What if (on Cosmic Chance)

Darla Interesting you have both the weak and strong forces combined in
your quark model. I have all the forces coming from the curvature of
spacetime.(Einstein) I have tried to fit spacetime curve into the
micro realm by using a powerful sharp curve the size of a Plank length.
I call it simply a Planck curve. This is the first time I have ever
posted this idea. My thinking stops when submicroscopic gets so very
tiny,and then I have to think along the lines and loops of the string
theory. Its all about relating. We think of a galaxy as a point since
their size in relation to the whole universe as so extremely tiny. I
also know Riemann's geometry has math.and this mass does not fit in the
Quantum realm So you see Darla my thinking needs much more time. I
would get the Nobel if I could work this out Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
Darla Interesting you have both the weak and strong forces combined in
your quark model. I have all the forces coming from the curvature of
spacetime.(Einstein) I have tried to fit spacetime curve into the
micro realm by using a powerful sharp curve the size of a Plank length.
I call it simply a Planck curve. This is the first time I have ever
posted this idea. My thinking stops when submicroscopic gets so very
tiny,and then I have to think along the lines and loops of the string
theory. Its all about relating. We think of a galaxy as a point since
their size in relation to the whole universe as so extremely tiny. I
also know Riemann's geometry has math.and this mass does not fit in the
Quantum realm So you see Darla my thinking needs much more time. I
would get the Nobel if I could work this out Bert

You will never get a Nobel if you pursue this 'fantasy' math.

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



You're welcome.

On Dec 15, 6:17*am, "HVAC" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message

...

Darla *Interesting you have both the weak and strong forces combined in
your quark model. I have all the forces coming from the curvature of
spacetime.(Einstein) * I have tried to fit spacetime curve into the
micro realm by using a powerful sharp curve the size of a Plank length.
I call it simply a Planck curve. This is the first time I have ever
posted this idea. *My thinking stops when submicroscopic gets so very
tiny,and then I have to think along the lines and loops of the string
theory. *Its all about relating. We think of a galaxy as a point since
their size in relation to the whole universe as so extremely tiny. *I
also know Riemann's geometry has math.and this mass does not fit in the
Quantum realm *So you see Darla my thinking needs much more time. I
would get the Nobel if I could work this out * Bert

You will never get a Nobel if you pursue this 'fantasy' math.

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

You're welcome.

At best it's certainly not a very strong force.

It has become clear as to what we need to do in order to win a Nobel,
is to expand a war as based upon bogus or irrational logic, as well as
investing trillions because of a few tribal feuds by folks that are by
our standards mostly extremely poor and of deeply religious types,
that are simply tired of having been continually ****ed upon and taken
advantage of by those of us that clearly do not believe in hell or any
kind of benevolence, short of our providing a police state that'll
never become a self-sustaining independent nation because of religions
that simply insist upon disagreeing with one another, rather than
joining forces in order to fight outside forces that are continually
taking advantage of the situation.

~ BG

On Dec 15, 3:42*am, "HVAC" wrote:
"Darla" wrote in message

g.com...



The quarks that make up the particles of an atom, think of them as "tame"
quarks, rely upon the weak nuclear force.

How do you catch a unique quark?

Unique up on it!

How do you catch a unique gluon?

The tame way!

Those crazy Rothschilds are just having fun. It's what they do for
personal entertainment, especially since being in public is not a good
option.

~ BG

HVAC I take no argument to you when you say "We feel the effects of
gravity" You thus have to understand to cause an "effect" takes a force
Get the picture ? Or do you always wear a dunce hat? Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
HVAC I take no argument to you when you say "We feel the effects of
gravity" You thus have to understand to cause an "effect" takes a force
Get the picture ? Or do you always wear a dunce hat? Bert


It's probably that you are too old to understand.

Gravity isn't a force. It's space's reaction to mass.

I really can't put it into simpler terms.... Sorry.




Question- Does Bert wear Boxers or briefs?

Answer- Depends

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

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


The gravitational field is what it is, not what you want it to be.
It's pure “structure�, 4-D ( imagine that, if you can ), curvature.

Net Net, all things considered, structure spontaneously dissipates.
Lit or not, a cigarette eventually dissipates 'til its spent, gone.

Same goes for stars, including their gravity fields.
Bigger objects devolve into smaller, less predictable particles.

The cosmos consumes only a PORTION of its fuel ( “exergy� ) at a time;
so there's always some left, “life� ( i.e. consumption ) goes on.

jeffrelf.f-m.fm/The cosmos consumes fuel, it's “alive�.jpg

On Dec 15, 9:41*am, jughead wrote:
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

With ****faced Darla posting ****faced bogus topics and fraudulent
subtopics, along with jibber-jabber replies to perfectly serious
questions, as only the Rothschilds see fit; what do you expect?

99.9% of topics here in this and most every other public newsgroup are
intentionally bogus or having been loaded with ulterior motives and
hidden agendas to begin with. The few that are legit and thus
benevolent can't be bothered with. So, what's their next big status
quo plan of inaction and obfuscation to suit their ongoing ruse?

~ BG