|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Dec 15, 11:34 pm, "Darla" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message ... 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 Well, Pere was seriously considering going to your abode and slapping you around a little, but I assured her that you were very likely trying to make that happen. (Now I have her thinking that you are trying to anger us because you want to be the very first official contact. G) -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! Think again. Why would I want to make "first contact" with the Rothschilds? You and others of your all-knowing kind haven't put in a constructively good word or phrase on behalf of others, other than in jest, whereas even at that it is usually filled with nothing but terrestrial logic and science that could be easily interpreted as is (meaning w/o ET expertise). It doesn't exactly help when you lie about who or what your really are, outside of the usual obfuscation and denials that most everyone here uses in order to cloak the truth. But then so many other terrestrial Zionist Nazis have gotten way with telling lies upon lies, so other than your fancier than average words and sufficient wealth in order to do whatever you like and as often as you like, what makes your expertise or talent any different or alluf from the rest of us? ~ BG 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 -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
Actually, that's not such a bad idea.
I'm still "technically" on vacation. Okay, I'll break out the spirits! Nothing like a quick shot of Cuban rum! "Saul Levy" wrote in message ... Hey DARLA: You're also ****FACED! lmfjao! Besides everything else I've been calling you! BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Saul Levy On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:49:57 -0800 (PST), BradGuth wrote: 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 -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
On Dec 16, 7:39*pm, "Darla" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Dec 15, 11:34 pm, "Darla" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message .... 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 Well, Pere was seriously considering going to your abode and slapping you around a little, but I assured her that you were very likely trying to make that happen. (Now I have her thinking that you are trying to anger us because you want to be the very first official contact. G) -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! Think again. *Why would I want to make "first contact" with the Rothschilds? You and others of your all-knowing kind haven't put in a constructively good word or phrase on behalf of others, other than in jest, whereas even at that it is usually filled with nothing but terrestrial logic and science that could be easily interpreted as is (meaning w/o ET expertise). It doesn't exactly help when you lie about who or what your really are, outside of the usual obfuscation and denials that most everyone here uses in order to cloak the truth. *But then so many other terrestrial Zionist Nazis have gotten way with telling lies upon lies, so other than your fancier than average words and sufficient wealth in order to do whatever you like and as often as you like, what makes your expertise or talent any different or alluf from the rest of us? ~ BG 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 -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! I'll take ugly and honest rather than good looking and hypocritically mean and nasty like certain ETs and superior species that keep pretending they care. Balanced force is always necessary, everything from within those quarks to that of elephants or whales keeping time and occupying each of their fair share of cosmic volume. However, sufficiently Eden like worlds have likely existed for billions of years longer than ours, while some have more recently come and gone before our time of cosmic awareness. DNA/RNA also has to have inherent balance and +/- limits (biological molecular forces). Under the most ideal conditions, and without random or directed panspermia, how fast can raw happenstance evolution move towards accomplishing the levels of intelligent self-awareness and pondering off-world intelligence? ~ BG |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
"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". 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. -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
"jughead" wrote in message ... Darla' had this to say: And I wonder as to the intelligence of anyone who still considers that itis merely "space reacting to mass" that contains the gargantuan explosive forces of a star. I wonder too, about their reasoning process. What manner of pressure *from without* contains a star's radiative pressure into a stable sphere? Further, there are two 'litmus tests' of any viable theory of gravitation: 1.)Supernovae/ hypernovae. 