Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

More
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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
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.

More
17 years 1 month ago #18137 by 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.

More
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.

More
17 years 1 month ago #19917 by 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.]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.539 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum