What If

Bill, do you have a addy I can send to? one or two things i'd like to
discuss.

I trust you've got my address - your mailbox seems to be full and is
rejecting mail.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth. Wolter saw the
'curvature' as sheer brilliance on the part of Einstein. In the sense of
it being a 'schematic' of the accelerating reverse-starburst flow, the
"curve" represents the acceleration-rate of the flow. oc

Bill, do you have a addy I can send to? one or two things i'd like to
discuss.

I trust you've got my address - your mailbox seems to be full and is
rejecting mail.

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
OG,
Now that you're (predictably) back from your little sulk,
I just wanted to toss this by you-
Lest you thought I was berating the "curvature" imagery
of GR, nothing could be farher from the truth. Wolter saw the
'curvature' as sheer brilliance on the part of Einstein. In the sense of
it being a 'schematic' of the accelerating reverse-starburst flow, the
"curve" represents the acceleration-rate of the flow. oc

What if the Earth was compressed to one inch in diameter (blackhole) ?
The moon would be completely unaffected and would continue its orbit.
Hard to visualize such a small Earth. It has a 7miles in a second escape
velocity but,as a blackhole even 186,000 mps is not enough now that its
so tiny. Well that is good to keep in mind. More mass can create a BH,or
same mass taking up a tiny area. Seems an isolated BH will absorb matter
at a slow rate. A Bh in the core of a galaxy will generate (suck in) a
great amount of matter. Bert

What if the Earth was compressed to one inch in diameter (blackhole) ?
The moon would be completely unaffected and would continue its orbit.
Hard to visualize such a small Earth. It has a 7miles in a second escape
velocity but,as a blackhole even 186,000 mps is not enough now that its
so tiny. Well that is good to keep in mind. More mass can create a BH,or
same mass taking up a tiny area. Seems an isolated BH will absorb matter
at a slow rate. A Bh in the core of a galaxy will generate (suck in) a
great amount of matter. Bert

Hi OG
You asked,

Did Wolter think gravity only originated
in protons? or is that someone else's
mistake
(genuine question)

Wolter only modeled hydrogen. And stupid me, when referring to elements
beyond H, continued habitually using the term "proton" instead of
neutron. That was gleefully pounced on by Jonathan S, and I was sent to
the corner with dunce cap on.
But the neutron still remains the seat of the strong
force and the 'sink' of Lindner's 'hadronic flow'.

If Kevin would pop in, I believe he can further clarify for you the
matter of non-euclidian geometry being like a 'schematic' representing a
real mechanism. That's what he was yelling at you for 'not getting'.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Hi OG
You asked,

Did Wolter think gravity only originated
in protons? or is that someone else's
mistake
(genuine question)

Wolter only modeled hydrogen. And stupid me, when referring to elements
beyond H, continued habitually using the term "proton" instead of
neutron. That was gleefully pounced on by Jonathan S, and I was sent to
the corner with dunce cap on.
But the neutron still remains the seat of the strong
force and the 'sink' of Lindner's 'hadronic flow'.

If Kevin would pop in, I believe he can further clarify for you the
matter of non-euclidian geometry being like a 'schematic' representing a
real mechanism. That's what he was yelling at you for 'not getting'.
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hi OG
You asked,

Did Wolter think gravity only originated
in protons? or is that someone else's
mistake
(genuine question)

Wolter only modeled hydrogen. And stupid me, when referring to elements
beyond H, continued habitually using the term "proton" instead of
neutron. That was gleefully pounced on by Jonathan S, and I was sent to
the corner with dunce cap on.
But the neutron still remains the seat of the strong
force and the 'sink' of Lindner's 'hadronic flow'.

So Hadrons are the source of gravity.
not lepotns
not photons / gravitons and all other exotic 'ons'

Just looking for clarity here.

As for kevin - I notice he was really quiet while I was engaged in a
dialogue with you Bill, but as soon as I broke off he replied in a really
offensive manner. Is this what I can expect in future?

BTW I tried to mail you off-group - can you mail me, coz I don't think
everything needs to be said in public. Thx

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Hi OG
You asked,

Did Wolter think gravity only originated
in protons? or is that someone else's
mistake
(genuine question)

Wolter only modeled hydrogen. And stupid me, when referring to elements
beyond H, continued habitually using the term "proton" instead of
neutron. That was gleefully pounced on by Jonathan S, and I was sent to
the corner with dunce cap on.
But the neutron still remains the seat of the strong
force and the 'sink' of Lindner's 'hadronic flow'.

So Hadrons are the source of gravity.
not lepotns
not photons / gravitons and all other exotic 'ons'

Just looking for clarity here.

As for kevin - I notice he was really quiet while I was engaged in a
dialogue with you Bill, but as soon as I broke off he replied in a really
offensive manner. Is this what I can expect in future?

BTW I tried to mail you off-group - can you mail me, coz I don't think
everything needs to be said in public. Thx

OG,
This'd probably be as good a time as any to go into the CBB
model of the H atom. It modifies the classical spherical model of
(neutral) H, making it an oblate sphere, 'dimpled in' at the poles. The
poles are the inflow route into the central proton.
The electron shell has two hemispheres and a common
equator, spinning on a polar axis, the exact microcosmic analog of the
macro-universe with its central Primal Particle 'Engine'. The toroidal
form is generated by the closed-loop Process of equatorial outflow
expanding into the two hemispheres, and final re-ingestion back into the
poles. Thus the electron has two hemispheres, mirror images of each
other. The 'N' hemisphere flows up and over and back in the pole, while
the 'S' hemisphere flows down and under and back into the pole. These
are the two _axial_ spin components of the electron, known as 'spin up'
and 'spin down'. In addition, there is the circumferal spin, like a tire
rotating. The electron is the only particle possessing this tripartate
spin.
Now separate the electron from the proton so the electron
becomes a 'rolling smoke ring' in space. Notice it retains its two
hemispheres and tripartate spin. Now separate the two hemispheres. You
have two mirror-imaging 'rolling smoke rings' of opposite _axial_ spin,
to wit, the electron-positron pair. According to Wolter, what is called
the positron is merely the second half of the normal electron, like you
see in those cloud chamber trails. A true antielectron would have both
its hemispheres intact. So if PET tomography is really seeing antimatter
reactions, it has to be with true antielectrons, not positrons. Wolter
believed they're just seeing normal electron-positron reactions.

The H atom's proton is also the electric anode of the system, while
simultaneously being magnetically bipolar. The electron is the cathode
with its two axial spins. Flow is from cathode into anode. There is a
zone of neutral charge lying on the equator, between the proton and the
electron's first orbital. Wolter called this the 'neutrino ring', In
fusion reactions this ring is emitted as the neutrino. It is also the
site of the nascent neutron. In deuterium and atoms beyond H, this 'zone
of zero charge' takes on mass approximating the proton itself, and
becomes the neutron. The neutron lacks any axial spin component, having
circumferal spin only. It shares the same equator and polar axis with
the electron and proton.

While Wolter did not model any atoms beyond H and D, it is possible to
use 'intuitive extrapoaltion' to see how he would've modeled He. And
incidently, to show that the coot `can' do a little original thought
once in a while.g

Helium would have its two protons on the polar axis 'shish-ke-bob'
style, bound N pole to S pole. Its two electrons would occupy the two
equatorial planes of the protons. Thus there is no violation of the
Pauli exclusion principle. The two neutrons would lie in their
respective rings. The electrons would be bound by their complimentary
axial spins. Thus the He atom would appear as two 'donuts' or tires
stacked together.
This CBB model of atom building would generate a
'Michelin Man' tire figure.

So my errant use of the word "proton" was based on the foregoing model,
in which the flow *does* enter by way of the protons' poles, which may
not be the case in other models of the atom. oc


Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

OG,
This'd probably be as good a time as any to go into the CBB
model of the H atom. It modifies the classical spherical model of
(neutral) H, making it an oblate sphere, 'dimpled in' at the poles. The
poles are the inflow route into the central proton.
The electron shell has two hemispheres and a common
equator, spinning on a polar axis, the exact microcosmic analog of the
macro-universe with its central Primal Particle 'Engine'. The toroidal
form is generated by the closed-loop Process of equatorial outflow
expanding into the two hemispheres, and final re-ingestion back into the
poles. Thus the electron has two hemispheres, mirror images of each
other. The 'N' hemisphere flows up and over and back in the pole, while
the 'S' hemisphere flows down and under and back into the pole. These
are the two _axial_ spin components of the electron, known as 'spin up'
and 'spin down'. In addition, there is the circumferal spin, like a tire
rotating. The electron is the only particle possessing this tripartate
spin.
Now separate the electron from the proton so the electron
becomes a 'rolling smoke ring' in space. Notice it retains its two
hemispheres and tripartate spin. Now separate the two hemispheres. You
have two mirror-imaging 'rolling smoke rings' of opposite _axial_ spin,
to wit, the electron-positron pair. According to Wolter, what is called
the positron is merely the second half of the normal electron, like you
see in those cloud chamber trails. A true antielectron would have both
its hemispheres intact. So if PET tomography is really seeing antimatter
reactions, it has to be with true antielectrons, not positrons. Wolter
believed they're just seeing normal electron-positron reactions.

The H atom's proton is also the electric anode of the system, while
simultaneously being magnetically bipolar. The electron is the cathode
with its two axial spins. Flow is from cathode into anode. There is a
zone of neutral charge lying on the equator, between the proton and the
electron's first orbital. Wolter called this the 'neutrino ring', In
fusion reactions this ring is emitted as the neutrino. It is also the
site of the nascent neutron. In deuterium and atoms beyond H, this 'zone
of zero charge' takes on mass approximating the proton itself, and
becomes the neutron. The neutron lacks any axial spin component, having
circumferal spin only. It shares the same equator and polar axis with
the electron and proton.

While Wolter did not model any atoms beyond H and D, it is possible to
use 'intuitive extrapoaltion' to see how he would've modeled He. And
incidently, to show that the coot `can' do a little original thought
once in a while.g

Helium would have its two protons on the polar axis 'shish-ke-bob'
style, bound N pole to S pole. Its two electrons would occupy the two
equatorial planes of the protons. Thus there is no violation of the
Pauli exclusion principle. The two neutrons would lie in their
respective rings. The electrons would be bound by their complimentary
axial spins. Thus the He atom would appear as two 'donuts' or tires
stacked together.
This CBB model of atom building would generate a
'Michelin Man' tire figure.

So my errant use of the word "proton" was based on the foregoing model,
in which the flow *does* enter by way of the protons' poles, which may
not be the case in other models of the atom. oc


Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@