2.) Quasars. Well, let's combine it all into one, and call it the SHQ Test. To wit, what very real driving force powers the stellar collapse that drives the fusion cascade ending in Iron, which rebounds as a spectacular super (or hyper)nova blast? Further, what very real force powers the far more energetic *and sustained* process of a quasar? Clearly, it ain't "curvature" of Something-that-is-yet-nothing", "4D fields", "fictitious force", or "transfer particles" that reach up and pull stuff down ('gravitons'). I'm somewhat amazed by the interpretation of relativity that includes "gravitation is not a force". I think it stems from the close personal contact with the effect that is felt on the surface of Earth. Although, 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. If one were to fall off a tall building, I would bet my left dorsal fin G that she or he would have an "aha" on the way down. Too late to share, though. I think that if great scientists like Alan Guth, for example, were to give bungee jumping a try, they'd come around after the third or fourth fall. ..does science call this just-as-gargantuan containment force something other than "gravitation", now? Well, mainstream science sure as hell doesn't. But over the years here in this NG, you've no doubt read of something called the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' or SCO. It's theorized to be the hyperpressurized state *of space itself*, analogous to water pressure deep in the ocean.. and that space itself is a dynamic, highly mobile Fluid, a universe- filling Plenum (instead of a 'void'). Yes, however I've also read several different opinions from many different venues about how the quarkomagnetic energy that comprises space has some sort of overall, gigantic "shape". Whether it is "flat", or shaped like a "cowboy hat", or a "doughnut", or an "ice-cream cone", is a metaphysical argument even for us. The range of the QM energy field is infinite. "Space" as such is infinite. We know of no "shape" to it. It stretches on and on in every single conceivably infinite number of directions. We can sense nothing that is non-infinite about the QM field that is space. Q-aq pairs head for matter like a horse who knows its on its way "home". Hold on and enjoy the ride! Let's take your "Q-aq" term simply as an analogy of the substance of space itself... with gravitation being exactly what it appears to be and behaves as: the pressure-driven, accelerating flow into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. *Any* mass, ranging from the proton to the black hole engine of a quasar, is a flow sink to the hyperpressurized spatial medium. Its pressure-state exceeds the degenerative pressure of the atomic nucleus. Heresy, anyone? (: If we keep in mind that the quark-antiquark pairs and the energy they produce actually do comprise what humans call "space", then we may discover that it is the pressure of "space itself" that produces the movement of the pairs toward matter. As always, it is an imbalance that produces this movement from the great density of the QM energy to the less dense material particles. -- The energy produced by q-aq anihilations is quite suited to both move the "river"...along and into matter to produce gravitation... Let's rephrase it slightly. "The pressure-state of the SCO is quite sufficient to accelerate the 'river' along into matter; producing the effect called gravitation." The energy produced by q-aq annihilations is dense enough to both keep the "river" moving and to accelerate it into less dense matter. The curvature of space-time...occurs naturally as a result of... countless q-aq pairs as they move faster and faster toward a mass. With your "q-aq" term seen simply as a metaphor of space itself, the "curvature" is a descriptor of the *acceleration rate* of flowing space. 'Curvature' is the accelerometer readout. Without acceleration there is no 'curvature', no gravity, no momentum imparted to matter embedded in the flow. Conversely, in the absence of acceleration, an object moving through space encounters no resistance *irrespective of its velocity* (Newton's first law). But when you accelerate that object in space, the resistance you feel (inertia) is literally the resistance *of space itself* to the acceleration. This self-same property of space itself, its 'hyperfluidity', underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and conservation of momentum. And it explains gravity-acceleration equivalence which Einstein so eloquently *described* in his famous 'space elevator' scenario. And as a fortuitous, unsolicited spinoff, the Flowing-Space model yields unification of gravity and the strong nuclear force, the long- sought 'wild card' in any UFTOE/GUT. The QM energy field is the source of all energies and of all matter. And that field is infinite in time and space. -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
"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. 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 -- **** Darla Be well and come... be welcome You are the fifth star! |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
"Darla" wrote in message g.com... 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 LOL! 'quarkomagnetic' ? What a retard! 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. Those 'wild' quarks sure do like to party! 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. Well, I've never heard that before. I've *stepped* in it once or twice............ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
Darla I would love to share a Nobel with you. I know its in reality
only a dream ,but I can wish upon a star. Bert |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
Darla My thoughts are like gravitons the gluon particle has no anti
gluons??? Could throw in photons too How say you Bert |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Cosmic Chance)
'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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |