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 3 of 92 [1376 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
Author Message
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:42110bf9$1@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...

Quote:
In article <cu1ncp$jup$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp>,
"Paul Hollister" <Hollister@Origin-of-Universe.com> writes:
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?



Yes. I am not raising any issue about what constitutes the Standard Big Bang
Theory. I am introducing an Ongoing Big-Bang Model which shows how the
supermassive gravitational density conditions of the quasar can be the site
of baryonogenesis and how the quasar’s nucleosynthesis and jettison of
hydrogen (proton-electron plasma) regionally results in the mainstream
sequence of galaxy evolution. I then show step-by-step how atomic and
stellar co-evolution within the circumnuclear AGN region around the quasar
and within its jettisoned hydrogen-rich regions conjointly give rise to the
entire mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution, which evolves as an
uninterrupted continuum from Quasar to Radio Galaxy to Elliptical Galaxy to
Spiral Galaxy.



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.



1) Does your theory (Ongoing Big-Bang Model) say the Universe was hotter and
denser in the past or not?



Formation of quark-gluon plasma and the threshold for quark-gluon particle
fusion into baryons require the temperature and density conditions defined
by the Standard Big Bang Model. As a particle-fusion process resulting in
baryonogenesis, the temperature and density conditions of quark-gluon plasma
that reaches the threshold of quark-gluon particle fusion into baryons in
the Ongoing Big-Bang Model are the same as the quark-gluon particle fusion
conditions of the Standard Big Bang Model. However, your question is asked
from the perspective that the entire Universe began from a singular big bang
(Standard Big Bang Model). Whereas the Standard Big Bang Model has the
nucleosynthesis of all the hydrogen in the universe occurring within an
extremely short period of time (within a few minutes!), the Ongoing Big-Bang
nucleosynthesis of hydrogen within the supermassive density conditions of
the quasar occurs as an ongoing process. This Ongoing Big-Bang particle
fusion into hydrogen within the quasar is comparable on another scale of
magnitude to the gradual thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in the
stars. It is the thermal and density conditions within the star that reach
the thermonuclear threshold of nuclear fusion. Likewise, on an
astronomically larger scale of magnitude, it is the thermal and supermassive
density conditions within the quasar that reach the threshold of quark-gluon
particle fusion into the atomic nucleus of hydrogen (baryonogenesis). In
conceptual terms, the following hyperlink contains testable predictions of
the Ongoing Big-Bang Theory. In Chapter 10 ? Evidence of Ongoing Big-Bang in
Center of Every Galaxy, section ? Is Galaxy Center a Big Bang or Black Hole?
(page 111, CD Edition)
(http://www.origin-of-universe.com/home/home-galaxy-center.htm) see the
bivalve illustration of Star/Quasar and corresponding description to
conceptually visualize how the quasar is the site of quark-gluon particle
fusion into hydrogen and how this process results in the quasar’s
circumnuclear torus and cosmic plasma jets composed of proton-electron
plasma. The following is a descriptive excerpt from the hyperlink:



“The Gravity Implosion---Energy Explosion Model integrates both sides of
the process in each of these celestial orbs [Star and Quasar]. Using stellar
evolution leading to thermonuclear fusion as a model, quasar evolution
leading to thermo-particle fusion (Big-Bang) can be precisely formulated in
theoretical terms. Quasar is formed from and composed of pre- and non-atomic
particles within a Pre-Bang supermassive gravitational density. Quark-gluon
fusion into the proton nucleus of hydrogen strong-force binds the particles
into stable proton condition. This strong-force separation of particle
(proton) and anti-particle (electron) creates an electromagnetic polarity
that is the regional origin of electromagnetic force within the universe (in
the form of an electron and proton, the subatomic elements of hydrogen).
Within the supermassive density of quark-gluon plasma, hydrogen protons and
their newly formed “anti-particle” electrons are propelled outward from
the supermassive gravitational density conditions within the core of the
quasar. At the surface of the quasar, the protons are channeled by
gravitational force into orbit as a torus of proton-electron plasma whirling
around the equatorial plane of the quasar. Massive electromagnetic force
generated by the orbiting torus forms the cosmic plasma jets. Within the
supermassive gravitational conditions of the torus orbiting around the
equatorial plane of the quasar, accelerated nuclear fusion occurs that gives
rise to the regional presence of atoms of higher and higher atomic weight,
thereby accounting for the range of atomic elements evident around the
quasar” [including deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4].



