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
  #41  
Old December 17th 09, 04:39 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, 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!


Ads
  #42  
Old December 17th 09, 04:41 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 06:10 AM posted to alt.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 07:16 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 08:18 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Darla[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 165
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 10:37 AM posted to alt.astronomy
greysky[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 01:17 PM posted to alt.astronomy
HVAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 333
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 02:06 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 02:13 PM posted to alt.astronomy
G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,860
Default 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  
Old December 17th 09, 06:10 PM posted to alt.astronomy
jughead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 201
Default 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

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 08:20 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.