planet, such as Earth, is a huge nucleus separating from the Sun, then the encased nuclear energy within the core of the planet is many orders of magnitude larger than our assigned amount of U-235, etc, within our planet. So, an EPH can happen. The question is, what triggers it?......



Gregg Wilson

<b>[Gregg] " ... it wouldn't take long to vaporize these 'bottom of the well' elysons. This would be the origination of the 'Coulomb Repulsive Force'; that is, electromagnetic waves."</b>

I hope you mispoke here. Otherwise you have a very basic hole in your theory. Coulomb force and EM waves may be related, but they are completely diferent animals.

The coulomb force is non-oscillating; electromagnetic force oscillates. Think DC versus AC - related but quite different.
The coulomb force is always on; electromagnetic force can be on or off. (For a specific charged particle.)
The coulomb force acts parallel to its direction of propagation; EM force acts transverse to its direction of propagation.

===

Radiation pressure, caused by EM waves running into something, also acts parallel to its direction of propagation. It is not the same as coulomb force or EM waves, and has very different behavior from both.

<b>[Gregg] "The electron would be this vaporization of elysons. It would be a dynamic "construct" of elysons brought about by the geometry of the proton and the graviton flux."</b>

How about a naked electron? You know, the things that come out of the business end of an electron gun, such as found in the common cathode ray tube?

There are no nearby protons to dynamically support their existence.
They appear to have mass, and inertia. (a = f/m, they accelerate in a predictable way when a force is applied.)

===

Naked protons seem to exist, also, without an associated "dynamic" electron. They can be manipulated by electric and magnetic forces (and by electromagnetic forces) like naked electrons, but their benavior is different.

<b>[Gregg] "There is no such thing as a stand alone neutron. Any neutron expelled from a nucleus "decomposes" to a proton and an electron in about 10 minutes. "</b>

Ten minutes is a long time in the world of sub atomic particles. And it (a half life) is just an average. Half of them, by definition, live longer. Some might persist for days or weeks. There is no know upper bound. Centuries? Millenia?

<b>[Gregg] "A neutron expelled from a nucleus is simply a high speed proton with one helluva sendoff.</b>

??? A high speed proton (naked, in order to be a proton rather than a neutron or a hydrogen atom) is a proton, not a neutron. Each would behave differently from the other in the presence of an electric field.

===

Neutron activation analysis relies on the existence of neutrons. It does not work with protons.

===

Most models visualize a neutron as the physical juxtaposition of a proton and an electron. That common viewpoint doesn't automatically make these models right, but it is a logical thing to do. Especially since the mass of a neutron is about the same as the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron.

However, a hydrogen atom is also the physical justaposition of a proton and an electron. So we have to be careful in making our models. Most of the details (especially their chemical properties) are different.