- Thank you received: 0
Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory
17 years 1 month ago #18079
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
Larry
You have valid points. I am currently buried under technical proposals. Will get to your points on the weekend.
Gregg Wilson
You have valid points. I am currently buried under technical proposals. Will get to your points on the weekend.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 1 month ago #19916
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
What about force? Some say it is not real and is only used in simple calculations that lead to circular results. Its not a part of QM for example so is it involved in nuclear research?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 1 month ago #18137
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
You should probably be more specific, Jim. "Force" can refer to a lot of different things. But even when you get down to specifics, whether or not a particular force is real depends a lot on which model you use.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 1 month ago #18082
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
QM guys tell me force in general is nothing more than a method for doing simple calculations and pros don't do stuff with force. They use other means.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 1 month ago #19917
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
QM is a model of the world that views forces differently than models based on classical physics. It makes some very accurate predictions about what will happen if you do this or if you do that.
But a model's ability to acccurately <u>describe and predict</u> things (the mathematical part of a model) is different from a model's ability to <u>explain how and why</u> those things happen (the physics part of a model).
On the physics side of things many followers of QM have concluded that "there is no deep reality". And the followers of geometric GR have concluded that geometry (IOW, an equation) is able to influence something physical like a mass.
I prefer models that postulate (assume) that there is a deep reality. That's why I'm here. MM may not be right either, but it has a better chance than the Name Brand models. IMO.
Still, I try to keep an open mind - they might be right and I might be wrong. But until I see someone build a mechanism of any sort that can make a measurement in 4D space-time, I'm going to assume that reality is 3D. To the best of my knowledge, ALL scientific measurements (and in fact all non-scientific measurements, too) that have ever been made have been made in 3D-space-plus-time.
[If someone knows of an exception, I'd like to hear about it.]
But a model's ability to acccurately <u>describe and predict</u> things (the mathematical part of a model) is different from a model's ability to <u>explain how and why</u> those things happen (the physics part of a model).
On the physics side of things many followers of QM have concluded that "there is no deep reality". And the followers of geometric GR have concluded that geometry (IOW, an equation) is able to influence something physical like a mass.
I prefer models that postulate (assume) that there is a deep reality. That's why I'm here. MM may not be right either, but it has a better chance than the Name Brand models. IMO.
Still, I try to keep an open mind - they might be right and I might be wrong. But until I see someone build a mechanism of any sort that can make a measurement in 4D space-time, I'm going to assume that reality is 3D. To the best of my knowledge, ALL scientific measurements (and in fact all non-scientific measurements, too) that have ever been made have been made in 3D-space-plus-time.
[If someone knows of an exception, I'd like to hear about it.]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- cosmicsurfer
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
17 years 1 month ago #18084
by cosmicsurfer
Replied by cosmicsurfer on topic Reply from John Rickey
Hi Gregg, It is good to see open discussion regarding problems with existing theoretical models predicting fusion reactions by utilizing high strength magnetic field containment. Especially since feromagnetic effects I think are channeling conductance creating lines of force from FTL gravitostic flux fields that are normally surrounding all mass anyway. Concentrating magnetic flux then becomes a barrier to the gravitostatic feeder high frequency FTL wave pattern interactions that sustains the fusion process [all mass is constantly being regenerated, created, or destroyed by this process] in the first place!!!! So that these high magnetic fields are literally inhibiting fusion!!!
I agree that geometries, and especially assymetric shapes are the result of this greater interaction with high frequency FTL gravitons. I disagree with the premise that E=MC^2 is an accurate interpretation of how energy exists with in the process of mass regenerations, because atomic structure, waveforms, or particles is an effect of this greater interaction that originates from outside of this scale.
John
I agree that geometries, and especially assymetric shapes are the result of this greater interaction with high frequency FTL gravitons. I disagree with the premise that E=MC^2 is an accurate interpretation of how energy exists with in the process of mass regenerations, because atomic structure, waveforms, or particles is an effect of this greater interaction that originates from outside of this scale.
John
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.539 seconds