FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
magnetic propeties from spinning electric field
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
Brad Guth
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: ISS as well as shuttle coffins, 100 g/cm2 as radiation shields Reply with quote

I have no falts with "NASA assertions", or even the assertions of
others.

How much of those NASA/Apollo missions were "assertions", and how much
was hard science? Are we talking 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90%
"assertions"?

I've never had problems with all the terrific images of our moon
obtained from orbit, not from anything Apollo while in orbit, via Hubble
or even the likes of KECK, as they each managed to depict a mostly
basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as 3%(coal like)
reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only an extremely few maximum
lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions as to the
surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics as recorded by
the unfiltered Kodak eye.

However, once supposedly situated upon the lunar surface, why was there
so much of that basalt lunar terrain that was 55+% reflective?

How is it that selective portions of this already oddly bright
reflective lunar terrain (hardly a basalt rock nor meteorite shard in
sight), that there were so many of those intensive retro-reflective
zones surrounding a given atronaut?

Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as depicted from images obtained from orbit that clearly
indicated as 5% or less reflective index wherever NASA/Apollo pointed
out as being their official landing sites?

Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?

At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?

Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of radiated IR
energy coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?

Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in near-UV and UV/a energy?

Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?

Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?

Shouldn't the tremendus intensity of such a near-UV and UV/a spectrum of
Sirius have burned into a few of those Kodak moments?

Where was good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?

Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?

Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?

How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?

Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?

Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?

Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?

Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?

Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the documentation?

What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and numerous other robotic missions before and after ever
once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining such raw surface
emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should have been rather
easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts of differentials,
especially from such a relatively low (100+km) orbits?

In a little further research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?

So as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling one together for that of establishing space radiation data, we
still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in space, we
don't have a freaking clue as to the surface IR nor TBI differences
between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science upon a purely
zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data as to the final
velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available kinetic energy
release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't have a single
interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the moon (not even
the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we anything from
the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth science
(unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue laser
cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those supposed
retro-reflectors are a physics joke, as damn near a RadioShack
photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the weight,
probably 0.1% the cost, offering a 1° beam of at least a million times
more detectable photons).

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
behalf of seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on
behalf of ISS, I also managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to
folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational booster
shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't
even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even
better physics and science logic and numerous other values of what the
LSE-CM/ISS is good for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

I'll offer another topic of "TRACE-->TRACE-II-->VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.

I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.

Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Back to top
Jay R. Yablon
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Lepton mass predictions, including neutrino Reply with quote

For a number of years, I have been doing independent research into the
question of why the Fermions have the masses they have. During the past two
months I believe I have made a breakthrough with respect to revealing and
predicting the lepton masses based squarely on the standard electroweak
model. I will try in this Email to very briefly summarize my results.
Please let me know if you would like me to Email you two papers further
detailing these results. I start with the experimental predictions and work
back to the underlying theory.

If you take the sum of the electron masses over the three observed
generations, this sum turns out to be given within experimental error by
m(e) + m(mu) + m(tau) = v[e^2 + e^4][1 + e sin thetaW], where e^2 =
1/137.036 is the electromagnetic coupling at low probe energy, v = 246,220
MeV is the Fermi vacuum, thetaW is the weak mixing angle, and m(e) + m(mu) +
m(tau) = 1883.16 +0.29 / -0.26 MeV is the experimentally-observed mass total
for the three electrons. The Fermi vacuum v and electromagnetic coupling e
are known with fair precision; m(tau) which is the error-controlling term in
the mass and sin thetaW are less-accurately known. If you plug this mass
range into this formula (get out a calculator and try it), it is simple to
see that this mass range predicts a mixing angle of .223 149 < sin^2 thetaW
< .226 523, which seems to be right in the middle of what people have found
and actually straddles the two extremes of this NuTeV anomaly that has
received some attention these days.

If one takes the sum of the neutrino masses over the three generations --
which are found in my research to be non-zero -- this sum turns out to be
predicted by m(e-neutrino) + m(mu-neutrino) + m(tau-neutrino) = v[e^4][1 + e
sin thetaW]. This is the same formula as for the electrons, but with the
e^2 removed. This is because e^2 couples to the charge Q=-1 of the
electron, and the neutrinos have no charge. The e^4 couples to lepton
number, which is L=1 for both the electron and the neutrino, so this is in
both formulae. The range of 223 149 < sin^2 thetaW < .226 523 set out in
the last paragraph leads to the prediction that m(e-neutrino) +
m(mu-neutrino) + m(tau-neutrino) = 13.64 MeV, and the particle databases
indicate that the upper bound on the tau neutrino mass is m(tau-neutrino) <
18.2 MeV, so this prediction is also within experimental uncertainty.
Because the mu-neutrino is experimentally limited to be < 0.19 MeV and the
electron neutrino is negligible, this leads to a second prediction that
13.45 MeV < m(tau-neutrino) < 13.65 MeV. It is my hope that this result can
aid in the hunt for a neutrino mass, by setting out a narrow band in which
to look for this mass. And, once m(tau-neutrino) is pinned down, we will
know where to look for m(mu-neutrino), and after that, for m(e-neutrino).

The theoretical foundation for this begins with parity violation in the weak
interaction. I start with what at first seems an odd idea, that the weak
interaction violates parity not only in the current / vector boson
interactions, but in the mass term as well. Now, you will immediately
realize that having gamma-5 Dirac matrices in the mass term would wreak
havoc, but that is exactly the point. In exactly the same way that the
standard electroweak model constructs a parity-conserving electromagnetic
current and a massless mediating photon out of parity-violating weak and
hypercharge interactions, I am able to construct a parity conserving
electroweak mass term out of parity-violating weak and hypercharge mass
terms. But for the mass term, the symmetry constraints are even tighter.
At the end of the day in the standard model, the W+/- and the Z still
mediate parity-violating interactions and it is only the photon A which
mediates a parity-conserving interaction. For the mass term, getting rid of
all the gamma-5 ends up very tightly constraining the mass term. After
restoring parity to electromagnetic current, mixing neutral currents via sin
theta-W, and breaking symmetry following the usual standard model
prescription without deviation, and additionally imposing parity
conservation on the mass term, the total m(e) + m(mu) + m(tau) above is
revealed to be ve^2, which falls just under 5% short of the observed mass,
as you can readily calculate. This term, ve^2, you will note, is dominant
term in the electron formula recited above.

Then, the question becomes how to find the final 5% of this mass total.
Now, this first 95% arises not from Higgs perturbations, but from the ground
state of the vacuum. The scalar particle involved is a massless scalar
photon, not a massive Higgs. When we turn to examine perturbations from the
ground state, and start to look at the Higgs, it turns out that a second
electroweak scalar, which is a w3 associated with the I3 weak isospin
generator, has a wavefunction which already been normalized through symmetry
breaking and eliminating the gamma-5 to a value e sin thetaW. Coupling of
the mass to this particle -- which we then associate with the Higgs, turns
ve^2 into v[e^2][1 + e sin thetaW]. This extra factor brings m(e) + m(mu) +
m(tau) to within 0.75% of what is observed, which again, is easy to
calculate.

For the remaining mass, looking back on how we got to this point, we note
that when the ground state mass term e^2 was revealed, the couplings for the
parity violating weak and hypercharge interactions were forced out of the
mass term. That is, only parity-conserving charges (no gamma-5) contribute
to ground state mass. So, we need to look for another parity-conserving
charge to give this final 0.75% of the mass to the electron. QCD color is
out of the question, because the leptons don't interact strongly. So, we
turn to lepton number and hypothesize that this is a parity-conserving
charge with its own coupling gL and massless vector boson(s). We then ask,
what is the magnitude of the gL lepton coupling needed to yield the last
0.75% of the electron mass total m(e) + m(mu) + m(tau)? It turns out that
g-L = e^2 = 1/137.036 is precisely the magnitude of g-L required to bring
the mass prediction within experimental error. This adds a gl^2 = e^4
factor to the mass formula, yielding the final result m(e) + m(mu) + m(tau)
= v[e^2 + e^4][1 + e sin thetaW] recited at the outset.

Now, in all candor, I have no idea at this point, from a theoretical
viewpoint, why g-L = e^2 = 1/137.036 turns out to be exactly what is needed
to predict the mass total within experimental error, though it is clearly
highly desirable that g-L turns out to be related to a known coupling rather
than an independent coupling. I suspect there is a deep clue in this of
some sort wider unification that at the very least will incorporate lepton
number formally and explicitly into the electroweak scheme, but I have no
idea right now how to decipher it.

