What if (on Cosmic Chance)

"jughead" wrote in message
...
'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


What do you suppose would happen if a few atoms of hydrogen were to come
near a few atoms of "anti-hydrogen"?
What would happen if, say, an "anti-asteroid" were to come close to a planet
made of matter?
And if that anti-asteroid were to collide with that planet?

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

"Double-A" wrote in message
...
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.

Stop there for a moment, please.

How does an astronomer know whether she or he is "seeing" matter or
antimatter?

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.

This can be simply explained by the process of creating the simplest atom,
hydrogen.
While m-am particles are attracted to each other by their complimentary
electrical properties, once an atom is constructed, whether it be a
proton-plus-electron or antiproton-plus-antielectron (positron), their
electrical charges relative to each other are neutral and there is no longer
an attraction.
At this point the probability of mutual annihilation reduces to near-zero.
This is how matter and antimatter "live" together in the universe.
A hydrogen nebula contains both.

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


Those final two sentences are excellent insights!
However, the process you describe in the first sentence takes place
everywhere in the universe.
There is no "one part of the universe" and "another part of the universe".
What humans refer to as "matter" is actually a combination of both matter
and antimatter.
Your instruments are thus far not designed to be able to detect the
difference between the two.

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

Saul?
Precisely how do you know?
That you're not a sean, I mean.
How can you possibly know for certain?
Have you checked your genes lately?

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
news
What a ****ING LIAR you are, DARLA! lmfjao!

Get some CHEMICALS and INVENT PHOTOGRAPHY, IDIOT!

Your STUPID EXCUSES DON'T MEAN ****!

You LIE!

I'm NOT a sean. **** DARLA'S LOOKS!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:46:48 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

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
Be well and come... be welcome!

'Darla' musing as "Yubiwan" opined on this wise:

There is no "one part of the universe" and "another part of the universe".

Huh?

How do you define "universe"? The decoupled* sphere of visibility(SoV)
or 'known universe'? Or the vast unseen domain beyond the visible
horizon?

*Decoupled from the BB point. We are at the exact center of our SoV.

oc

On Dec 23, 10:58*am, Double-A wrote:

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.

Well, for one thing, there's a huge 'missing dimension' in the current
model of BB nucleosynthesis. It totally neglects that *What* exploded
forth from the BB event was the 'stuff' of space itself. From the
superhot instant of emergence, the rapidly depressurizing/expanding/
cooling of the spatial medium allowed the first stable elements to
"fizz out of solution" just like popping the cork on a champaigne
bottle. As the pressure and Temp dropped, only the lightest elements
had a chance to form before pressure/Temp dropped below the fusion
point. And that's why only those elements (H, He, Du, Li) abound
primordally throughout the cosmos.

So whether you're discussing matter or antimatter, what's missing from
the discussion is the undifferentiated spatial medium, the common
substrate of both. Both M and AM are the superfluous and ephemeral
'dustbunnies' tagging along for the ride.

oc

Why are explosions postulated?

Astronomers assume that if there were antimatter, then it would combine with
matter and explode.
This does not happen because once an atom of either matter or antimatter is
formed, it is electrically neutral and does not attract, nor is it attracted
closely enough for mutual annihilation.
You, Saul, and all of us, everything that is what you know as "matter" is
actually a combination of both matter and antimatter.
There is an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe.
And this is why.

If you choose not to accept this, then I understand.
Scientists must refine their instruments in order to confirm it.
Why do you think the first positron was released in the first cloud chamber
experiment?
Where did it come from?
Answer: It was already there.
It had broken off from its antimatter atom, left its track in the cloud
chamber, and then mutually annihilated with a free electron.
It's atom picked up a free positron and went on its merry way.

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
If you ACTUALLY KNEW ANYTHING, Yubi****, you'd know that astronomers
have found VERY LITTLE ANTI-MATTER SO FAR!

But since you KNOW NOTHING, YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT!

Anti-matter would show itself by having VIOLENT EXPLOSIONS. No
small-scale ones are seen. The BIG ones have other explanations.

Saul Levy


On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 02:28:07 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

"jughead" wrote in message
...
'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


What do you suppose would happen if a few atoms of hydrogen were to come
near a few atoms of "anti-hydrogen"?
What would happen if, say, an "anti-asteroid" were to come close to a
planet
made of matter?
And if that anti-asteroid were to collide with that planet?


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

Saul, what you probably ate was dolphin, the fish, NOT dolphin the mammal.
There is a huge difference, though I'll admit the naming is sometimes
confusing.

http://www.govisitcostarica.com/images/photos/full-dolphin-fish-costa-rica.jpg

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
Point: PORPOISES TASTE GOOD, Yubi****? lmfjao!

