A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What if (on Cosmic Chance)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 18th 09, 12:05 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,635
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 16, 7:06*pm, "Darla" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...





On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:


On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:


"jughead" wrote in message


...


On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrote:


Stop thinking of gravity as a force. *It's an effect.


Agreed. So what is the actual, literal mechanism *causing* the
effect?


General Relativity very eloquently describes the effects, but
remains
mute on the causal mechanism itself (and it ain't 'particle-
antiparticle pairs' popping into and out of "nothing").


oc


In a sense this is correct.
Quarks are not quite particles in a similar sense to the thinking
that
viruses are not quite living things.


In the case of quarks, they comprise particles.
Gravitation is caused by the quark-antiquark pairs that are in
essence the
"missing link" between energy and matter.


And just because gravitation, as described by Einstein, is the
"effect" of
space's reaction to matter, this is not meant to construe that
gravitation
is not a force.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


I LOVE to digress!
What does the term "force" really mean?

Jughead knows much about force since he is a type of pilot.
There is "thrust", a force that increases velocity.
And there is "drag", a force that decreases velocity, and so forth.

So force is a "vectoral" quantity, in that it has both magnitude and
direction.
There are a multitude of websites that describe force in more detail, from
classical mechanics through relativity and up into today's equations.
Feynman is one who came close... very, very close.

The primary forces that have been studied thus far are the SNF, WNF, EMF
and, of course, QMF (gravitation).
SNF = strong nuclear force
WNF = weak nuclear force
EMF = electromagnetic force
QMF = quarkomagnetic force



A sean refinement?


The QMF is the "prime" force.
As one might surmise by the workings of gravitation, QM radiation is not
like EM radiation, and does not comply with the physics of the other forces.
New generalisations (a.k.a. "laws") are called for in order to understand
the QM force.
One reason for this is the fact that "wild" quarks, or more descriptively
"sub-quarks" are not precisely matter, nor are they quite a "pure" energy..

On a scale from 0 to 10, where zero stands for pure energy and ten stands
for pure matter (there are of course no such things as "pure" matter or
energy, but let's agree to begin somewhere), protons for example are about a
9.7.
Tame quarks that comprise material particles range from 7.4 to 9.1.
Wild quarks/subquarks that are the source of QM radiation range from about
2.8 to 7.8.
Electrons range from 0.4 to 1.9, so there is no overlap of EM radiations
with QM vibrations.

More?


According to Newton's second law of motion, Force equals mass times
acceleration. Or force is equal to change in momentum over time.
But changes in velocity by objects in the macro world are summations
of the changes in velocity of each and every particle comprising
them. The velocity of a particle can only change through the exchange
of a gauge boson. These include photons, W and Z bosons, gluons, and
perhaps the elusive gravitions. So when say a rocket engine is
applying a "force" to the hull of a spaceship, Not to mention all the
exchanges going on in the functioning of the rocket engine itself to
create the apparent macro force, there have to be huge numbers of
boson exchanghes between all the particles in the hull to transfer a
macro change in motion it. So force as we think of it on the macro
level seems simple enough, it's application to cause acceleration a
continuous process. Bur in actuality it is the summation and average
effect of countless individual quantum changes in velocity at the
micro level.





Gravitation is both the weakest and the most powerful force in the
universe
depending upon the material level of its application, i.e., the
density of
the matter to which space is reacting.


So true! *So true.


Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.


Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?


How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?


*~ BG-


I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.


Double-A


QM energy.
I hesitate to apply the usual "particle identification" practice that
physicists like to use, such as "two quarks and a photon", because there are
no kinds of photons emitted, and the radiation that IS emitted is not
"wavicle-like" in the same manner as the photon.
Don't misunderstand, because the emission is somewhat wave- and somewhat
particle-like, but just not in the same way as photon emission.

--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!



But cannot this QM force be explained in terms of already know forces
and their bosons?

Double-A


  #52  
Old December 18th 09, 06:11 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Scott Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:17 am, Double-A wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:


On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:


"jughead" wrote in message


...


On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrot


[...] Mr. Brad gets angry at an alien porpoise.

Your typical obfuscation and denial is noted, so next time please try
to be more ET/sean worthy, at least your pretending is always more fun
for those of us without a functioning brain.


cough



--
Scott

"Go forth and be a tool for Jesus!"

- Rev. Gig LeCarp


  #53  
Old December 20th 09, 04:31 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

I'm originally from just off the coast of O`ahu.
That's an island in the Pacific ocean.

I thought patriotic people only made fun of their leaders during an
election.
Then afterwards, everybody "rallies around the flag" and supports their
leaders.

Oh, that's right, you're a human.
My mistake.
No wonder people have been photographing the flushing of flags down the
toilet for decades.
That's where people like you lead their countries.
Down the toilet.

Wouldn't it just make your mom and dad SO proud!
WE THE PEOPLE.
So much for that, huh.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
So, you're originally from KENYA? lmfjao!

Do you know ObaMAO?

Saul Levy


On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:13:39 -0500, "Darla"
wrote:

I am not from here, as you know, "jughead".
Since I've lived here for a very long time, then in a sense I can claim
citizenship by having been "grandfathered in".



--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #54  
Old December 20th 09, 04:44 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"Double-A" wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 9:10 am, jughead wrote:
'Darla' spake thusly:

I'm somewhat amazed by the interpretation of relativity that includes
"gravitation is not a force".


Yeah, especially when subjected to the ultimate 'litmus test' that
requires explaining the literal *mechanism* that powers the most
energetic gravitational processes in nature, super/hypernovae and
quasars.

...it still puzzles me that any rational being would accept that she
or he is made of matter with mass, and that anything but a force of
some
kind is keeping her or his mass from floating away.


Yeah, "geometry" doesn't cut it.

If we keep in mind that the quark-antiquark pairs and the energy they
produce actually do comprise what humans call "space",


Well hell, maybe you wasn't around the past few years when the subject
was cussed and dis-cussed, viewed and re-viewed at great length here
with Painius. The 'substance' or 'matrix' of space had come to be
called by Painius the sub-Planck energy domain (or SPED), its
wavelength-state or 'granularity' residing below the Planck length,
below our sensory and EM resolution.. thus making it seem 'void' or
'nothing' to our sense-based logic. Yet it terms of its sheer energy
density, it comprizes the great bulk of 'What Is'. Matter, residing on
'this side' of the Planck line, presents the very *lowest* energy (and
longest wavelength) state of the spatial medium. The 'other side', the
SPED, obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher the energy.
Its energy density (or energy equivalence) eclipses nuclear on the
scale that nuclear eclipses chemical. Painius used the whimsical
expression "E=mc^3", not meant as a literal equation but as a graphic
to emphasize this extreme energy density of the perceived 'void'. Your
cutish term "quark-antiquark pairs" would be the the equivalent of
Painius' SPED.

...then we may discover
that it is the pressure of "space itself" that produces the movement of
the
pairs {the SPED} toward matter.


Yep, the stupendously powerful gravitation driving super/hypernovae
and quasars testifies to it. It testifies to the spatial medium being
under a hyperpressure state that exceeds degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus. It's the only explanation that passes the 'SHQ litmus
test'.The core of *every* atomic nucleus presents the _lowest_
pressure state.to the SPED.

As always, it is an imbalance that produces this movement from the
great
density of the QM energy to the less dense material particles.


Again, correctomente. It is the *pressure differential* between the
core of every nucleus and the pressure of space itself that drives the
accelerating flow whose effect we call gravity... and as a bonus,
nonchalantly solves unification of gravity and the SNF.

Of course at this point come the yowls and howls of the objectors,
with the 'Roach Motel' issue. "Where does the stuff go when it's
ingested through the nucleus?"

Indeed, where? Where does the Big Bang 'come from'? What strange
nonlocal, inverted realm is the 'ground state' common to both the BB
and gravitation? To declare the Flowing-Space model of gravity invalid
because it doesn't answer "where" the stuff goes is to declare the BB
invalid because it doesn't answer where the stuff comes from.

So, as with the BB, i'll just accept that gravity is exactly what it
appears to be and behaves as-- the pressure-driven, accelerating,
"reverse starburst" flow of space into matter, with any mass
synonymous with flow sink or pressure drain.



Yes, Darla should have paid more attention to Painius! ; - )

Double-A




Painius?
How unfortunate a name for him.