In any event, the addition of the e^4 factor for the electron completes the
formula I recited at the outset, and brings the electron mass total into the
range of experimental uncertainty. This e^4 also implies that the neutrino
mass total is v[e^4][1 + e sin thetaW], also recited above. From this, we
arrive at the 13.45 MeV < m(tau-neutrino) < 13.65 MeV prediction.

A few other items are worth noting: because the Higgs becomes associated
with a w3 scalar wavefunction, the Higgs mass is the same as that of this
w3, and this w3 has the same mass as W+/- in the standard theory, So, mass
(Higgs) = mass (W+/+) is another prediction. I know the Higgs predictions
have been upwardly-revised recently, but I also know that the Higgs is often
thought to shoulder the whole burden of generating mass and my results
suggests that for the leptons, the scalar photon carries just over 95% of
this burden (ve^2) and the Higgs only about 4% (e sin thetaW). So, the
Higgs probably does not need to be as heavy as some folks believe.

You may ask why I am using the sums m(e) + m(mu) + m(tau) and m(e-neutrino)
+ m(mu-neutrino) + m(tau-neutrino) in the formulas I have listed. This is
because, a careful analysis of bi-unitary transformations on the
three-generation mass matrix reveals that one can construct these mass
matrixes to leave these mass sums invariant, irrespective of the chosen
magnitudes of the three real mixing angles and the one phase that come into
play for three generations of electron and neutrino. In short, these
low-energy-probe mass totals are mass-matrix-mixing invariants and thus give
us good targets for prediction.

You may also ask why the focus on leptons and not quarks. That is simple: I
am restricting myself to the standard electroweak model to try to predict
masses. Quarks have color, electroweak interactions can't account for
color, so we are certain leave something out if we aim to predict quark
masses with electroweak theory. Leptons have no color, so it is reasonable
to expect that electroweak theory may contain most or all the tools needed
to predict the lepton masses. I believe my results bear this out.

While electroweak theory does not provide the tools to predict the quark
masses, these results do make the very important point that only the
couplings for interactions which conserve parity are revealed in the vacuum
ground state mass. For leptons, this gets us over 95% of the way to an
accurate mass prediction, and so we can preview that for quarks, the strong
coupling gS^2 versus e^2 for leptons will be the dominant predictor of mass.
This gives a rough quark-to-lepton mass ratio on the order of 16 to 1, which
is not at all out of the ballpark for what is actually observed in the first
generation. The top quark, of course, is off the charts, but if one looks
at the mass of the top quark times the mass of the bottom quark -- which is
part of the invariant amplitude for interactions between the top and the
bottom, and takes the square root, this approximate 16 to 1 ratio makes
sense there too. Again the formal aspects of my research are focused on
lepton masses, but do lead to at least a qualitative understanding of what
will need to go into quark masses.

Finally, I believe more than ever following this work that it is vital to
construct the strong interaction as a parity-conserving interaction which
sits across two (or more) interactions which violate parity. This may
include baryon number, this may include weak isospin and hypercharge, this
may include something we don't yet know about. But I have learned that
non-zero rest masses are only revealed when you start out with a mass term
which violates parity, and then mix together two or more parity-violating
interactions to construct a parity-conserving interaction. Whether this can
be done for the strong interaction apart from electroweak interactions, or
whether this is central to merging these interaction together, I do not
know. But, I am convinced that we must find a way to sit SU(3) QCD across
two or more parity-violating interactions just as is done in the electroweak
model, construct SU(3) color as parity conserving, mix the neutral currents
(which may use a unitary matrix with more than one mixing angle, and may
include complex phases), break the symmetry to make the gluons massless, and
then eliminate all the gamma-5 from the mass term.

If you are interested in more details about this work, I have just completed
a twelve-page paper summarizing my results in a little more detail, and
within a few days expect to complete the finishing touches on a 115 page
paper which I have prepared during the last four weeks that lays everything
out in very thorough detail.

Please let me know if you would like the twelve page summary which is now
fully prepared, and / or the full exposition when it is fully prepared.