I ate part of a DOLPHIN ONCE! I prefer BEEF or CHICKEN!

Saul Levy


On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:27:52 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
“photons from the birth of the CMB” spent
13.7 giga·years to tavel 13.7 giga·light·years... Duh.

However, since then, the path they took elongated to 45 giga·light·years
( because the Universe expanded... Duh ).

I like you ( Mr. Yubiwan )... BUT
...you're are a classic/chronic case of one who:
“thinks he can have his cake and eat it too”.

As I said:
Gravity is equal and opposite to ALL other forms of energy.

Gravity is 4·D structure leftover from an earlier era;
it hasn't yet dissipated... it's “fuel” has yet to be consumed.

Lit or not, a cigarette eventually dissipates, its “fuel” spent.

Net net, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, structure spontaneously dissipates;
i.e. “Exergy” ( a.k.a. “fuel” ) is forever lost, consumed, spent.

A star ( including its gravity field ) is no exception;
bigger objects devolve into smaller, less predictable particles.

The cosmos consumes only a PORTION of its fuel ( “exergy” ) at a time;
it's never fully consumed... so “life” ( a.k.a. consumption ) goes on.



Please try again, as you completely missed the point.


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

Well, then, it's a GOOD THING!

I mean, it's a good thing you don't smell like monkeys.

Many people people just hate that SICKENING MONKEY SMELL that would give you
away as a primate.

PEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Oh, this is great fun!

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
...
I HATE FISH. I'd KNOW something so HORRIBLE. That SICKENING FISHY
SMELL gives it away!

PEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:31:58 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

Saul?
Precisely how do you know?
That you're not a sean, I mean.
How can you possibly know for certain?
Have you checked your genes lately?

"Saul Levy" wrote in message
news
What a ****ING LIAR you are, DARLA! lmfjao!

Get some CHEMICALS and INVENT PHOTOGRAPHY, IDIOT!

Your STUPID EXCUSES DON'T MEAN ****!

You LIE!

I'm NOT a sean. **** DARLA'S LOOKS!

Saul Levy


On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:46:48 -0500, "Yubiwan"
wrote:

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
m...
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
Be well and come... be welcome!

"jughead" wrote in message
...
'Darla' musing as "Yubiwan" opined on this wise:

There is no "one part of the universe" and "another part of the
universe".

Huh?

How do you define "universe"? The decoupled* sphere of visibility(SoV)
or 'known universe'? Or the vast unseen domain beyond the visible
horizon?

*Decoupled from the BB point. We are at the exact center of our SoV.

oc

Yes, of course, Jughead, and the meaning was "in context".

Insofar as matter and antimatter go, there is no "matter in one part of the
universe and antimatter in another part of the universe".

We define "universe" as "everything", all that can be seen and all that
cannot be seen, "everything".
The universe is infinite in time and space.
It has no beginning and no end.
There is no point of origin; there is no "outside" to the universe.
It is all-encompassing.
It is not the alpha and omega, for there IS no alpha and omega.
And due to a good deal of photon-altering distortions, we are NOT at the
exact center of our sphere of visibility.
Humans take much for granted.

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

'Darla' aka "Yubiwan" sed this:

We define "universe" as "everything", all that can be seen and all that
cannot be seen, "everything".
The universe is infinite in time and space.
It has no beginning and no end.

There is no point of origin...

Hmm.. So, are you contending that there is no superhot 'genesis event'
aka the Big Bang, despite the abundance of circumstantial evidence
that there was?

Dunno if you've followed any of the discussions over the years here of
the CBB (continuous BB) model. But under that model, our SoV (sphere
of visibility) has decoupled from the singular 'Bang' point and
migrated some considerable distance away. To any observer here
'inside' our SoV, the explosion had no central point of origin and
seems to have happened "everywhere at once". But to an observer
"outside" the universe, the SoV (its radius determined by the finite
speed of light) has departed from the 'Bang' point at a speed faster
than light.

The CBB model presents two distinct frames of referance; 1.) the
"known universe" as perceived here 'inside' our SoV, with a singular
'one shot' BB buried somewhere in our deep past, with a 'Big Crunch'
looming somewhere in the far future. And 2.) the 'outside' view which
sees a continuously running 'Engine' at the 'bang' point, perpetually
spinning off new creation while simultaneously ingesting the old, in a
homeostatic, closed-loop Process.

It is not the alpha and omega, for there IS no alpha and omega.

The CBB model subsumes but does not negate the 'singular, one-shot'
idea, while fully accomodating the evidence for the superhot genesis
event, the "Alpha & Omega"
as perceived here 'inside' our SoV.