What If

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:58:03 -0400 (EDT),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

snip

Well gravity creates the EM force(again my
theory),and gravity can take it away. You see why "ladies and germs" IT
IS GRAVITY ALL THE WAY DOWN.

snip

I never hesitate to express my opinions on usenet. The only exception
is with the astronomy newsgroups. I'd like to build at least a small
knowledge base before spouting off. However, the above error is so
egregious that I'm unable to stop myself. It's elephants, Bert.

That said, your *What If* thread is great. I marvel at your
creativity. With all due respect, I'd like to make a suggestion.
Bookmark one of your posts (e.g., your July 10 post about neutrino
detectors). For the next couple months, whenever you start a new
thought, post it as a reply to that one. After a period of time,
choose a newer message and do the same.

The advantage will be that the new ideas will be set off at the left
of the thread. It'll be easier to follow, and the messages won't
continually drift to the right. Your readers will appreciate it.

Let me assure you that I wouldn't make any suggestions if I didn't
enjoy reading your ideas so much. Keep up the good work.

--
Mike Bandy

Mike Bandy Thank you. My "what if" posts has connected me to lots of
people around the world. I answer their questions and send an
interesting picture usually my pet octopus,or a bee flying a model
little plane that I made for flying bugs. I don't stay on the same
thoughts very long(that is true) I hope only to get people to think. I
hope to post stuff that is not in every astronomy book. Some critisize
me by being nasty. Some make off they can't understand what I'm
typing. Mike in this group its about even. My email is much kinder
(especially from Russia) I was receiving email from Anna from
Belgium,and she mentioned she was very sick,and by mistake her address
was erased with junk mail. Let me ask "Anna from Belgium" if you still
read this post please let me know how you are? Bert

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:27:44 -0400 (EDT),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Mike Bandy Thank you. My "what if" posts has connected me to lots of
people around the world.

snip

Thank you for your time, Bert.

--
Mike Bandy

What if in my July 15 "iffy" post I said thinking about going to the
center of a blackhole can be very tricky? (it is) I left off by showing
what was inside the blackhole but nothing about its core,and like the
core of all very dense objects their cores are a very interesting area.
At the center of the core of a blackhole is a singularity,and I see this
taking up no space,and time is instantaneous to it even after trillions
of years of cosmic time as measured by the speed of "C" as interpreted
by man. Weird as this sounds a singularity is the
closest thing to nothing,and yet it has an energy density,and blue
print(like DNA) to create a universe. How a singularity comes into the
light is for another "what if" Bert

What if this is the best theory on how universes are created? It is not
to "iffy" because I'm going with the clues nature has given me. The
first clue is nature creates objects in pairs. The second clue is nature
uses great explosions(created by gravity) to evolve energies and matter
particles. My theory has the great gamma explosion of 1999 creating
two universes. Its energy force in the form of gamma photons was as
great an energy of the "entire universe" for a few seconds. The cause
of this great explosion was two blackholes colliding. creating two
"naked singularities" each will inflate(Guth's theory here) and create
their own universes. Universes created within universes is like wheels
within wheels. This theory of mine makes universes continuos. It shows
how blackholes recycle stars. It shows that universes have to expand.
That man's thinking is very naive when astronomers tell us the size and
age of the universe.They claim 15 billion years. My theory tells me a
trillion trillion,and one more trillion years is its size and age. I
told myself when I think about astronomy I would think big Bert

Bert,

Have you tried writing poetry? I think you would be good at it.

Sally

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
What if there are as many blackholes in the cosmos as flakes of snow in
an endless storm? Bert

Hi Sally I'm lucky I can write,let alone poetry. Glad to see you are
posting. I missed your great knowledge of physics. Bert

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

. . . At the level of a BH, gravity becomes bipolar because of
the extremely high spin rate of a BH, causing the inflow to enter by way
of the poles. This makes the BH a _gravitic dipole_, with clear-cut 'N'
and 'S' gravitic poles, their polarity or 'sign' determined by the
inflow's spin direction going in (to see this effect, hold up a
basketball and rotate it). . .

oc

Actually i see three "poles"... the two inflows and the outflow
at the equator is like a third pole?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
The Flow! The Flow!
The Flow ain't goin' slow,
The Flow is goin' faster than
I really want to go.

The Flow! the Flow!
I must go with The Flow,
The Flow is where I want to be--
NOT on the sandy sho'.

NObody wants to feel...

ALL WASHED UP

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote,

Actually i see three "poles"... the two
inflows and the outflow at the equator is
like a third pole?

AHA ! You sly devil you. NOW you're seeing the whole picture. Think of
the proton at the center of the H atom as a BH in microscale (actually a
PP in microscale). It's intaking thru its poles while outputting thru
its equator, powering the *process* of the electron shell.
Electrically the proton is the anode or positive pole
(since the flow is *into* the proton). Yet it is magnetically bipolar,
with N and S magnetic poles, their sign determined by the flow's spin
direction going in (exactly as with a BH's gravitic poles).
The electron shell is the cathode, or negative
*electrical* pole of the system. Yet the shell has dual hemispheres
feeding into the proton's N and S magnetic poles.
Now a 'thought experimant'-- separate the electron shell
from the proton, so it's now a 'rolling smoke ring' in space. Notice it
still has the rolling dual hemispheres. And it still has *three* spin
components: the circumferal rotation of the whole ensemble (like a tire
rotates), plus two *radial* spin components, the 'N' one rolling up and
back in, and the 'S' one rolling down and back in. The electron is the
only particle having this tripartite spin nature- circumferal rotation
plus 'spin up' and 'spin down' of its two hemispheres.
Now separate the two hemispheres. You have two 'rolling
smoke rings' with opposite radial spins-- the mirror-imaging
electron-positron pair. The positron is *not* antimatter(!). It is
merely the second half of the normal electron when the pair are
separated. A true antielectron would have both its hemispheres intact (a
whole separate chaper is devoted to this subject).
In the H atom, the zone of neutral charge lying between
the proton and the electron's first orbital is called the 'neutrino
ring', and has circumferal rotation only. It is emitted as the neutrino
in fusion reactions. In atoms more complex than H, this same zone of
neutral charge takes on mass approximating the proton itself, and
becomes the neutron. It has circumferal rotation only, and lacking any
radial spin component (like the electron's) it is electrically neutral.

The proton's stong force generates the opposite spin-direction of the
intake vortices, exacly as with a BH. When sufficient numbers of protons
are aligned en masse, of course, the result is magnetism.

The foregoing is according to the CBB model.

oc

Bill Sheppard wrote:

The electron shell is the cathode, or negative
*electrical* pole of the system. Yet the shell has dual hemispheres
feeding into the proton's N and S magnetic poles.

How do you explain the fact that the s orbitals, including the one
representing the ground state of a hydrogen atom, are spherically
symmetrical? If the proton's spin affects the geometry of electron
orbitals (if I understand you correctly, making an analogy with your
black-hole model), why don't all the orbitals exhibit 'axial' symmetry?

--
Odysseus