Very truly yours,

Jay R. Yablon
_____________________________
Jay R. Yablon
Email: jyablon@nycap.rr.com
Back to top
Fredrick Garvin
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: ISS as well as shuttle coffins, 100 g/cm2 as radiation shields Reply with quote

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:48:57 +0000, Brad Guth expelled the following:

Quote:
I have no falts with "NASA assertions", or even the assertions of
others.



Go back to sleep asshat.
Back to top
TomGee
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 636

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

Franz, I'll be glad, but I don't know how. If I did what you blame me
for, I don't know how I did it. If you know, tell me how to do it. I
am writing this post on the Goggle Reply box which comes up when I
click "Reply" right below your post. If I click "show options" at the
top of the post, and then the "Reply" on that screen, the USENET reply
screen comes up, and it has headers and subject like the old format.

If you require me to do that all the time, I will never get to use this
format ever, and I don't see why I should be deprived by you of that
luxury which I use whenever I don't need to separate parts of a post in
order to respond to individual issues in it. This is an easy way to
reply as the screen starts blank and I don't have to worry about
erasing non-relevant issues, I use your name to start so there should
be no problem knowing who it's for, and I sign my name too.

TomGee
Back to top
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
science forum addict


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What is this "internal clock" in muon which slows down its rate of decay when they move very fast? Reply with quote

.............. ...Sir, What is the secret of your
success?????????........... ...

.............. ...Two words !!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

.............. ...And, Sir, what are they??????????........... ...

.............. ...Right decisions !!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

.............. ...And how do you make right decisions??????????...........
....

.............. ...One word!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

.............. ...And, What is that??????????........... ...

.............. ...Experience !!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

.............. ...And how do you get Experience??????????...........
....

.............. ...Two words !!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

.............. ...And, Sir, what are they??????????........... ...

.............. ...Wrong decisions!!!!!!!!!!!............. ...

-- Jacques Barber


--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!


"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:1107510140.198338.163040@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Franz, I'll be glad, but I don't know how. If I did what you blame me
for, I don't know how I did it. If you know, tell me how to do it. I
am writing this post on the Goggle Reply box which comes up when I
click "Reply" right below your post. If I click "show options" at the
top of the post, and then the "Reply" on that screen, the USENET reply
screen comes up, and it has headers and subject like the old format.

If you require me to do that all the time, I will never get to use this
format ever, and I don't see why I should be deprived by you of that
luxury which I use whenever I don't need to separate parts of a post in
order to respond to individual issues in it. This is an easy way to
reply as the screen starts blank and I don't have to worry about
erasing non-relevant issues, I use your name to start so there should
be no problem knowing who it's for, and I sign my name too.

TomGee
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Virtual particles Reply with quote

Electric field shouldn't be at play here.
Strong external magnetic field can separate particles before they
annihilate and what do we get? Violation of energy conservation.
Close proximity also kind of weak argument. Virtual particles are
behind Casimir effect which can be observed on a macro scale. This
means virtual particles live long enough (but no more than Plank's
time) to travel macro distances before annihilation. Chances that both
particles of the pair will be in close proximity after that are really
small.
I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying that both electric field
and close proximity don't feel like real mechanisms behind pair
annihilation.

-Alex
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Virtual particles Reply with quote

Electric field shouldn't be at play here.
Strong external magnetic field can separate particles before they
annihilate and what do we get? Violation of energy conservation.
Close proximity also kind of weak argument. Virtual particles are
behind Casimir effect which can be observed on a macro scale. This
means virtual particles live long enough (but no more than Plank's
time) to travel macro distances before annihilation. Chances that both
particles of the pair will be in close proximity after that are really
small.
I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying that both electric field
and close proximity don't feel like real mechanisms behind pair
annihilation.

-Alex
Back to top
Paul Hollister
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What are Quasars made of? Reply with quote

"Steve Willner" <willner@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:41faa78f$1@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...
Quote:
In article <cssn3h$9ko$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp>,
"Paul Hollister" <Hollister@Origin-of-Universe.com> writes:
The a priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a
profound
affect on scientific perceptions about...

In case anyone is confused, standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis models
have hydrogen forming in the first several minutes after the big
bang, along with deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4.