There is not much to add because there are now other things to learn before
more can be said about gravitation.
Darla didn't say anything about that Planck-length thing, though.
The QM energy is sourced by the action of the quarks and subquarks popping
in and out of the field.
And the more "sub" there is to the subquarks, the denser the field.
So yes, there are some subquarks that are smaller than a Planck length.
And these make the densest parts of the QM energy field.

I know that much and I'm not even an expert!

Oh, and that's just the beginning, so keep thinking and stuff because
there's more.

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #55  
Old December 20th 09, 07:03 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"greysky" wrote in message
...

"Darla" wrote in message
g.com...

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"Darla" wrote in message
g.com...

"jughead" wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 6:13 pm, "Darla" wrote:

What is actually manufactured constantly are quark-antiquark pairs.
If enough energy is involved, these might then become as
electron-antielectron pairs.
It takes far less energy to produce q-aq pairs than it does to
produce e-ae
pairs.

So there are q-aq pairs constantly appearing and then disappearing...

If my description above raises questions, then "shoot".

So.. you've drawn on the mainstream idea of sundry particle-
antiparticle pairs popping into existance and disappearing. The
unanswered question remains- popping into and out of *What*? Think of
gas bubbles in solution doing the same (say, in the cavitation trail
of a boat's propeller).Think of 'particles' as vacuoles or 'bubbles'
in an underlying medium. oc


The mainstream also knows that it takes far too much energy to have
particle-pairs popping in and out all the time.
Recent figures indicate that such levels of energy would only be
available at and near the event horizon of a black hole.

Quarks are not particles, and quark-antiquark pairs are not particle
pairs.
It takes a lot less energy to facilitate the appearance of quarks.
Very little photonic energy is required because the wild quarks rely
upon their own energy field.
The wild quarks that cause gravitation are the missing link between
energy and matter.
They appear and disappear in what one might call "quarkomagnetic"
energy.

The answer to the unanswered question is that quarks, such as they are,
pop into and out of the energy field, and it is their spin
speed/frequency, their velocity and their quantity that govern the
strength of the gravitational field.

Q-aq pairs head for matter like a horse who knows its on its way
"home".
Hold on and enjoy the ride!

--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


Interesting. So it is the q - aq virtual pairs interacting with space
near a mass that causes the gravity field. Then for certain types of
reversed matter, such as antimatter, the q-aq force vectors are
essentially reversed and that would give rise to antigravity! This ties
in with my theory for superluminal communications, because it turns out
that virtual particles can come from imaginary sources like the
matterwave of a particle moving through space on a probabilistic
pathway. On a fundamental level, I suppose my 'quantum communicator' is
also disturbing this quark energy. But I call the wild particles you are
referring to 'imaginary particles'. A rose by any other name...

Greysky

ps - my website is going back up under a different name soon.





Virtual may be read by some as "not real".


Yes, language can be a barrier when what you say is not what those
listening to you think you mean. "Real", "Complex", "Virtual",
"Imaginary" - these terms all have potentially different meanings - to a
physicist they mean one thing, to the layman, something else. In my
studies I have come to the understanding that these terms may mean
something else to the universe than to the scientist! This leads to
confusion! At the quantum level, for example, the pathway a particle takes
can't be determined - so this makes any possible point along any such
pathway imaginary, which is why Feynmans' cute diagrams work so well. But
the corrolary to this is that all pathways a particle can take being
imaginary, must be treated equally. Physicists don't think this through to
its logical conclusion: this is why a single particle moving through a
double slit set-up can interfere with itself. Also, say if you measured
the particle hitting the slit material, this doesn't mean the pathway
leading to the target is not valid. Another way of thinking of this is
that if you can choose a particular path according to the outcome of your
experiment, then you aren't treating all the pathways equally and have
invalidated a large chunk of quantum mechanics! The particle can still be
thought to be along the path not taken - but now this particle is even
less than virtual. It is imaginary. The energy it once had was given up
to the experimenter when he measured a 'hit' at the slit. But even an
imaginary particle can have an effect on the universe... they can still be
made virtual, and even can be made real if energy is given to them. This
is why I describe the single slit experiment as a Tiger masquerding as a
pussycat - and Feynman thought the single slit experiment so unremarkable
that he gives it only a paragraph or two while he uses it as a lead in
for the double slit experiment, where he thought all the action was... I'm
wondering if those virtual quark - antiquark pairs could be kissing
cousins to what I'm describing.


Mr. Feynman, a man unlike any other, still fell into the trap of being
mesmerised by the effects seen in the DSE.
The pieces of that puzzle will only be found by returning to the SSE and
experimenting with entangled particles, even to delve into the probabilities
of the HSE (half-slit) by using various materials (maybe crystals?) to
"screen" and to detect within the slit.
Hit them with everything; photons, electrons, protons, everything.

And remember too that those "kissing cousins" are there, always
"interfering" with the particles in the experiments.
Who knows?
Maybe the SSE and HSE could lead to actual detection of the q-aq pairs? at
least on the order of "Well, if I know I'm looking at the heads side of the
coin, then the tails image must still be on the other side even though I
can't really see it," indirect frame of view? (FoR)

These are very real quarks/subquarks that produce and are produced by
their associated QM energy.
They interact with matter and bring with them the gravitational energy
field.
The same thing happens to the wild antiquarks that happens to the quarks.
They continue to annihilate each other after entering matter, which
continues the gravitational field into the mass.
The only place one might find antimatter is near the event horizon of a
black hole, and it would have to be a rather large one.
The antimatter would still represent "mass", and the q-aq pairs would
still enter the mass, not reverse and move away from it.

If what you're aiming for is the defeat of the quarkomagnetic field, this
cannot be done.
However, one can create an energy field that has the appearance of mass,
and such a field will then be approached by the q-aq pairs.
In the simplest terms, one creates sort of a small, controlled black
hole.
We'll show humans how this is done at some point after official contact
is engaged.
Transportation through Earth's atmosphere will become as easy and safe as
walking from your kitchen to your sofa with a sandwich and switching on
your TV.

If what you're aiming for is superluminal communications, the process is
a bit tricky.
Let me know the new URL of your website.
I'll see if I can suggest pathways of inquiry.


Sounds great, I just hope you're still on vacation when I get it up and
running (But I'm always open for suggestions.)

Greysky


Ooops

Well, Dad'll be back soon, sometime after the first of the year, depending
on how long it takes to complete the mission to Cygnus.
Sorry.
Are you adding any new discovery?

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #56  
Old December 20th 09, 07:14 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Darla My thoughts are like gravitons the gluon particle has no anti
gluons??? Could throw in photons too How say you Bert


The gluons are just the result of the field interactions among tame quarks
or antiquarks.
So a gluon just acts like an antiparticle to another gluon.
Do you know that gluons come in EIGHT (8) colors?

How many colors?

Everybody put your hands together for the G L U O N C O L O R O C T E T
!
Playing at a performing arts theatre near you! tee hee

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #57  
Old December 20th 09, 07:43 AM posted to alt.astronomy
greysky[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"Lomriy" wrote in message
g.com...

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"Darla" wrote in message
g.com...

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"Darla" wrote in message
g.com...

"jughead" wrote in message
...
On Dec 13, 6:13 pm, "Darla" wrote:

What is actually manufactured constantly are quark-antiquark pairs.
If enough energy is involved, these might then become as
electron-antielectron pairs.
It takes far less energy to produce q-aq pairs than it does to
produce e-ae
pairs.

So there are q-aq pairs constantly appearing and then
disappearing...

If my description above raises questions, then "shoot".

So.. you've drawn on the mainstream idea of sundry particle-
antiparticle pairs popping into existance and disappearing. The
unanswered question remains- popping into and out of *What*? Think of
gas bubbles in solution doing the same (say, in the cavitation trail
of a boat's propeller).Think of 'particles' as vacuoles or 'bubbles'
in an underlying medium. oc


The mainstream also knows that it takes far too much energy to have
particle-pairs popping in and out all the time.
Recent figures indicate that such levels of energy would only be
available at and near the event horizon of a black hole.

Quarks are not particles, and quark-antiquark pairs are not particle
pairs.
It takes a lot less energy to facilitate the appearance of quarks.
Very little photonic energy is required because the wild quarks rely
upon their own energy field.
The wild quarks that cause gravitation are the missing link between
energy and matter.
They appear and disappear in what one might call "quarkomagnetic"
energy.

The answer to the unanswered question is that quarks, such as they
are, pop into and out of the energy field, and it is their spin
speed/frequency, their velocity and their quantity that govern the
strength of the gravitational field.

Q-aq pairs head for matter like a horse who knows its on its way
"home".
Hold on and enjoy the ride!

--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


Interesting. So it is the q - aq virtual pairs interacting with space
near a mass that causes the gravity field. Then for certain types of
reversed matter, such as antimatter, the q-aq force vectors are
essentially reversed and that would give rise to antigravity! This ties
in with my theory for superluminal communications, because it turns out
that virtual particles can come from imaginary sources like the
matterwave of a particle moving through space on a probabilistic
pathway. On a fundamental level, I suppose my 'quantum communicator' is
also disturbing this quark energy. But I call the wild particles you
are referring to 'imaginary particles'. A rose by any other name...

Greysky

ps - my website is going back up under a different name soon.





Virtual may be read by some as "not real".


Yes, language can be a barrier when what you say is not what those
listening to you think you mean. "Real", "Complex", "Virtual",
"Imaginary" - these terms all have potentially different meanings - to a
physicist they mean one thing, to the layman, something else. In my
studies I have come to the understanding that these terms may mean
something else to the universe than to the scientist! This leads to
confusion! At the quantum level, for example, the pathway a particle
takes can't be determined - so this makes any possible point along any
such pathway imaginary, which is why Feynmans' cute diagrams work so
well. But the corrolary to this is that all pathways a particle can take
being imaginary, must be treated equally. Physicists don't think this
through to its logical conclusion: this is why a single particle moving
through a double slit set-up can interfere with itself. Also, say if you
measured the particle hitting the slit material, this doesn't mean the
pathway leading to the target is not valid. Another way of thinking of
this is that if you can choose a particular path according to the outcome
of your experiment, then you aren't treating all the pathways equally and
have invalidated a large chunk of quantum mechanics! The particle can
still be thought to be along the path not taken - but now this particle
is even less than virtual. It is imaginary. The energy it once had was
given up to the experimenter when he measured a 'hit' at the slit. But
even an imaginary particle can have an effect on the universe... they can
still be made virtual, and even can be made real if energy is given to
them. This is why I describe the single slit experiment as a Tiger
masquerding as a pussycat - and Feynman thought the single slit
experiment so unremarkable that he gives it only a paragraph or two
while he uses it as a lead in for the double slit experiment, where he
thought all the action was... I'm wondering if those virtual quark -
antiquark pairs could be kissing cousins to what I'm describing.


Mr. Feynman, a man unlike any other, still fell into the trap of being
mesmerised by the effects seen in the DSE.
The pieces of that puzzle will only be found by returning to the SSE and
experimenting with entangled particles, even to delve into the
probabilities of the HSE (half-slit) by using various materials (maybe
crystals?) to "screen" and to detect within the slit.
Hit them with everything; photons, electrons, protons, everything.

And remember too that those "kissing cousins" are there, always
"interfering" with the particles in the experiments.
Who knows?
Maybe the SSE and HSE could lead to actual detection of the q-aq pairs? at
least on the order of "Well, if I know I'm looking at the heads side of
the coin, then the tails image must still be on the other side even though
I can't really see it," indirect frame of view? (FoR)

These are very real quarks/subquarks that produce and are produced by
their associated QM energy.
They interact with matter and bring with them the gravitational energy
field.
The same thing happens to the wild antiquarks that happens to the
quarks.
They continue to annihilate each other after entering matter, which
continues the gravitational field into the mass.
The only place one might find antimatter is near the event horizon of a
black hole, and it would have to be a rather large one.
The antimatter would still represent "mass", and the q-aq pairs would
still enter the mass, not reverse and move away from it.

If what you're aiming for is the defeat of the quarkomagnetic field,
this cannot be done.
However, one can create an energy field that has the appearance of mass,
and such a field will then be approached by the q-aq pairs.
In the simplest terms, one creates sort of a small, controlled black
hole.
We'll show humans how this is done at some point after official contact
is engaged.
Transportation through Earth's atmosphere will become as easy and safe
as walking from your kitchen to your sofa with a sandwich and switching
on your TV.

If what you're aiming for is superluminal communications, the process is
a bit tricky.
Let me know the new URL of your website.
I'll see if I can suggest pathways of inquiry.


Sounds great, I just hope you're still on vacation when I get it up and
running (But I'm always open for suggestions.)

