Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

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

<b>[LB] "For the same reason that stars and planets are spherical."</b>

<b>[Gregg] "You are supposing that a proton is also a mixture? Which means any size, any shape, any mass? If this were so then our use of chemistry would be a complete failure. We would not be able to carry out any reactions, separations or purifications. Yet we do."</b>

There is no reason that the rules governing particle assemblies at that size range must be the same as the rules governing particle assemblies at our size range. If they follow different rules (for example, the force at that size range that causes particles to group together does not behave just like gravity behaves at our size range, and/or there is no close equivalent of the electrostatic force) then those particle assemblies might have moderate to severe constraints on their shapes and/or masses and/or sizes. Constraints that don’t exist at our size range.

===

So, what rules do they follow? We can make some inferences based on bulk behavior. But until we can study a specific individual particle, and as many (or as few) of its neighbors as we desire, for as long as we desire, we run the risk of misinterpreting what the bulk data actually mean. Much of current science looks at the statistical behavior of large numbers of particles and then models individual particles as “probabilities”. The equations work (how could they not?), but look at the physics - no independent reality? I can be wrong, but to me this just sounds <u>profoundly</u> dumb.

In fact, you are arguing that this (individual particle properties can be incorrectly inferred from bulk data) has already happened even before QM. You are probably right. But your proposed alternative is probably not. After all, it is also inferred from the bulk behavior.

My proposed alternative has the same problem.

For now all of us have no choice but to work from the bulk behavior. To the extent that the rules “down there” are different from the rules “up here” we are likely to misinterpret things. Once we can make direct observations that should change. Until then we are mostly just stabbing in the dark.

For people who are interested in qed, I suggest they watch the Feynman lectures on the subject vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Hi Neil

Have read your article. I was ready to pounce all over it. I haven't found any mistakes or shortcomings. Without it being your slightest intention, you have thoroughly deflated my ego. I will be in the toy room playing with my wooden blocks......


Gregg Wilson

Hi Larry,

Here is what I have come up with regarding a Reciprocol Motion Model of Universe. Thanks to your input I was able to clarify my word structure and strengthen my understandings of the structural components involved in greater universe circulations. If atoms and their sub components always form pairs of matter and antimatter, then these high rotations as noted in sub b mesons at three trillion times per second reveal the greater structure of Universe.


RECIPROCOL MOTION MODEL OF UNIVERSE

“The Theoretical Framework for a Continuous Creation Model of Universe that is balanced in Reciprocal Motion; here are the primary points: 1) The Universe has always existed, 2) Space is infinite, flat, and without curvature; only fields of energized particles in motion generate mass, time, and curvature, 3) The Universe operates in a wide range of motion to include infinitely small atomic structure to infinitely large circulations of mass, a wide range of motion above and below the speed of light, and a wide range of frequencies that operate above or below the frequencies of light, 4) the faster the speed of motion by a particle the higher the frequencies generated, 5) All mass in motion is the result of a higher scale cascade of higher frequencies and higher speed particles in motion collapsing into lower frequency lower speed range of scales of motion creating mass accelerations, mass regeneration, gravity and all quantum forces, 6) In a multiple scale wide spectrum Universe, each range of motion has a specific band width of frequencies such as found within the visible universe spectrum of light that is the base rate of motion within that scale, all atomic particles with in a given scale of motion forms an inverse mirror of large scale order with each successively smaller sub particles representing cycling of ever higher frequencies that are matched to greater universe motions that also form in pairs of matter and antimatter opposing rotations in a wide range of ever greater scales of size, frequency, and speeds of motion around coordinated axis centers of rotation, 7) Within all scales of motion, gravity and mass accelerations are the result of opposing circulations of Matter and Antimatter portions of Universe accelerating around each other attempting to collapse back to the zero point, In Forward Time Domains, Matter is the primary substance and the bound Antimatter particles with Matter take on the properties of Matter; whereas in Reverse Time Domains, Antimatter is the dominant particle and we can only see the interaction between the two domains in CP violations, and in virtual pair formations resulting in annihilations and relativity jets from centers of Black Holes where we are able to recognize the interactions with Antimatter circuits operating within Reverse Time Domain circulations, 9) Graviton impacts represent the leading edge of the Forward Time Wave and are absorbed by Matter, upon Nucleonic absorption the wave reverses and exits from a partner Antimatter sub particle forming Antigravitons in a much reduced energy state creating a repulsive force, and finally, 10) The law of attraction of opposites, as revealed in large scale attractions between Forward and Reverse Time Domains perpetuates the recycling of energies and the continuous Creation of the Universe.”

John Rickey

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In terms of scale, the closest things to protons are atoms and molecules. They do not display any sphericalness at all. Quite the contrary. And they are much closer in scale to protons than are stars and planets. The smaller the "planet" or "moon" or "asteroid", the further they vary in shape from spheres. So the claim that things look the same at every scale is not supported by actual, observational data. One can grow extremely large crystals - given a continuing supply of raw ingrediants - and we have many different shapes most distinctly showing straight lines, edges and flat planes.

In the drug industry, specific geometries are used to successfully predict the behavior of "designer" molecules. Perhaps this is metaphysical high treason.

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

When you get a chance, I'd like to see how this line of thought develops. [Neil]

I can't see how this can possibly work. The task in hand is not to dump qed but to make sense of it. How photons and electrons behave in a hydrogen atom at various energy levels is correct but then how planets behaved in the crystal sphere model was workable.

By introducing ftl gravitons, we have a chance of explaining what's going on at the microscopic level. For one thing, it puts simultaneity back into the picture. It also removes the need for microscopic "observers" that inhabit a stationary ether devoid of any content, which is what Einstein did with the empty abstraction of space time.

A charged triangle leaks from the three points, a charged square leaks less, a hexagon less again. A circle, a pure circle, is a polygon of infinite points. Wrap that into a sphere of equal surface area and we have something that will retain its charge. An electron has to conserve its charge over billions of years.

If the energy of an electron is made solely from electromagnetic energy, then we can work out a radius for it, of about ten to the minus fifteen metres. As a passing remark in Cosmicsurfer's thread, I said that, out of idle curiosity, I worked out what the radius would be if an electron was going at about 17.9 billion times c. It works out as being about one hundredth of h. That suggests to me that I've got the speed of gravity a little bit too high still. With this in mind, it's small wonder that collisions are measured in discrete energy lumps.

One thing has to go, I think we simply must say that h has dimensions. it conserves angular momentum, between the electromagnetic energy of an electron and its gravitational energy. An electron would have two radii, one at h the other at ten to the minus fifteen.