From hydrogen onward, it is scientifically well established that
helium and atoms of higher atomic weight are formed by nuclear
fusion within the stars.

Make that "carbon onward."...



Scientific perceptions about WHAT? You clipped my sentence and changed the
subject! That$B!G(Bs not fair. If you clip the object of a sentence, you alter
the meaning of the sentence by taking the subject out of context. I don$B!G(Bt
think you intended to alter the meaning of my sentence but that is exactly
what you$B!G(Bve done. Allow me to rewrite the whole sentence and place the
words in their original context.



$B!H(BThe a priori acceptance of the preexistence of hydrogen has also had a
profound affect on scientific perceptions about galaxy evolution, such as
the relative ages of elliptical and spiral galaxies.$B!I(B



Within the context of the standard Big Bang model, wherein the
nucleosynthesis of all hydrogen in the universe was completed within the
first several minutes of universe existence, the wording $B!H(Bpreexistence of
hydrogen$B!I(B applies specifically to the process and sequence of galaxy
evolution. In the context of the single Big Bang Theory, all the hydrogen in
the universe was in existence long before the appearance of the quasars and
galaxies. In the context of this new $B!H(BOngoing Big-Bang$B!I(B Theory of galaxy
and universe evolution, the nucleosynthesis of hydrogen (baryonogenesis)
occurs within the quasar and jettison of hydrogen in plasma form by the
quasar results in the gradual growth and evolution of the galaxy. I think
this new paradigm is worthy of consideration because the theory accounts for
both quasar and galaxy evolution and fits the facts of what we see in the
surrounding visible universe, including the relative abundances and
distribution of the atomic elements.



This new paradigm defining the ignition of baryonogenesis (quark-gluon
fusion into atomic nucleus of hydrogen) is based on a Gravity
Implosion-Energy Explosion Model that, on a vastly larger scale, is similar
to the gravitational process of stellar formation that results in
thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. I have shown in theory how
quark-gluon fusion into the atomic nucleus of hydrogen (baryonogenesis) can
potentially occur within the supermassive density conditions of the quasar,
and how the resulting jettison of hydrogen into surrounding space gives rise
regionally to the entire Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution. The
following sequence summarizes the process of galaxy and universe evolution
that is illustrated and defined in detail within the scientific treatise
(See Illustration under Galaxy Evolution on home page at
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com):



1) Pre-Bang Universe composed of pre- and non-atomic particles is
gravitationally in evidence as dark matter.

2) Gravitational collapse of pre- and non-atomic particles within this
Pre-Bang Universe forms the supermassive gravitational density of the
Quasar!

3) Thermo-particle fusion of quark-gluon plasma into baryons within the
supermassive density of the quasar forms the atomic nucleus of hydrogen
(similar to quark-gluon fusion into baryons in the original big bang
theory).

4) $B!H(BOngoing Big-Bang$B!I(B nucleosynthesis of hydrogen (comparable to ongoing
thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the stars) gathers as
proton-electron plasma into an equatorial torus around the quasar$B!G(Bs axis of
spin and is jettisoned into surrounding space as visible cosmic plasma jets.

5) This jettison of hydrogen as proton-electron plasma gradually encompasses
the quasar with an enlarging hydrogen milieu in plasma, ionic, atomic and
molecular form as it spreads into orbit in the cooler regions surrounding
the quasar, and is further jettisoned beyond the gravitational grip of the
quasar where it forms the vast regions of hydrogen observed in intergalactic
space.

6) Continuous jettison of newly formed hydrogen from this $B!H(BOngoing
Big-Bang$B!I(B process gradually transforms the quasar (QSO) from a radio
quasar into an enlarging Radio Galaxy.

7) Hydrogen gathers into nebulae that give birth to first-generation stars
within the hydrogen rich region of the newly forming galaxy. Thermonuclear
ignition of first-generation stars within this hydrogen-rich milieu becomes
initially optically visible as an Irregular Blue Dwarf Galaxy.

8) Ongoing jettison of hydrogen and continuous expanding star formation
result in the formation and gradual growth in size and stellar age of the
Elliptical Galaxy (E0 to E8 Edwin Hubble classification).

9) Thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium and the systematic process
of stellar evolution leading to supernova explosions sequentially fuse atoms
of higher atomic weight, which accounts for atomic evolution and gradual
creation of the periodic table of atoms. Evolution of Hertzsprung-Russell
mainstream sequence stars to hydrogen-core depleted red giants to supernova
explosions all occurs within the regional space of each evolving galaxy.

10) The entire process of atomic and stellar co-evolution and resulting
populations of stars (metal poor and metal rich populations of stars) evolve
within the regional space of galaxy growth and evolution, which is defined
in detail in the treatise as the Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution.

11) Continuous atomic-molecular formation and amassment within the
circumnuclear torus around the quasar at galaxy center and visible dust
formation within the active galactic nucleus (AGN) region surrounding the
quasar remolds the enlarging galaxy from spherical to elliptical to spiral
form, accounting for the growing size and increasing centrifugal mass of the
rings, bars and spiral arms that form the Spiral Galaxy. (Sa to Sc and SBa
to SBc Hubble Classification)

12) This Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution progresses from isolated
Quasar to Radio Galaxy to Elliptical Galaxy to Spiral Galaxy as an
uninterrupted continuum! This regional process of quasar birth and galaxy
growth and evolution gives rise to the distribution of galaxy populations
that are seen within the clusters and superclusters that form the Large
Scale Structure of the Universe.



By looking at the quasars and evolution of the galaxies as an integrated
process through this $B!H(BOngoing Big-Bang$B!I(B perspective, the evolutionary
relationship between Elliptical Galaxies and Spiral Galaxies unfolds clearly
into view! This direct evolutionary relationship between Elliptical Galaxy
and Spiral Galaxy morphogenesis has never before been recognized by the
scientific world and is truly worth a look. Chapter 13 (Galaxy Evolution
From Ellipse to Spiral: From Hydrogen to Helium to Dust and Us) shows how
the transition from Elliptical to Spiral Galaxy morphology is a continuum of
interrelated stages in a Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution!



CD Edition of the 340-page manuscript has been sent to three of your
colleagues at Harvard University who are cited as references within the
scientific treatise. Geller M. J., Huchra J. P., da Costa, L. A., Falco E.
E., Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: CfA Redshift Survey and
mapping of large-scale structure of the universe (Chapter 18 - Large Scale
Unified Structure of Pre-Bang and Post-Bang Universes).



As I want to be sure you receive this I've also send it by e-mail to the
address you indicated with a reply-to address enclosed.



Respectfully,



Paul Hollister

http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com contains the complete manuscript of Origin
and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory by Paul
Hollister, M.D.
Back to top
Too Many Kooks Spoil the1
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Short Bearded Fellow Reply with quote

I see you all appreciaate the esoteric nature of this posting.
Back to top
Brad Guth
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: ISS as well as shuttle coffins, 100 g/cm2 as radiation shields Reply with quote

Fredrick Garvin,
Now that's certainly the over-ripe sort of feedback that need not be
readable within MAILGATE.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Eel ' or 'Snake' Model for particles. Reply with quote

an unexpectet help came to me from Franklinhu
who shared a corner of his site to my abstract pdf file
so
it goes (something like this (Smile if not mistyping)

http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/Y.Porat-model2.pdf

so at the beginning of that file i show schmatically 3d the structure
of the alpha particle in my model
that is my biggest 'zoom' into my alpha undestnading later it becomes
less 'zoomed'
and more abstractly presentd iow mor esymbolic just inorder of saving
time space etc.

now at this alpha particle presentationyou can get the general notion
of my idea about the * 'chin of orbitals*
ie a proton or neotron are presented there as a chin of small links
connected linearily
that series of circles is just the nucleid
linearikly to it the links become bigger in radius to make the 'medium'
orbital
and later still linearily the electron conneted to the medium links
the electron in that case is just symbolically presentd as a dotted
line
yet that is in general the graphic symbol presentation
that i could not make with the asci tool
so
a tanks to Franklin
b i hope that will give me a tool to have more common language with
other members.

all the best
Y.Porat
---------------------------
Back to top
Y.Porat
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1809

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Eel ' or 'Snake' Model for particles. Reply with quote

soty about th espelling mistake in my last article
instead of 'chin of orbitals'
it should be

'Chain of orbitals'

(thats on of the the new ideas)

Y.Porat
--------------------
Back to top
Steve Willner
science forum beginner


Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: What are Quasars made of? Reply with quote

In article <cu1ncp$jup$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp>,
"Paul Hollister" <Hollister@Origin-of-Universe.com> writes:
Quote:
I don't
think you intended to alter the meaning of my sentence but that is exactly
what you've done. Allow me to rewrite the whole sentence and place the
words in their original context.

