A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

What if (on Cosmic Chance)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 15th 09, 10:14 PM posted to alt.astronomy
HVAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 333
Default ? The gravitational field is what it is, not what you want it to be.


wrote in message
...

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.


No. The cigarette is TRANSFORMED into various gasses
along with heat energy and light energy. Nothing is gone.

Your retarded 'alive' theory notwithstanding.


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



~
"It's ALIVE !!!!" - Frank N. Stein




Ads
  #22  
Old December 15th 09, 10:43 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

HVAC Your post proves you are prodigiously even on old people (such as
I) I do mot need depends(yet)but do not single out old people that
depend on depends. That is why you are an ugly person and I am a nice
person You have hatefulness and I have none.

  #23  
Old December 16th 09, 08:10 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
HVAC Your post proves you are prodigiously even on old people (such as
I) I do mot need depends(yet)but do not single out old people that
depend on depends. That is why you are an ugly person and I am a nice
person You have hatefulness and I have none.


And I wonder as to the intelligence of anyone who still considers that it is
merely "space reacting to mass" that contains the gargantuan explosive
forces of a star.
Or does science call this just-as-gargantuan containment force something
other than "gravitation", now?

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


  #24  
Old December 16th 09, 08:28 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"jughead" wrote in message
...
On Dec 15, 6:17 am, "HVAC" wrote:

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

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

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

oc


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

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

And just because gravitation, as described by Einstein, is the "effect" of
space's reaction to matter, this is not meant to construe that gravitation
is not a force.
Gravitation is both the weakest and the most powerful force in the universe
depending upon the material level of its application, i.e., the density of
the matter to which space is reacting.

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


  #25  
Old December 16th 09, 08:34 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"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!


  #26  
Old December 16th 09, 08:51 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"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!


  #27  
Old December 16th 09, 11:08 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"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


Let us muse together, Bert.

The WNF and the SNF are forces completely derived from the quarkomagnetic
force (QMF), also known as the gravitational force (GF).
The nature of that force changes under certain conditions as the wild quarks
accrete into tame quarks to form particles like protons, neutrons,
anti-protons, anti-neutrons, and so on.
Ultimately the electromagnetic force (EMF) is also derived from the QMF.
There is a harmony to all this in that quark accretion can only occur when
the quark-antiquark (q-aq) pairs are separated, and only so many quarks may
be used to form certain particles.
The energy produced by q-aq annihilations is quite suited to both move the
"river" of q-aq wild quarks along and into matter to produce gravitation,
and also to aid quarks in the accretion process as matter is formed, for
example, in a star.

The curvature of space-time (a quarkomagnetic energy field) occurs naturally
as a result of the spinning of nearly countless q-aq pairs as they move
faster and faster toward a mass.

I cannot believe you are envisioning the Planck curve!
It is a necessary component in the remodeled equations.
The Planck curve (or rather the absence of it) is one reason why E=mc^2 is
imprecise.
Another reason is that Einstein stopped too early when using Newton's
infinity set.
The set must be taken farther, or more deeply, to make GR more precise.

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


  #28  
Old December 16th 09, 12:04 PM posted to alt.astronomy
greysky[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"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.




  #29  
Old December 16th 09, 12:35 PM posted to alt.astronomy
HVAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 333
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
HVAC Your post proves you are prodigiously even on old people (such as
I) I do mot need depends(yet)but do not single out old people that
depend on depends.



Are you drunk?


That is why you are an ugly person and I am a nice
person You have hatefulness and I have none.



Hey.... I don't make these jokes up.

I just pass them along.



PS- Boo-****ing-Hoo


  #30  
Old December 16th 09, 12:38 PM posted to alt.astronomy
HVAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 333
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


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

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

oc


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


A virus is alive.


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



That is truly laughable.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.