Greysky


Ooops

Well, Dad'll be back soon, sometime after the first of the year, depending
on how long it takes to complete the mission to Cygnus.
Sorry.
Are you adding any new discovery?

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


Actually, I may be adding a new insight or three G. For example, there is
currently no good phenomenological explanation for how virtual particles
arise. The current crop of scientists are content to say that virtual
particles are 'off the mass shell' and fall back to the tired explanation
that the uncertainty principle gives them the ability to borrow energy to
manifest - but this is tantamount to saying that a mathematical theorem
allows a physical phenomena to take place. This is just silly. Equations
describe things already occurring, they don't cause them to occur. I posit
that the universe is filled with intersecting imaginary P2 remnant waves and
that when two (or more) intersect at a probability level of 100%, virtual
particle pairs are generated for a short time while they interact. Taking
your wild q-aq pairs into account, I suppose my remnant probability waves
could provide a template of sorts to govern what types of particles are
created by them and for how long.

This lies fundamentally at the heart of what defines true motion - and this
leads to insights as to how ordinary things can actually move in a universe
such as ours. To get a handle on motion, we need to go back to at least the
time of Zeno - who really did show that mundane motion is not possible in
this universe. Yet there is, or appears to be, motion. So, what is going on?
I'll probably have much more to say about this and other heretical ideas on
the web site (as well as include lots of old stuff). Just promise me that if
you see the irate scientific establishment light the sticks around my pyre
that you'll swoop down from out of the sky and save me from being burned
alive once again ? G

Greysky



  #58  
Old December 20th 09, 11:29 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"Scott Campbell" wrote in message
...
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:17 am, Double-A wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:

On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:

"jughead" wrote in message

...

On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrot


[...] Mr. Brad gets angry at an alien porpoise.

Your typical obfuscation and denial is noted, so next time please try
to be more ET/sean worthy, at least your pretending is always more fun
for those of us without a functioning brain.


cough



--
Scott

"Go forth and be a tool for Jesus!"

- Rev. Gig LeCarp



Yeah? so?
He's gets mad at all of you non-alien marmosets, too.

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #59  
Old December 20th 09, 12:28 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Lomriy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"Double-A" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 7:06 pm, "Darla" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...





On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:


On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:


"jughead" wrote in message


...


On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrote:


Stop thinking of gravity as a force. It's an effect.


Agreed. So what is the actual, literal mechanism *causing* the
effect?


General Relativity very eloquently describes the effects, but
remains
mute on the causal mechanism itself (and it ain't 'particle-
antiparticle pairs' popping into and out of "nothing").


oc


In a sense this is correct.
Quarks are not quite particles in a similar sense to the thinking
that
viruses are not quite living things.


In the case of quarks, they comprise particles.
Gravitation is caused by the quark-antiquark pairs that are in
essence the
"missing link" between energy and matter.


And just because gravitation, as described by Einstein, is the
"effect" of
space's reaction to matter, this is not meant to construe that
gravitation
is not a force.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


I LOVE to digress!
What does the term "force" really mean?

Jughead knows much about force since he is a type of pilot.
There is "thrust", a force that increases velocity.
And there is "drag", a force that decreases velocity, and so forth.

So force is a "vectoral" quantity, in that it has both magnitude and
direction.
There are a multitude of websites that describe force in more detail,
from
classical mechanics through relativity and up into today's equations.
Feynman is one who came close... very, very close.

The primary forces that have been studied thus far are the SNF, WNF, EMF
and, of course, QMF (gravitation).
SNF = strong nuclear force
WNF = weak nuclear force
EMF = electromagnetic force
QMF = quarkomagnetic force



A sean refinement?


The QMF is the "prime" force.
As one might surmise by the workings of gravitation, QM radiation is not
like EM radiation, and does not comply with the physics of the other
forces.
New generalisations (a.k.a. "laws") are called for in order to understand
the QM force.
One reason for this is the fact that "wild" quarks, or more descriptively
"sub-quarks" are not precisely matter, nor are they quite a "pure"
energy.

On a scale from 0 to 10, where zero stands for pure energy and ten stands
for pure matter (there are of course no such things as "pure" matter or
energy, but let's agree to begin somewhere), protons for example are
about a
9.7.
Tame quarks that comprise material particles range from 7.4 to 9.1.
Wild quarks/subquarks that are the source of QM radiation range from
about
2.8 to 7.8.
Electrons range from 0.4 to 1.9, so there is no overlap of EM radiations
with QM vibrations.