Indeed I had no intention of changing your meaning; I just don't want
anyone to be confused about what the standard Big Bang model says.
If I was confused about what you were saying, other people might be
too.

Quote:
Within the context of the standard Big Bang model, wherein the
nucleosynthesis of all hydrogen in the universe was completed within the
first several minutes of universe existence, the wording "preexistence of
hydrogen" applies specifically to the process and sequence of galaxy
evolution. In the context of the single Big Bang Theory, all the hydrogen in
the universe was in existence long before the appearance of the quasars and
galaxies.

OK. We agree on this part of what the "single Big Bang Theory" says.
Do we also agree that the theory says that deuterium, helium-3, and
helium-4 were formed more or less at the same time as the hydrogen?

Quote:
In the context of this new "Ongoing Big-Bang" Theory of galaxy
and universe evolution, the nucleosynthesis of hydrogen (baryonogenesis)
occurs within the quasar and jettison of hydrogen in plasma form by the
quasar results in the gradual growth and evolution of the galaxy. I think
this new paradigm is worthy of consideration because the theory accounts for
both quasar and galaxy evolution and fits the facts of what we see in the
surrounding visible universe, including the relative abundances and
distribution of the atomic elements.

It's fun to consider new theories. Does your theory say the Universe
was hotter and denser in the past or not? What abundances do you
derive for deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4, and how do those
abundances change with time? How do you account for the quasar
abundance peak at z=2? In your theory, does the stellar initial mass
function change with time, and if so, how? As you can see, I'm
searching for testable predictions of your theory and how those
predictions differ from those of the standard Big Bang model.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)
Back to top
Richard Herring
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Feynman Lectures on X-ons Reply with quote

In message <7cudnUNFJtTNaIjfRVn-hA@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes
Quote:
In article <PIqdnfISzudSRIjfRVn-tg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <cv33p6$dm3$4@sparta.btinternet.com>,
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ecmdnXBl2JaxBYnfRVn-uw@rcn.net...
In article <1108643563.949210.94270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Q-on" <physicsofchi@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

Is there really such a noun in physics as X-on? This is
going to cause problems, if so. Pick another letter.

Unfortunately Feynman picked it forty years ago in an amusing musing.

And the computer biz picked it just a tad earlier. Well, it's
a heads up for me to take care of context when the word shows up.

Thanks.

As long as I'm spending the bandwidth on words, does physics
have such a thingie as q-rays?

No, but there were the infamous N-rays, the "cold fusion" of their day.

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/07patholog.html
http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html
http://www.rexresearch.com/blondlot/nrays.htm


--
Richard Herring
Back to top
GR_GR
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: but someone got out and me and my familiy try to stop them and got trocherd in unknow dimentions i try to make it better and they change me to make it worse so what do i do if you see what in my chest in every dimention!!! look for consiousnesses in t Reply with quote

zetasum wrote:
Quote:
but someone got out and me and my familiy try to stop them and got
trocherd in unknow dimentions i try to make it better and they change
me to make it worse so what do i do if you see what in my chest in
every dimention!!! look for consiousnesses in the house i spelled it
wrong bbecuase thats what you will say when you see my bodie
366-94-1447 2-3-1973 follow my bodie and the liverance familiy
everywhere and look find out why we are being killed?????

!!!!!


---plonk---
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:33 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Units for electric field strength Gavin Electromagnetics 0 Thu Aug 24, 2006 3:00 pm
No new posts Infinitesimal generator of a vector field Julien Santini Math 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:01 am
No new posts Behaviour of a Ball (Bouncing and Spinning) Jonas Huckestein Physics 0 Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:38 pm
No new posts Vector field flow problem - help? Daniel Nierro Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:28 am
No new posts Geomagnetic field reason h_v_ansari@yahoo.com Electromagnetics 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:34 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0479s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0064s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]