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
  #31  
Old December 16th 09, 02:53 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

Darla Musing with you would give me great pleasure. I know muse means to
meditate,but I can fantasy with it. Lets hope the LHC gives us more
information on how quarks work. Quarks come in six varieties Lets see
there are up,down,charm,top bottom,and O ya "colors" red,green and blue
Great interest is those gluons that hold them together(Strong force)
This force does not weaken with distance like gravity or magnetisim,but
gets stronger if quarks try to move further away from each other. If we
together can ponder(muse) out a good theory on this we could cruise out
to Sweden. Bert

Ads
  #32  
Old December 16th 09, 07:23 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 16, 3:04*am, "greysky" wrote:
"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.


The polarity or phase of mass is always the most important factor of
complex molecular bonding, or perhaps even that of tidal radii, with
the extremely weak force of gravity sort of coming along for the ride.

BTW; why not greatly improve the odds of cosmic creation by a
trillion trillion to one (1e24:1), by simply rational intelligent
design using practical methods of directed panspermia?

~ BG

  #33  
Old December 16th 09, 07:33 PM posted to alt.astronomy
jughead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

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').

..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').

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? (:

-- 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 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.


  #34  
Old December 16th 09, 07:56 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,635
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 15, 11:28*pm, "Darla" wrote:
"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.



Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


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.



So true! So true.

Double-A




  #35  
Old December 16th 09, 08:03 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

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
  #36  
Old December 16th 09, 08:12 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 16, 10:56*am, Double-A wrote:
On Dec 15, 11:28*pm, "Darla" wrote:



"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.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.

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.


So true! *So true.

Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.

Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?

How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?

~ BG
  #37  
Old December 16th 09, 08:17 PM posted to alt.astronomy
Double-A[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,635
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 16, 11:12*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:56*am, Double-A wrote:





On Dec 15, 11:28*pm, "Darla" wrote:


"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.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


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.


So true! *So true.


Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.

Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?

How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?

*~ BG-



I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.

Double-A

  #38  
Old December 16th 09, 10:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)

On Dec 16, 11:17*am, Double-A wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:12*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Dec 16, 10:56*am, Double-A wrote:


On Dec 15, 11:28*pm, "Darla" wrote:


"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.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.


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.


So true! *So true.


Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.


Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?


How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?


*~ BG-


I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.

Double-A


So is everyone at or associated with the LHC. You're still Darla '0'
and the rest of us terrestrials '1'.

Your typical obfuscation and denial is noted, so next time please try
to be more ET/sean worthy, at least your pretending is always more fun
for those of us without a functioning brain.

Even William Mook would make a good sean minion, whereas sharing
terrestrial physics and science as though it is only understood by
those of his kind is pretty much all we get, no matters what.
However, at least our William Mook has contributed alternative
solutions that seem technically doable as long as they're always
public funded and whatever investments or returns on such are never
taxed, so that the rich and powerful (like yourselves) only get richer
and more powerful.

~ BG
  #39  
Old December 17th 09, 04:06 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default What if (on Cosmic Chance)


"Double-A" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 11:12 am, BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:56 am, Double-A wrote:





On Dec 15, 11:28 pm, "Darla" wrote:


"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.


Of course we might digress to philosophically ponder what the term
"force" really means.



I LOVE to digress!
What does the term "force" really mean?

Jughead knows much about force since he is a type of pilot.
There is "thrust", a force that increases velocity.
And there is "drag", a force that decreases velocity, and so forth.

So force is a "vectoral" quantity, in that it has both magnitude and
direction.
There are a multitude of websites that describe force in more detail, from
classical mechanics through relativity and up into today's equations.
Feynman is one who came close... very, very close.

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

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.

On a scale from 0 to 10, where zero stands for pure energy and ten stands
for pure matter (there are of course no such things as "pure" matter or
energy, but let's agree to begin somewhere), protons for example are about a
9.7.
Tame quarks that comprise material particles range from 7.4 to 9.1.
Wild quarks/subquarks that are the source of QM radiation range from about
2.8 to 7.8.
Electrons range from 0.4 to 1.9, so there is no overlap of EM radiations
with QM vibrations.

More?

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.


So true! So true.


Double-A


Also so very terrestrial, as in how many thousand times has that been
postulated and further nailed by known physics.

Ask Darla; what makes a quark, or what's inside of a quark?

How about asking Darla how we can make/create or assemble new atoms
from scratch?

~ BG-



I am more interested in what is emitted when quark anti-quark pairs
annihilate.

Double-A


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.

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


  #40  
Old December 17th 09, 04:34 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 Musing with you would give me great pleasure. I know muse means to
meditate,but I can fantasy with it. Lets hope the LHC gives us more
information on how quarks work. Quarks come in six varieties Lets see
there are up,down,charm,top bottom,and O ya "colors" red,green and blue
Great interest is those gluons that hold them together(Strong force)
This force does not weaken with distance like gravity or magnetisim,but
gets stronger if quarks try to move further away from each other. If we
together can ponder(muse) out a good theory on this we could cruise out
to Sweden. Bert


Bert, I know that your dream is to gain a "ticket to Stockholm".
Please try to understand that human decorations and awards are not what
motivates us.
We want to see and to study the evolutionary rise of sentient beings.
Human discovery of presently puzzling natural principles - those are our
decorations and awards.

Human science will soon shake the world's topsy-turvy policy machines to
their very knees.

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


 




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 07:56 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.