More?


According to Newton's second law of motion, Force equals mass times
acceleration. Or force is equal to change in momentum over time.
But changes in velocity by objects in the macro world are summations
of the changes in velocity of each and every particle comprising
them. The velocity of a particle can only change through the exchange
of a gauge boson. These include photons, W and Z bosons, gluons, and
perhaps the elusive gravitions. So when say a rocket engine is
applying a "force" to the hull of a spaceship, Not to mention all the
exchanges going on in the functioning of the rocket engine itself to
create the apparent macro force, there have to be huge numbers of
boson exchanghes between all the particles in the hull to transfer a
macro change in motion it. So force as we think of it on the macro
level seems simple enough, it's application to cause acceleration a
continuous process. Bur in actuality it is the summation and average
effect of countless individual quantum changes in velocity at the
micro level.


Well, yeah, but while you're looking in one direction, don't lose sight of
that enemy soldier coming up behind you!
It's the battle of F O R C E V S . E F F E C T !
Force? effect.
Force? effect.
Effect? force.
Effect? force.

Einstein said that gravity is a function of mass but not as a force exerted
by the mass!
Note that he did NOT say that gravity is not a force.
He just said that the mass is not exerting the force.

Gravity, he then said, is the result of the mass of an object bending space.
Wait, if you bend your knee, is there no force involved?
If you bend in the sides of a beer can, is there no force?
If the governor of California bends a thick iron bar, is the Force with him?

What Einstein was saying is that objects do not fall because of an
ATTRACTIVE force reaching out of an object and pulling other objects to
itself, as Newton said.
Rather, Einstein said, objects fall because the space they are in is bent.

So, push-gravity force was thoroughly blacklisted long, long ago.
Then Einstein banished the pull-gravity force with his general theory of
relativity.
What was left?
What IS left?
You can't push, and you can't pull, so what do you do?
There's that twinkle in your eye!
I bet it's that same twinkle that was in Einstein's eye so many years ago.
If it doesn't pull down, ... and it doesn't push down, ... then what?
LATERAL?
No, Einstein thought, not exactly lateral as in straight side-to-side, but
sort of a CURVED lateral.

That was it.
That's all Einstein really said on the matter, and that's all his field
equations show.
The presence of mass curves space.
Not "mass curves space", the PRESENCE of mass curves space.

The rest is history.
He proved gravity isn't a pull force.
He wasn't about to be laughed out of physics by asserting that gravity is a
push force.
He COULDn't have meant that gravity was a laterally curved force, that's
LUDICROUS.
Einstein must have meant that gravity is NOT a force, but the mutual EFFECT
of the presence of mass and the curvature of space.

So what causes gravity?
You still don't know do you.
I'm not surprised since some very smart scientists still accept and promote
the "Big Bang" theory.

Wait.
I'm supposed to say something when I do that.
Oh! here it is; let me see; a-ahem:

T H E U N I V E R S E I S I N F I N I T E
I N T I M E A N D S P A C E

Okay, where was I?
Oh yeah, what causes gravity.

So what does cause gravity?
Hmm?

(Please don't adjust your screen - we control the horizontal - we control
the vertical - this is a test - for the next sixty seconds your sean alert
system will be checking to see if you remember the wonders of Newton, the
awesomes of Einstein, the caution of Bohr and the whimsy of Feynman to see
if you've put it all together and a new day has dawned in your precious
mind.)




Gravitation is both the weakest and the most powerful force in the
universe
depending upon the material level of its application, i.e., the
density of
the matter to which space is reacting.


So true! So true.


Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.


Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?


How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?


~ BG-


I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.


Double-A


QM energy.
I hesitate to apply the usual "particle identification" practice that
physicists like to use, such as "two quarks and a photon", because there
are
no kinds of photons emitted, and the radiation that IS emitted is not
"wavicle-like" in the same manner as the photon.
Don't misunderstand, because the emission is somewhat wave- and somewhat
particle-like, but just not in the same way as photon emission.

--
**** Darla
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!



But cannot this QM force be explained in terms of already know forces
and their bosons?

Double-A



Hey, it's quantum mechanics.
What can I say? tee hee

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!


  #60  
Old December 20th 09, 07:47 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,635
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 19, 7:44*pm, "Lomriy" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in message

...





On Dec 17, 9:10 am, jughead wrote:
'Darla' spake thusly:


I'm somewhat amazed by the interpretation of relativity that includes
"gravitation is not a force".


Yeah, especially when subjected to the ultimate 'litmus test' that
requires explaining the literal *mechanism* that powers the most
energetic gravitational processes in nature, super/hypernovae and
quasars.


...it still puzzles me that any rational being would accept that she
or he is made of matter with mass, and that anything but a force of
some
kind is keeping her or his mass from floating away.


Yeah, "geometry" doesn't cut it.


If we keep in mind that the quark-antiquark pairs and the energy they
produce actually do comprise what humans call "space",


Well hell, maybe you wasn't around the past few years when the subject
was cussed and dis-cussed, viewed and re-viewed at great length here
with Painius. The 'substance' or 'matrix' of space had come to be
called by Painius the sub-Planck energy domain (or SPED), its
wavelength-state or 'granularity' residing below the Planck length,
below our sensory and EM resolution.. thus making it seem 'void' or
'nothing' to our sense-based logic. Yet it terms of its sheer energy
density, it comprizes the great bulk of 'What Is'. Matter, residing on
'this side' of the Planck line, presents the very *lowest* energy (and
longest wavelength) state of the spatial medium. The 'other side', the
SPED, obeys the maxim that the shorter the wave the higher the energy.
Its energy density (or energy equivalence) eclipses nuclear on the
scale that nuclear eclipses chemical. Painius used the whimsical
expression "E=mc^3", not meant as a literal equation but as a graphic
to emphasize this extreme energy density of the perceived 'void'. Your
cutish term "quark-antiquark pairs" would be the the equivalent of
Painius' SPED.


...then we may discover
that it is the pressure of "space itself" that produces the movement of
the
pairs {the SPED} toward matter.


Yep, the stupendously powerful gravitation driving super/hypernovae
and quasars testifies to it. It testifies to the spatial medium being
under a hyperpressure state that exceeds degeneracy pressure of the
atomic nucleus. It's the only explanation that passes the 'SHQ litmus
test'.The core of *every* atomic nucleus presents the _lowest_
pressure state.to the SPED.


As always, it is an imbalance that produces this movement from the
great
density of the QM energy to the less dense material particles.


Again, correctomente. It is the *pressure differential* between the
core of every nucleus and the pressure of space itself that drives the
accelerating flow whose effect we call gravity... and as a bonus,
nonchalantly solves unification of gravity and the SNF.


Of course at this point come the yowls and howls of the objectors,
with the 'Roach Motel' issue. "Where does the stuff go when it's
ingested through the nucleus?"


Indeed, where? Where does the Big Bang 'come from'? What strange
nonlocal, inverted realm is the 'ground state' common to both the BB
and gravitation? To declare the Flowing-Space model of gravity invalid
because it doesn't answer "where" the stuff goes is to declare the BB
invalid because it doesn't answer where the stuff comes from.


So, as with the BB, i'll just accept that gravity is exactly what it
appears to be and behaves as-- the pressure-driven, accelerating,
"reverse starburst" flow of space into matter, with any mass
synonymous with flow sink or pressure drain.


Yes, Darla should have paid more attention to Painius! *; - )


Double-A


Painius?
How unfortunate a name for him.



Not a good name if you're a doctor. Although Death would be worse.


There is not much to add because there are now other things to learn before
more can be said about gravitation.
Darla didn't say anything about that Planck-length thing, though.
The QM energy is sourced by the action of the quarks and subquarks popping
in and out of the field.
And the more "sub" there is to the subquarks, the denser the field.
So yes, there are some subquarks that are smaller than a Planck length.
And these make the densest parts of the QM energy field.

I know that much and I'm not even an expert!

Oh, and that's just the beginning, so keep thinking and stuff because
there's more.

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!



There's more? And here I thought Painius had it all figured out!

Double-A

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What if (on Cosmic Chance) Darla[_3_] Misc 11 December 26th 09 06:01 AM
What if (on Cosmic Chance) Mark Earnest Misc 4 December 14th 09 06:35 AM
What if (on Cosmic Chance) Double-A[_3_] Misc 2 December 13th 09 01:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.