Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

Gregg, I agree "there would be no shortfall of gravitons" for creating all atomic reactions from large scale galaxies to interactions within the nucleus of atoms. I am also speculating here, but could the Elysium be the RADIANT ENERGY that Tesla spoke of that poured out of everything. Maybe, elysons are like a fine mist of extreme high frequency [an intermediate particle with frequencies less then the graviton] very small waveforms similar to what was once known as the Aether that carry a small charge [Tesla called them neutrons-he also stated that they had potential to travel FTL] that are the 'left over' pieces of gravitons from the absorption/impacts that occur at extreme speeds and impacts are pervasive across all atomic scales transferring momentum, compression, creating friction, heat, and all other atomic reactions.

Take this Elyson creation process a step further, the FLUX or gravitostatic charge/lines of force created by the constant flow/impacts of gravitons could form the tubes surrounded by the elysons which then are the intermediate particles between Graviton and all mass in this scale. In other words, the left over graviton 'atmosphere' of the Elysium operates as you stated like a source for creation of new condensations of matter.

Now, the sun has a positive net charge, while the earth has a negative charge and obviously the Graviton direction 'leans' towards the center of the gravity well which is our sun [unless binary star configuration - status unknown- but gravity wells are always centers for rotation]. Therefore, gravitons carry a charge and I will stop here but there is no doubt in my mind that Universe is binary operates in supersymmetries which means a juxtaposition particle reverse wave also forms/exists that streams away from mass called the anti-graviton [collapsing fields create gravitons, you have to complete the circuit].

John Rickey

<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 />Gregg, I agree "there would be no shortfall of gravitons" for creating all atomic reactions from large scale galaxies to interactions within the nucleus of atoms. I am also speculating here, but could the Elysium be the RADIANT ENERGY that Tesla spoke of that poured out of everything. Maybe, elysons are like a fine mist of extreme high frequency [an intermediate particle with frequencies less then the graviton] very small waveforms similar to what was once known as the Aether that carry a small charge [Tesla called them neutrons-he also stated that they had potential to travel FTL] that are the 'left over' pieces of gravitons from the absorption/impacts that occur at extreme speeds and impacts are pervasive across all atomic scales transferring momentum, compression, creating friction, heat, and all other atomic reactions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

When it comes to properties of expansion, compression, heat and temperature - I would assign those factors to the Elysium - assuming it can be both liquid and vapor. IMHO, the protons are simply along for the ride. Their only contribution is mass and a static geometry. The "Aether", once discounted, is back as Elysium. I am not familar with Tesla but any energy releases achieved by him are probably releases of Elysium expanding from liquid to vapor.

There might be liquid aggregates of elysons which could travel at very high speed and represent what we call electrons - as described by Larry Burford. I haven't spent much time thinking about elysons; my focus has been on the proton. The gravitational flux and light carrying medium are matters brought to my attention by Metaresearch. My only contribution, if anything at all, is to treat the proton as a geometric object.

Elysons are limited in velocity to the speed of light. The gravitons are vastly faster. So, between the two of them, I think they account for all motion, energy, etc.

<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>

Take this Elyson creation process a step further, the FLUX or gravitostatic charge/lines of force created by the constant flow/impacts of gravitons could form the tubes surrounded by the elysons which then are the intermediate particles between Graviton and all mass in this scale. In other words, the left over graviton 'atmosphere' of the Elysium operates as you stated like a source for creation of new condensations of matter.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think that geometric structures of protons can lead to positions where Elysium is vaporized and cause a repulsive effect. In locations where this effect is not present it could allow a flow through of gravitons. If one has a large enough aggregate of such geometry, then we would have a magnet. So any "holes" or "tunnels" would be formed by protonic structures.

<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>

Now, the sun has a positive net charge, while the earth has a negative charge and obviously the Graviton direction 'leans' towards the center of the gravity well which is our sun [unless binary star configuration - status unknown- but gravity wells are always centers for rotation]. Therefore, gravitons carry a charge and I will stop here but there is no doubt in my mind that Universe is binary operates in supersymmetries which means a juxtaposition particle reverse wave also forms/exists that streams away from mass called the anti-graviton [collapsing fields create gravitons, you have to complete the circuit].

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

I work as a chemical engineer with emphasis on aqueous chemistry. Therefore, I deal with plus and minus charges on a minute to minute basis. However, I consider the plus and minus terminology to be strictly a traditional and customary practice which has no useful purpose. If one wants to refer to the "electrical repulsive" effect as "charge", okay. However, Metaresearch has caused me to think of chemical bond positions to be entirely something else. Certainly not locations of "charge" but the distinct lack of "charge". I no longer view plus and minus charges in aqueous chemistry as meaningful. We have "valence" which indicates how many bonds an atom can have, under various circunstances.

I don't see any purpose to giving the Sun a positive charge and the Earth a negative charge. I would say that the Sun has an obvious overabundance of Elysium whereas the Earth does not. Most of the Elysium within the Earth is trapped inside combined protons. If a trigger were to release this pent up Elysium, we would have EPH.

I do not have a good idea as to what this trigger would be. But I would look in the direction of what happens to combined protons - i.e. neutrons - if the gravitational flux was somehow blocked.

I don't know what anti-gravitons or anti-gravity would be, other than the absence of gravitons. Professor Feynman was asked by his students what an anti-gravity device would be - he handed them a pillow.

I don't see any evidence or logic or mechanism for a <b>truly attractive force.</b>

Gregg Wilson

Hi Gregg, My main focus has been on large scale interactions and how gravitons form and interact with mass. So, I have only just recently started to look at the Elysium or Aether light carrying medium. I personally think that the gravitons collapse towards mass and stream similar to light only at higher frequencies and at speeds much faster then light. So that the intrinsic energies with in atoms are constantly being regenerated.

As for a light carrying medium it could operate several ways. Elyson's passing photon's like on a billards table in collisions, or the most optimal way would be in 'tubes' or around 'lines of force' surrounded by elyson's or aether. In any case we do know that there is a huge current sheath around our solar system. Here is some info regarding our sun's net charge being positive:

"Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out - many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses. The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts. Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun."

www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Earth surface is considered to have a net negative charge, primary reason was comparison to atom, solar system having similar charge structure with planetoids/electrons, sun/proton---Maybe you are correct regarding charge at atomic levels not being the primary bonding agent, and I would like to take a look at your perspective on geometries and liguid/vapor/expansion or contraction of Elysium medium especially in regards to "Elysium trapped inside combined protons" idea [EPH does occur when you overload the circuits]. Rigid relationships do exist, and maybe there are charge relationships on broad scales that are repulsive or an attractive force [attractive force could simply be another pushing mechanism-magnetic attraction for example pushing together to complete graviton circuit]. If electrons are parabolic or planar, and protons are bullets [hollow bullets that trap elysium - I read again your previous posts] then these geometries might relate to how the coupling takes place, exchange of energy in relationship to the graviton inflow and outflow.

If an antigraviton exists it would be a reverse spin graviton similar to a positron only at FTL speeds. Antigravity effects do occur, e.g. John Hutchison effect varying frequencies of Van De Graf generator and Tesla coils suspended objects and caused objects to rise towards the ceiling.

I am nuetral on the attractive force because I can see where a pushing force can also create attraction, and also not certain that Elysium would operate at speed of light. Problem I see is the extreme difference between G and C, and nothing in between does not make any sense to me.

John Rickey

We can charge a hollow sphere, or torus, and it will have minimal leakage. In fact we could alter the permitivity of free space so that there's none. If we were to flatten these two shapes slightly then there would again be leakage of charge. So let's charge up the pyramid shape. the charge is going to leak form five points. Now we have to know whatthe radius is of this proton shape. Actually the radius of a proton is still something that's hotly debated but we're in the ball park at about ten to the minus sixteen metres. Each of our five points then will have an energy density which is enough to create particles. We would end up with five particles connected by shadows. The apex of the pyramid being a particle of greater mass, as it's the closed point of the pyramid. It would also the be the obvious moment of inertia for such a shape.

Then, how does this structure compare with Murray Gell Mann's quark model? I suppose we could say that that two of these particles are the infamous magnetic monopoles.

I think that as a heuristic model it's worth persevering with but I pesonally have great difficulty with the "why' of it. Why should the universe construct tiny open ended pyramids? How does it do it? How thick are the walls? If two close up base to base, what is it that overcomes the repulsive charge along the bottom edges? If something gets trapped inside, does this not alter the energy density, as it's now not simply a surface charge?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I pesonally have great difficulty with the "why' of it. Why should the universe construct tiny open ended pyramids? How does it do it? How thick are the walls?[stoat]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here’s some speculation. We learn from Halton Arp that matter at our scale (i.e. protons) is formed at the center of older galaxies, (by immense gravitational forces) and that a jet of “plasma” is ejected at high speed in both directions from the galaxy by way of the galactic axis. These become quasars, which gradually cool as the new matter acquires mass, (by absorption of gravitons), and becomes a new galaxy filled with newly made protons. Perhaps there is some built in or intrinsic process that lets the new protons form as hollow “cones” or “cups.” This process would probably include spin. Think of the way candy cane is made at carnivals. Matter at our scale (protons) is no doubt made up of matter ingredients from a smaller scale (e.g., elisions or gravitons).

Actually, “round” (spherical) is harder to explain than “cone or cup” shaped. Think of small asteroids that don’t have enough gravitational force to become spherical, and so they are irregular shaped rocks. At the quantum level, why would particles be globe shaped?

The tiny asymmetrical protons would combine into atoms of various sizes depending on conditions, i.e., depending on the pressure differentials of the surrounding elisions and gravitons. The atoms composing the primal nebula of the new galaxy condense into stars, (again due to pressure differentials) and so on.

<b>[neilderosa] "At the quantum level, why would particles be globe shaped?"</b>

For the same reason that stars and planets are spherical.

Suppose the particles of our scale comprise a large number of much smaller particles, like planets and stars at our scale are built from large numbers of atoms. And suppose, at the scale of our particles, that there is a force that works, at that scale, like gravity works at our scale.

Under these conditions, our particles could not be any shape but spherical.

I'm not proposing that these suppositions are correct. I'm just offering a possible answer to your question. Irregular shapes cannot be ruled in or out at this time, expecially for elysons and gravitons. Neither has been observed, so we know almost nothing about them. Including whether or not they actually exist.

===

Note also that for many purposes (such as predicting orbital behavior) the shape of an object is not important at or beyond distances of about a few dozens of diameters from the object. And from such distances all shapes look the same - like a point.

Experiments strongly suggest that the regions of positive and negative charge in an atom are separated by hundreds of thousands of diameters of the nucleus. It is one of the reasons we model atoms as a nucleus with one charge being orbited by distant particles with the other charge. Other models exist, but in order to be viable they must account for the observed charge separation.

Right now I favor a model in which the repulsive nature of the electron's gravity field prevents it from approaching the nucleus to within less than a few hundred thousand nuclear diameters . If it gets farther away, the much larger (but intrinsically weaker) attractive field of the nucleus pulls it back. A balance point exists. Such electrons would be free to move about on a spherical "surface" at that distance, but for the most part they would be more or less in a stationary hover. If two or more electrons were hovering over the same nucleus they would face the additional constraint of having to arrange themselves for maximum distance from each other.

It solves a few problems (such as why electrons in an atom don't rediate EM waves - because they are not constantly accelerating). And it suggests a reason for inter atomic bonds with specific angles. But I have not pushed this model very hard so far, and it may have some fatal flaws that I just haven't stumbled across yet.

LB