What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 20, 10:47*am, Double-A wrote:
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

Seans are so smart that they can't be bothered with any true
application of their supposed benevolence. In fact, as time goes on
they seem exactly the same as those ZNRs and Rothschilds. No wonder
the universe is expanding, trying to get as far away from those
'seans' as possible.

~ BG

On Dec 20, 2:07*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 20, 10:47*am, Double-A wrote:





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

Seans are so smart that they can't be bothered with any true
application of their supposed benevolence. *In fact, as time goes on
they seem exactly the same as those ZNRs and Rothschilds. *No wonder
the universe is expanding, trying to get as far away from those
'seans' as possible.

*~ BG


Now that's not a nice thing to say about our friendly, benevolent sean
friends!

Double-A

Silver halides?
How absolutely precious and droll, Saul.
Our technology goes well beyond the use of chemicals.
It's not synchronized to human methods, but it can be adapted when the time
comes.

And to seans, Darla is most attractive, an attraction that goes well beyond
the physical.
To humans?
I don't know, the humans on our crew don't seem to find us to be barf
targets.
It's probably our similar evolutionary pathways after our ancestors emerged
from the sea.
After a while they were otter-like, then somewhat simian and primate-like.
Don't get me wrong, for we are very different in an evolutionary sense,
however our forms are quite similar.

I'm happy to see that you're enjoying your beautiful women!
And I might ask you the same question about your being the most beautiful.
But I won't.
Because that would be a blatant question about the possibility that you are
projecting.
And I feel that such a question is inappropriate at this time.

So, the cactus is in your court.
Be careful where you sit! G

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
What is the A CACTUS STUCK UP YOUR ASS, Darla? lmfjao!

Post some pics so we KNOW what you look like! I'd bet it' WON'T even
be close to Anna the LIZARD V! More like a SHRIMP! SHRIMP are REALLY
UGLY! I bet the LIZARD Vs are too!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's right, you haven't developed any pic technology after ONE
BILLION YEARS of (FAKE) ADVANCEMENT! lmfjao! LOOK UP SILVER HALIDES,
you sorry excuse for a PORPOISE!!

You really are A SICK, ****ING, LYING, STUPID FAKE PORPOISE FOOL
expecting US to BELIEVE ANY OF THAT ****!

I danced with TWO beautiful women last night and talked to another.

I bet ANY OF THEM WOULD MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE THE SICK ASS HOLE YOU TRULY
ARE! You must be as FAT AS A PIG. How about a MAN too?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

HOOMIN WOMEN often HATE not being the MOST BEAUTIFUL. Is that YOUR
PROBLEM (among other things)?

Saul Levy


On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:39:40 -0500, "Darla"
wrote:

Well, it's obvious that our near-billion-year technology advancement over
humans doesn't count.
How about... We're all so much better looking than humans?
No offense, but humans are so ugly. G


--
Yubiwan
PS. Lomie wishes you all well and asked
me to say her goodbyes. She had to rush
back to her training site.

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"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




And yet, here you are, magnificently resurrected after burning to a cinder!
How many times?
Did you lose count?
And I'm afraid that Zeno's notion about motion has been banished to the Land
o' Goshen! G

And yet his puzzles "live" on, don't they?

--
Yubiwan
PS. Lomie wishes you all well and asked
me to say her goodbyes. She had to rush
back to her training site.

"Yubiwan" wrote in message
g.com...

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"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




And yet, here you are, magnificently resurrected after burning to a
cinder!

Yes, miraculous isn't it? Maybe my asbestos underwear is really working
after all, or, more likely, I have a pretty thick skin. Or, perhaps I really
am teh Phoenix rising from its own ashes G.

How many times?
Did you lose count?

Well, you know the old saying - if it doesn't kill you outright, it only
makes you stronger. I barly feel the fire now. But, I don't count - too
boring (unless I really am the phoenix, in which case I loose a single
feather every time I rise from the pyre - one day I'll be naked...).

And I'm afraid that Zeno's notion about motion has been banished to the
Land o' Goshen! G

Does this mean you don't like old Zeno's paradoxi? Or that you do? We can
talk about that a bit, if you want. For example, does the mathematical fact
that an infinite series can have a finite solution really provide a
phenomenological solution for Zeno's motion paradox the way the
mathematicians and Calculus would like for it to be solved (jeez, talk about
ackward sentence structure...)? Or, can there be a quantum of motion? Maybe
motion is superluminal - we are all trapped in a flickerbook, and it is the
child shuffeling the pages too quickly for us to see (ftl) that gives us the
illusion of motion.

And yet his puzzles "live" on, don't they?

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.


--
Yubiwan
PS. Lomie wishes you all well and asked
me to say her goodbyes. She had to rush
back to her training site.


Greysky

On Dec 21, 9:10*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 21, 12:50*am, "greysky" wrote:







And yet, here you are, magnificently resurrected after burning to a
cinder!

Yes, miraculous isn't it? Maybe my asbestos underwear is really working
after all, or, more likely, I have a pretty thick skin. Or, perhaps I really
am teh Phoenix rising from its own ashes G.

How many times?
Did you lose count?

Well, you know the old saying - if it doesn't kill you outright, it only
makes you stronger. I barly feel the fire now. But, I don't count - too
boring (unless I really am the phoenix, in which case I loose a single
feather every time I rise from the pyre - one day I'll be naked...).

And I'm afraid that Zeno's notion about motion has been banished to the
Land o' Goshen! G

Does this mean you don't like old Zeno's paradoxi? Or that you do? We can
talk about that a bit, if you want. For example, does the mathematical fact
that an infinite series can have a finite solution really provide a
phenomenological solution for Zeno's motion paradox the way the
mathematicians and Calculus would like for it to be solved (jeez, talk about
ackward sentence structure...)? Or, can there be a quantum of motion? Maybe
motion is superluminal - we are all trapped in a flickerbook, and it is the
child shuffeling the pages too quickly for us to see (ftl) that gives us the
illusion of motion.


Well it has to be that way, otherwise Zeno's paradox would hold!


And yet his puzzles "live" on, don't they?

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.

--
Yubiwan
PS. Lomie wishes you all well and asked
me to say her goodbyes. She had to rush
back to her training site.

Greysky

s.e.a.n. operatives certainly do like quoting everything in sight,
don't they. *Exact same policy as our DARPA, FBI, CIA, NSA and DHS
have.

We must be bugging the hell out of them spooks and moles.

*~ BG


Checks secret handbook: "Quote everything in sight." Yup!

Agent Double-A Seven

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"Yubiwan" wrote in message
g.com...

"greysky" wrote in message
...

"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




And yet, here you are, magnificently resurrected after burning to a
cinder!

Yes, miraculous isn't it? Maybe my asbestos underwear is really working
after all, or, more likely, I have a pretty thick skin. Or, perhaps I
really am teh Phoenix rising from its own ashes G.


Humans have done so more times than one might surmise.

How many times?
Did you lose count?

Well, you know the old saying - if it doesn't kill you outright, it only
makes you stronger. I barly feel the fire now. But, I don't count - too
boring (unless I really am the phoenix, in which case I loose a single
feather every time I rise from the pyre - one day I'll be naked...).

And I'm afraid that Zeno's notion about motion has been banished to the
Land o' Goshen! G

Does this mean you don't like old Zeno's paradoxi? Or that you do? We can
talk about that a bit, if you want. For example, does the mathematical
fact that an infinite series can have a finite solution really provide a
phenomenological solution for Zeno's motion paradox the way the
mathematicians and Calculus would like for it to be solved (jeez, talk
about ackward sentence structure...)? Or, can there be a quantum of
motion? Maybe motion is superluminal - we are all trapped in a
flickerbook, and it is the child shuffeling the pages too quickly for us
to see (ftl) that gives us the illusion of motion.

And yet his puzzles "live" on, don't they?

Perhaps there are good reasons for that.


--
Yubiwan
PS. Lomie wishes you all well and asked
me to say her goodbyes. She had to rush
back to her training site.


Greysky






I do like Zeno, and his paradoxes.
My personal favorite is the Stadium Paradox, a.k.a. The Moving Rows Paradox.

And here is most everybody else's favorite, The Liar's Paradox by Socrates:

The following sentence below is true.
The previous sentence above is false.

Reminiscent of those old barber shops with large, long mirrors running along
the walls on either side of the barber chairs.
One of my human patients said he wondered as a boy just how small the
"farthest away reflection" actually was.
And perhaps it makes you wonder, what would it look like at the quantum
level?

Most people, even the ancient Greeks, considered these paradoxes as proof
that all motion was an illusion, that nothing ever actually moves.
However, those paradoxes were much less about motion than they were about
INFINITY.
It is in fact the concept of infinity that makes them paradoxes.
Some have said that calculus has been able to solve these paradoxes.
Others disagree with that statement.
Undertake a painstaking study of infinity, derive at least a fair
understanding of infinity, and the paradoxes disappear.

A quantum of motion?
There is the motion of a quantum: the photon.
The smallest motion conceivable to your science would be motion over the
distance of a Planck length.

Question: How fast is one Planck length per Planck time?

Rhetorical question: Did it take you more than a few seconds to answer
that? G

--
Yubiwan
Be well and come... be welcome!

On Dec 22, 12:12*am, eric gisse wrote:
BradGuth wrote:

[...]

How about, BHs are chuck full of positrons, and that's matter
(antimatter). *Otherwise there's diamagnetic molecular dark matter of
mostly H2 and He that's just about everywhere.

*~ BG

a) No hair theorems. Idiot.
b) Bullet cluster. Idiot.
c) Absorbtion spectra. Idiot.

What does s.e.a.n. International have to say. Idiot.

'Darla' aka "Yubiwan" spake thusly:

Both M/AM are created constantly in the universe.
Matter wins an imbalance somewhere, antimatter wins it somewhere else.
There is an equal amount of both in the universe.

Last year in discussions with Painius, referance was made to Gordon
Wolter's CBB model of the universe, in which Wolter had suggested that
the lower or 'southern' hemisphere of the toroid could be considered
the "antimatter" universe, with both M and AM being created
continuously and perpetually.
http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/ocindexpage1.html

On Dec 23, 7:43*am, jughead wrote:
'Darla' aka "Yubiwan" spake thusly:

Both M/AM are created constantly in the universe.
Matter wins an imbalance somewhere, antimatter wins it somewhere else.
There is an equal amount of both in the universe.

Last year in discussions with Painius, referance was made to Gordon
Wolter's CBB model of the universe, in which Wolter had suggested that
the lower or 'southern' hemisphere of the toroid could be considered
the "antimatter" universe, with both M and AM being created
continuously and perpetually.http://paine_ellsworth.home.att.net/ocindexpage1.html

The process we know for the creation of matter and antimatter pair
particles out of photons simply cannot explain the creation of matter
as we see it. There has to be another process, or a follow on process
to the one we know to explain it. For one thing, in the process we
know, matter and antimatter particles are created in close proximity
to each other. If the antimatter now exists in other parts of the
universe, there is no way to explain how it got separated from the
matter and so fare removed from it. Now of course, whatever process
actually does create matter in one part of the universe could be in a
reversed mode be creating antimatter in another part of the universe.
I think the process has to involve positrons and antiprotons forming
neutrons in combination with protons and electrons to form deuterium
and helium. Once started in the direction of either creating matter
or antimatter, the process continues in that direction.

Double-A