In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the “universe” is indeed regionally hotter
and denser at the site of baryonogenesis, just as it is in the Standard Big
Bang Model. However, the “Universe” as a whole was not uniformly hotter
and denser in the past because baryonogenesis is occurring locally within
each quasar, rather than simultaneously throughout the “Universe” as a
whole at one brief point in cosmos history. A comparison of the Mass Density
and Thermal Scale of the “Original Big Bang” and “Ongoing Big-Bang”
formation of hydrogen is illustrated in Chapter 7, The Big Bang With A
Cause: The Quasar!, hyperlink section Sparks, Stars and the Quasar (page 74,
CD Edition) (http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_7.htm).
Quasar evolution is also conceptually illustrated in Chapter 7, hyperlink
section Quasar Evolution (page 75, CD Edition).



Whereas the Standard Big Bang Model is a unicentric process wherein all the
hydrogen in the entire universe was theoretically created within less than 3
MINUTES, the Ongoing Big-Bang Model is a multicentric “Big-Bang” process
that occurs within each quasar, wherein hydrogen is locally massively
produced and jettisoned into surrounding regional space. The timing and
sequence of hydrogen evolution from plasma to ionic to atomic to molecular
form are extremely important determinants for the timing and circumstances
of stellar evolution. In the Standard Big Bang Model it is said to have
taken about 300,000 years before the universe cooled sufficiently for
hydrogen ions to combine with electrons to form atoms, and longer before
hydrogen atoms assemble into hydrogen molecules that can gravitationally
collapse within star forming nebulae. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the
cooling process following baryonogenesis becomes a function of local
distance in space from the hot finite supermassive density of the quasar,
and the entire process of “Hydrogen Evolution” (regional transition from
plasma to ionic to atomic to molecular form) is directly visible in clearly
definable regions within the resulting radio galaxy. Rather than the
totality of space throughout in the universe simultaneously cooling over
eons of cosmological time before hydrogen ions can assemble into neutral
atoms and combine into hydrogen molecules that can gravitationally collapse
into stars, the entire process of hydrogen and stellar evolution in the
Ongoing Big-Bang Model are within the direct range and reach of scientific
investigation, because the entire Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution is
within reach of the Hubble Space Telescope deep fields!



If Big Bang nucleosynthesis is an ongoing process within the quasar (Ongoing
Big-Bang Model) rather than a singular event in universe history (Standard
Big Bang Model), there would be ongoing Big-Bang fusion of quark-gluon
plasma into protons and a galactic River-of-Hydrogen (proton-electron
plasma) being jettisoned out of the supermassive “black hole”
(gravitational density conditions) of the quasar, jetting and spreading
ionic hydrogen and electrons into space, cooling in the distance into atomic
and molecular hydrogen form, gathering into nebulae, giving birth to
stars---which is exactly what we see occurring in the galaxies! This Ongoing
Big-Bang Theory, which includes scientific definition of both Pre-Bang
Universe and Post-Bang Universe, can be simulated as a theoretical model if
the dark matter of the universe is composed of pre- and non-atomic particles
that have the capacity to coalesce and gravitationally collapse into the
supermassive gravitational density of the Quasar. The Ongoing Big-Bang is
defined by the threshold of quark-gluon fusion into hydrogen. The pre- and
non-atomic elements that precede the particle fusion of quark-gluon plasma
into baryons comprise a Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles that has
the potential to coalesce and gravitationally collapse into the supermassive
density of the quasar. Whereas in the Standard Big Bang Model all pre- and
non-atomic particles (including all the quarks and gluon that form the
baryonic structure of every atomic nucleus in the entire physical universe!)
are all said to have materialized within ONE SECOND (Particle Era of
Standard Big Bang Model was from 10-10 to 1 second following the
mathematical point of beginning of Big Bang) before being strong force fused
into baryons, this Ongoing Big-Bang Model is based on the preexistence of a
Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles that is in evidence as dark matter
throughout the surrounding coexisting Post-Bang Universe. The cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMB) can be viewed as a direct manifestation
of this Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles. In the Standard Big Bang
Model, CMB is viewed as the lingering embers of a single hot big bang event
that occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, CMB
is potentially a direct manifestation of the Pre-Bang Universe that contains
the pre- and non-atomic particles of dark matter that have the capacity to
coalesce and gravitationally collapse into the supermassive “black hole”
density of the quasar.



2) What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4, and
how do those abundances change with time?



Hydrogen accounts for 73 percent of the observed mass of the universe and is
the most common element in the universe. Helium accounts for about 25
percent of the mass of the universe and is the second most common element.
All mainstream sequence stars in the universe (Hertzsprung-Russell diagram)
are predominantly composed of hydrogen. All newborn stars throughout the
universe are ignited into visible existence by the thermonuclear fusion of
hydrogen into helium. Throughout much of their life span (mainstream
sequence of stellar evolution), thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium
continues to occur in the stars. In the Standard Big Bang Model, all the
hydrogen and most of the deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4 in the universe
were created within 3 MINUTES following the mathematical point of beginning
of Big Bang. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the nucleosynthesis of hydrogen
is produced inside the supermassive thermal and gravitational density
conditions of the quasar. This Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis of hydrogen
results directly in the formation of the quasar’s circumnuclear torus and
cosmic plasma jets of proton-electron plasma, as described under Question #1
above. The circumnuclear torus surrounding the quasar is composed of
proton-electron plasma (hydrogen) under enormous temperature and
gravitational density conditions that result in accelerated nuclear fusion
of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4 and atomic elements that are in evidence
immediately around the quasar and within the active galactic nucleus (AGN)
region of the galaxy. The following hyperlink contains detailed description
and testable predictions of this Ongoing Big-Bang process that results in
atomic nucleosynthesis and AGN evolution: Chapter 12 ? Quasar and AGN
Evolution, section ? Ongoing Big-Bang Alignment of Quasars and Circumnuclear
AGNs (page 149, CD Edition)

(http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_12.htm).

The following excerpt from the hyperlink describes how accelerated nuclear
fusion immediately around the quasar forms atoms of higher atomic weight and
gives rise to the active galactic nucleus (AGN) region of the galaxy:



“As the quasar matures, the environment around the quasar evolves from two
separate but simultaneous and closely interrelated processes, each of which
have their own unique regional rate of evolution: 1) The quasar’s radio
jets account for the accumulative formation of the galaxy’s radio structure
and hydrogen atmosphere that results in the starburst growth and evolution
of the optical galaxy, as previously described, which accounts for the
evolution of the elliptical galaxy. 2) The quasar’s plasma torus accounts
for the evolution of the circumnuclear environment around the quasar, which
over time evolves into the galaxy’s visible active galactic nucleus (AGN),
which in turn accounts for the massive materialization of circumnuclear
galaxy dust and morphological evolution of the spiral galaxy. The
astronomical temperature conditions and massive amounts of hydrogen produced
by the Big-Bang process of quark-gluon fusion within the quasar account for
the sequential formation of the circumnuclear plasma torus and resulting
materialization and fueling of the AGN. Within the thermonuclear inferno of
the AGN is where the massive amounts of higher atomic-molecular weight dust
is formed that is responsible for gradually reshaping the galaxy from
spherical to elliptical to spiral form. Whereas the increasing volume and
size of the elliptical stages of optical galaxy evolution are largely due to
the radio jets and rain of hydrogenous matter throughout the space of the
galaxy, the increasing ellipticity (E0-E7) of the galaxy and transformation
from elliptical to spiral galaxy form (S0) and progressive increase in the
total atomic-molecular dust and mass of the spiral stages (Sa-Sc) of galaxy
evolution are primarily the result of events taking place in the
circumnuclear AGN.”



I have stressed throughout the treatise that the quasar is the site of
hydrogen nucleosynthesis because this is the key to recognizing that the
galaxies have materialized and grown from inside outward into their range of
visible morphologies (Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution). Whereas
deuterium and helium can result from nuclear fusion within the circumnuclear
region around the quasar, and within the AGN region, and within the stars,
hydrogen nucleosynthesis can only occur within the quasar! This is the key
by which I was able to define the mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution:
Quasars make hydrogen! From this perspective, the origin of the
Intergalactic Medium and the Lyman alpha forest can be looked at in a new
light. (To avoid any misunderstanding or confusion about what constitutes
the Standard Big Bang Model perspective see Professor Bill Keel’s excellent
essay about Quasars, AGN and Lyman Alpha Forest at
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/).

Within the Intergalactic Medium, from Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, all
hydrogen can be traced directly to Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis within
the quasar. Accelerated nuclear fusion of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4
can occur in the circumnuclear region around the quasar and AGN region of
the galaxy. The presence of ionized helium (He II) within the Lyman alpha
forest can be the result of intragalactic nuclear fusion or the result of
helium being carried outward as a minor component of the jets. The process
of baryonogenesis within the quasar and nuclear fusion within its
circumnuclear torus occurs in sequence from quark-gluon plasma to hydrogen
to deuterium to helium-3 to helium-4. Whether or not a fractional portion of
helium can be jettisoned into intergalactic space rather than confined to
the circumnuclear torus and AGN region would depend in part on where
deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis begins in relationship to the formation
of the quasar’s circumnuclear torus and plasma jets. If helium
nucleosynthesis begins to occur after the formation of the plasma jets,
there should be no significant levels of intergalactic He II. If helium
nucleosynthesis begins to occur within the circumnuclear torus,
intergalactic jettison of He would be potentially possible. If helium
nucleosynthesis begins to occur proximal to the formation of the
circumnuclear torus, more He could be jettisoned into intergalactic space.



3) How do you account for the quasar abundance peak at z=2?



From Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, two factors account for the quasar
abundance peak at redshift z=2: first, space-time look-back reveals universe
conditions at prior eras of time within the surrounding universe; second,
local conditions within the Pre-Bang Universe define the site of quasar
formation. Although the speed of light dependably measures and demarcates
distance in space-time terms, it does not need to be assumed that the
population density of quasars and galaxy types observed in distant space
have evolutionarily given rise directly to the galaxy populations within
local regional space. I have shown how each quasar initiates the Mainstream
Sequence of Galaxy Evolution within its own respective regional space, which
is illustrated and described at
http://www.origin-of-universe.com/#Galaxy_Evolution (click hyperlink for
concise description of the process).

Each quasar within the quasar abundance peak at z=2 initiates this
Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution locally within its own regional
space. As the quasar is the site of quark-gluon fusion into the atomic
nucleus of hydrogen (Ongoing “Big-Bang” in the hyperlink illustration),
the location of each quasar physically and geometrically demarcates the
relationship between the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe in space.
The quasar abundance peak at redshift z=2 is the result of regional
gravitational events within the Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles
that give rise to the supermassive “black hole” density of the quasar.
When looked at from a Locus of Vision on Planet Earth, the time required for
light to travel from those quasars reveal the regional history of universe
evolution at z=2. Reciprocally, from Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, if our
Locus of Vision was situated at redshift z=2 looking back toward Planet
Earth, we would be seeing the region of the Milky Way Galaxy and Virgo
Cluster at a prior era of regional universe history, long before our planet
was born.

In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the quasar abundance at z=2 is the result of
local conditions within the Pre-Bang Universe. Local conditions within the
Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles gravitationally give rise to the
supermassive density of the quasar that reaches the particle-fusion
threshold of its visible “Big-Bang”. The location of quasars and their
active jets make it possible to demarcate and precisely map the relationship
between the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe in space. The
supermassive “black hole” density of the quasar is formed by gravitational
collapse of pre- and non-atomic particles of dark matter within a Pre-Bang
Universe. The site of gravitational collapse is thereby a function of
conditions within the coexisting Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles.
The quasar as a result is a physical point of interface between the Pre-Bang
and Post-Bang Universe. The Large Scale Structure of Universe is
characterized by a cell-like pattern consisting of superclusters of galaxies
surrounding large voids of space. By correlating the distribution of quasars
and their jets with the morphological characteristics of the Mainstream
Sequence of Galaxy Evolution, I was able to recognize a “Unit of Universe”
pattern within the surrounding Large Scale Structure of Universe that
potentially integrates the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe as a
unified system on a large scale.

Chapter 17, Representative Sample of Cosmos and Universe (pages 193-201, CD
Edition) (http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_17.htm)
illustrates the relationship of the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe
within the Large Scale Structure of the Universe. The illustrated “Unit of
Universe” pattern in 4-spatial dimensions shows how the Pre-Bang Universe
and Post-Bang Universe can both be mapped in space as a structural and
functional unit that is within direct scientific reach in the surrounding
Large Scale Structure of Universe.

Chapter 18, Large Scale Unified Structure of Pre-Bang and Post-Bang
Universes describes a methodology for scientifically investigating the
Pre-Bang and Post-Bang Universe as a unified system.



4) In your theory (Ongoing Big-Bang Model), does the stellar initial mass
function change with time, and if so, how?



If you take a few moments to model in your mind what the universe would look
like if the quasar is the site of Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and
jettison of hydrogen, the resulting process of stellar evolution unfolds
into the morphological pattern of galaxies we see in the surrounding
universe. To visualize this, however, you must realize that the galaxy
materializes and grows from inside outward into its sequence of
morphological changes, which progress from Quasar jettison of hydrogen to
Radio Galaxy reflection of massive hydrogen content to optically enlarging
Elliptical Galaxy resulting from stellar evolution to centrifugal molding of
Spiral Galaxy as a result of growing atomic molecular amassment within its
disk and spiral arms. Hydrogen is continuously jettisoned and floods into
surrounding space from the Ongoing Big-Bang process in the Quasar. The
expanding hydrogen atmosphere flooding into space from the jets regionally
evolves from plasma to ionic (H+) to atomic (H0) to molecular (H2) hydrogen
nebular form in the cooler regions surrounding the quasar at galaxy center,
producing the optically quiet pre-stellar radio-loud galaxy (Radio Galaxy).
Optical appearance of starburst activity begins at galaxy center and in the
hydrogen rich atmospheres streaming into orbit from the plumes of plasma
jets that extend thousands of light-years into space, giving optical birth
to the irregular, blue dwarf galaxy (Irregular Blue Galaxy). Globular
clusters of first generation stars (Metal-Poor Population II Stars)
continuously form in the dense hydrogen atmosphere and spread into orbit
around gravity-center main, and the galaxy gradually transforms from
irregular blue optical appearance into a homogeneous galaxy filled with
globular clusters of stars (Elliptical Galaxy). Continuous in-flooding of
hydrogen from the ongoing Big-Bang process and its visible jets causes the
elliptical galaxy to grow in size from small elliptical (E1) to medium
elliptical (E3) to large elliptical galaxy (E7). Stellar evolution within
the enlarging elliptical galaxy causes its characteristic transformation
from young blue star composition to old red star content as the galaxy grows
in size and age. Active galactic nucleus stage of galaxy evolution begins
with the appearance of massive star birth growth and evolution occurring in
the vigorous central region around the quasar (AGN, Active Galactic
Nucleus). Stellar evolution and supernova explosions within the active
galactic nucleus region of the galaxy result in sequential nuclear fusion of
atoms of higher atomic weight and their regional distribution within galaxy
space. As the generations of metal-poor Population II stars pass through
their lifecycle from Hertzsprung-Russell mainstream sequence stars to
hydrogen-core depleted red giants to supernova explosions, and as the
interstellar space within the galaxy becomes increasingly filled with the
atomic products of thermonuclear fusion, interstellar dust begins to form in
the center of the galaxy that contains atoms of higher atomic mass, and
metal-rich stars (Population I Stars) begin to be formed in the resulting
metal-rich clouds of dust. This ongoing sequence accounts for why the
central bulge of galaxies at maturity contains both Population I and
Population II stars. The metal-poor Population II stars are continuously
produced from the ongoing Big-Bang production of hydrogen and metal-rich
Population I stars are continuously produced by stellar evolution, and this
entire process and sequence of atomic and stellar co-evolution is occurring
within the space of the galaxy. Vigorous AGN activity results in the
production of immense amounts of intragalactic dust that accumulates in the
circumnuclear region of the galaxy. The increasing amounts of dust
progressively masks the brightness of the quasar at galaxy center until it
can no longer be directly seen at optical wavelengths, but the presence of
the quasar’s enormous gravitational force (“Supermassive Black Hole”)
remains evident and its explosive jets remain clearly visible throughout the
elliptical stage of galaxy growth and evolution. As intragalactic
atomic-molecular dust continues to form and accumulate within the active
galactic nuclear region of the galaxy, visible rings of atomic-molecular
dust appear and begin to spread centrifugally outward into a plane
perpendicular to the galaxy’s axis of spin, which gradually transforms the
shape of the galaxy from spherical (E0) to elliptical (E1?E7) to early
spiral form (S0). Within the AGN region at galaxy center, the atoms assemble
into molecules; the molecules amass into visible rings of intragalactic
dust, and the growing amassment of visible galaxy dust accounts for the
remolding of the shape of the galaxy. As atomic-molecular amassment of dust
continues to accumulate, the visible rings of dust become denser and
centrifugally spill outward into bars and growing spiral arms (Sa stage of
spiral galaxy evolution). As the maturing spiral galaxy is in effect a
centrifuge that concentrates the metal-rich atomic-molecular clouds of dust
in the galactic plane, this accounts for why the disk of the spiral galaxy
contains only metal-rich Population I stars. As the disk of the spiral
galaxy grows in size, the recycling lifecycles of metal-poor Population II
stars within the halo region gradually become incorporated into the growing
spiral disk and the spiral bulge gradually decreases in size (Sb and Sc
stages of spiral galaxy evolution). The bulge and halo of globular clusters
of stars in every spiral galaxy are the remnant of the elliptical galaxy
that gradually reformed into the spiral disk, which accounts for why the
globular clusters of stars in the halo of spiral galaxies are composed of
metal-poor Population II stars.



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
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Relativistic Physics - Science or Religion? Reply with quote

What motivates you to try to do--but miserably fail--damage to physics
and physicists? General relativity (GR)--or any other theory--has, or
ever will be, taken as an item of faith. Theory has been, and
continues to be tested, for nearly one-hundred years. In orbit today
is Gravity B probe testing the prediction of frame dragging.
Physicists are keenly aware of error bars. They look very carefully
at the sources of error in a given experiment and produce a result
qualified by error estimates. This was, if you look at the literature,
the case for the atomic clock flown aboard a jet. The peer-reviewed
results would not have published without such a mandatory error
analysis. Within the error bars of tests of Special Relativity (SR)
and GR lays room for alternative theories and/or
corrections/extensions, as in the sense that Einstein's theory of
gravity is a correction/extension to Newtonian gravity. The same goes
for string theories, GUTs, and all other theories. They must pass
rigourous tests and be consistent with data, be it from particle
accelerators or radio astronomy. I'm sure you know that, but are
somehow hoping to catch the naive junior high school kids out there who
don't know better with your pseudo disspassionate aires of scholarly
bunk. The next time you question a theory, do so with a proper
investigation of the experiments supporting the theory, including their
error analysis, wherein lays the room for new physics. An excellent
example of such error analysis is the Anderson et. al. paper on the
anomolous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 probes. "Study of the
anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11", Physical Review D
(Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology) Phys. Rev. D 65,
082004 (2002) (50 pages)

By the way, the webpages you so often post, "The Einstein Hoax (1997)",
etc., contains manifold, demonstrably wrong physics. In particular is
the case of the modified Maxwell demon. your device which "violates"
the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you state, "the trapdoor and the
membrane would be heated and the molecule which passed though it would
be cooled. The process would generate a local temperature difference
which would quickly be equalized by any reasonable level of heat
transfer."

Assuming the trapdoor is able to rapidly transfer the energy it
absorbed to the rest of the membrane, wouldn't then the heated membrane
transfer the heat back to the gas molecules? The membrane, made of
vibrating molecules, would, via thermal ibrations, and some radiation,
transfer their heat back to the cooled gas to maintain thermal
equilibrium.

If the trapdoor couldn't dump its excess energy (the energy absorbed
from a fast molecule), it, thanks to its molecular vibrations, would
start to bounce open and close to rid itself of its excess energy. By
so doing, it would on occasion allow molecules to flow both ways, and
on occasion, it would swat cold (slow) molecules and heat them back up
(speed them up).

I think Dr. Feynman and the 2nd law of thermodynamics stand firm. You,
on the other hand, need to fess up to your error and quit the neo-Nazi
and KKK clubs.

AA another dumb PhD
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:42110bf9$1@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu...

Quote:
In article <cu1ncp$jup$1@news-nth.ocn.ad.jp>,
"Paul Hollister" <Hollister@Origin-of-Universe.com> writes:
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?

Yes. I am not raising any issue about what constitutes the Standard Big
Bang
Theory. I am introducing an Ongoing Big-Bang Model which shows how the
supermassive gravitational density conditions of the quasar can be the
site
of baryonogenesis and how the quasar's nucleosynthesis and jettison
of
hydrogen (proton-electron plasma) regionally results in the mainstream
sequence of galaxy evolution. I then show step-by-step how atomic and
stellar co-evolution within the circumnuclear AGN region around the
quasar
and within its jettisoned hydrogen-rich regions conjointly give rise to
the
entire mainstream sequence of galaxy evolution, which evolves as an
uninterrupted continuum from Quasar to Radio Galaxy to Elliptical
Galaxy to
Spiral Galaxy.


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.

1) Does your theory (Ongoing Big-Bang Model) say the Universe was
hotter and
denser in the past or not?

Formation of quark-gluon plasma and the threshold for quark-gluon
particle
fusion into baryons require the temperature and density conditions
defined
by the Standard Big Bang Model. As a particle-fusion process resulting
in
baryonogenesis, the temperature and density conditions of quark-gluon
plasma
that reaches the threshold of quark-gluon particle fusion into baryons
in
the Ongoing Big-Bang Model are the same as the quark-gluon particle
fusion
conditions of the Standard Big Bang Model. However, your question is
asked
from the perspective that the entire Universe began from a singular big
bang
(Standard Big Bang Model). Whereas the Standard Big Bang Model has the
nucleosynthesis of all the hydrogen in the universe occurring within an

extremely short period of time (within a few minutes!), the Ongoing
Big-Bang
nucleosynthesis of hydrogen within the supermassive density conditions
of
the quasar occurs as an ongoing process. This Ongoing Big-Bang particle

fusion into hydrogen within the quasar is comparable on another scale
of
magnitude to the gradual thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium
in the
stars. It is the thermal and density conditions within the star that
reach
the thermonuclear threshold of nuclear fusion. Likewise, on an
astronomically larger scale of magnitude, it is the thermal and
supermassive
density conditions within the quasar that reach the threshold of
quark-gluon
particle fusion into the atomic nucleus of hydrogen (baryonogenesis).
In
conceptual terms, the following hyperlink contains testable predictions
of
the Ongoing Big-Bang Theory. In Chapter 10 ? Evidence of Ongoing
Big-Bang in
Center of Every Galaxy, section ? Is Galaxy Center a Big Bang or Black
Hole?
(page 111, CD Edition)
(http://www.origin-of-universe.com/home/home-galaxy-center.htm) see the

bivalve illustration of Star/Quasar and corresponding description to
conceptually visualize how the quasar is the site of quark-gluon
particle
fusion into hydrogen and how this process results in the quasar's
circumnuclear torus and cosmic plasma jets composed of proton-electron
plasma. The following is a descriptive excerpt from the hyperlink:


"The Gravity Implosion---Energy Explosion Model integrates both sides
of
the process in each of these celestial orbs [Star and Quasar]. Using
stellar
evolution leading to thermonuclear fusion as a model, quasar evolution
leading to thermo-particle fusion (Big-Bang) can be precisely
formulated in
theoretical terms. Quasar is formed from and composed of pre- and
non-atomic
particles within a Pre-Bang supermassive gravitational density.
Quark-gluon
fusion into the proton nucleus of hydrogen strong-force binds the
particles
into stable proton condition. This strong-force separation of particle
(proton) and anti-particle (electron) creates an electromagnetic
polarity
that is the regional origin of electromagnetic force within the
universe (in
the form of an electron and proton, the subatomic elements of
hydrogen).
Within the supermassive density of quark-gluon plasma, hydrogen protons
and
their newly formed "anti-particle" electrons are propelled outward
from
the supermassive gravitational density conditions within the core of
the
quasar. At the surface of the quasar, the protons are channeled by
gravitational force into orbit as a torus of proton-electron plasma
whirling
around the equatorial plane of the quasar. Massive electromagnetic
force
generated by the orbiting torus forms the cosmic plasma jets. Within
the
supermassive gravitational conditions of the torus orbiting around the
equatorial plane of the quasar, accelerated nuclear fusion occurs that
gives
rise to the regional presence of atoms of higher and higher atomic
weight,
thereby accounting for the range of atomic elements evident around the
quasar" [including deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4].

In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the "universe" is indeed regionally
hotter
and denser at the site of baryonogenesis, just as it is in the Standard
Big
Bang Model. However, the "Universe" as a whole was not uniformly
hotter
and denser in the past because baryonogenesis is occurring locally
within
each quasar, rather than simultaneously throughout the "Universe"
as a
whole at one brief point in cosmos history. A comparison of the Mass
Density
and Thermal Scale of the "Original Big Bang" and "Ongoing
Big-Bang"
formation of hydrogen is illustrated in Chapter 7, The Big Bang With A
Cause: The Quasar!, hyperlink section Sparks, Stars and the Quasar
(page 74,
CD Edition) (http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_7.htm).

Quasar evolution is also conceptually illustrated in Chapter 7,
hyperlink
section Quasar Evolution (page 75, CD Edition).

Whereas the Standard Big Bang Model is a unicentric process wherein all
the
hydrogen in the entire universe was theoretically created within less
than 3
MINUTES, the Ongoing Big-Bang Model is a multicentric "Big-Bang"
process
that occurs within each quasar, wherein hydrogen is locally massively
produced and jettisoned into surrounding regional space. The timing and

sequence of hydrogen evolution from plasma to ionic to atomic to
molecular
form are extremely important determinants for the timing and
circumstances
of stellar evolution. In the Standard Big Bang Model it is said to have

taken about 300,000 years before the universe cooled sufficiently for
hydrogen ions to combine with electrons to form atoms, and longer
before
hydrogen atoms assemble into hydrogen molecules that can
gravitationally
collapse within star forming nebulae. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model,
the
cooling process following baryonogenesis becomes a function of local
distance in space from the hot finite supermassive density of the
quasar,
and the entire process of "Hydrogen Evolution" (regional transition
from
plasma to ionic to atomic to molecular form) is directly visible in
clearly
definable regions within the resulting radio galaxy. Rather than the
totality of space throughout in the universe simultaneously cooling
over
eons of cosmological time before hydrogen ions can assemble into
neutral
atoms and combine into hydrogen molecules that can gravitationally
collapse
into stars, the entire process of hydrogen and stellar evolution in the

Ongoing Big-Bang Model are within the direct range and reach of
scientific
investigation, because the entire Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy
Evolution is
within reach of the Hubble Space Telescope deep fields!

If Big Bang nucleosynthesis is an ongoing process within the quasar
(Ongoing
Big-Bang Model) rather than a singular event in universe history
(Standard
Big Bang Model), there would be ongoing Big-Bang fusion of quark-gluon
plasma into protons and a galactic River-of-Hydrogen (proton-electron
plasma) being jettisoned out of the supermassive "black hole"
(gravitational density conditions) of the quasar, jetting and spreading

ionic hydrogen and electrons into space, cooling in the distance into
atomic
and molecular hydrogen form, gathering into nebulae, giving birth to
stars---which is exactly what we see occurring in the galaxies! This
Ongoing
Big-Bang Theory, which includes scientific definition of both Pre-Bang
Universe and Post-Bang Universe, can be simulated as a theoretical
model if
the dark matter of the universe is composed of pre- and non-atomic
particles
that have the capacity to coalesce and gravitationally collapse into
the
supermassive gravitational density of the Quasar. The Ongoing Big-Bang
is
defined by the threshold of quark-gluon fusion into hydrogen. The pre-
and
non-atomic elements that precede the particle fusion of quark-gluon
plasma
into baryons comprise a Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles that
has
the potential to coalesce and gravitationally collapse into the
supermassive
density of the quasar. Whereas in the Standard Big Bang Model all pre-
and
non-atomic particles (including all the quarks and gluon that form the
baryonic structure of every atomic nucleus in the entire physical
universe!)
are all said to have materialized within ONE SECOND (Particle Era of
Standard Big Bang Model was from 10-10 to 1 second following the
mathematical point of beginning of Big Bang) before being strong force
fused
into baryons, this Ongoing Big-Bang Model is based on the preexistence
of a
Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles that is in evidence as dark
matter
throughout the surrounding coexisting Post-Bang Universe. The cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMB) can be viewed as a direct
manifestation
of this Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles. In the Standard Big
Bang
Model, CMB is viewed as the lingering embers of a single hot big bang
event
that occurred 10 to 15 billion years ago. In the Ongoing Big-Bang
Model, CMB
is potentially a direct manifestation of the Pre-Bang Universe that
contains
the pre- and non-atomic particles of dark matter that have the capacity
to
coalesce and gravitationally collapse into the supermassive "black
hole"
density of the quasar.


2) What abundances do you derive for deuterium, helium-3, and helium-4,
and
how do those abundances change with time?

Hydrogen accounts for 73 percent of the observed mass of the universe
and is
the most common element in the universe. Helium accounts for about 25
percent of the mass of the universe and is the second most common
element.
All mainstream sequence stars in the universe (Hertzsprung-Russell
diagram)
are predominantly composed of hydrogen. All newborn stars throughout
the
universe are ignited into visible existence by the thermonuclear fusion
of
hydrogen into helium. Throughout much of their life span (mainstream
sequence of stellar evolution), thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into
helium
continues to occur in the stars. In the Standard Big Bang Model, all
the
hydrogen and most of the deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4 in the
universe
were created within 3 MINUTES following the mathematical point of
beginning
of Big Bang. In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the nucleosynthesis of
hydrogen
is produced inside the supermassive thermal and gravitational density
conditions of the quasar. This Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis of
hydrogen
results directly in the formation of the quasar's circumnuclear torus
and
cosmic plasma jets of proton-electron plasma, as described under
Question #1
above. The circumnuclear torus surrounding the quasar is composed of
proton-electron plasma (hydrogen) under enormous temperature and
gravitational density conditions that result in accelerated nuclear
fusion
of deuterium, helium-3 and helium-4 and atomic elements that are in
evidence
immediately around the quasar and within the active galactic nucleus
(AGN)
region of the galaxy. The following hyperlink contains detailed
description
and testable predictions of this Ongoing Big-Bang process that results
in
atomic nucleosynthesis and AGN evolution: Chapter 12 ? Quasar and AGN
Evolution, section ? Ongoing Big-Bang Alignment of Quasars and
Circumnuclear
AGNs (page 149, CD Edition)

(http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_12.htm).

The following excerpt from the hyperlink describes how accelerated
nuclear
fusion immediately around the quasar forms atoms of higher atomic
weight and
gives rise to the active galactic nucleus (AGN) region of the galaxy:

"As the quasar matures, the environment around the quasar evolves
from two
separate but simultaneous and closely interrelated processes, each of
which
have their own unique regional rate of evolution: 1) The quasar's
radio
jets account for the accumulative formation of the galaxy's radio
structure
and hydrogen atmosphere that results in the starburst growth and
evolution
of the optical galaxy, as previously described, which accounts for the
evolution of the elliptical galaxy. 2) The quasar's plasma torus
accounts
for the evolution of the circumnuclear environment around the quasar,
which
over time evolves into the galaxy's visible active galactic nucleus
(AGN),
which in turn accounts for the massive materialization of circumnuclear

galaxy dust and morphological evolution of the spiral galaxy. The
astronomical temperature conditions and massive amounts of hydrogen
produced
by the Big-Bang process of quark-gluon fusion within the quasar account
for
the sequential formation of the circumnuclear plasma torus and
resulting
materialization and fueling of the AGN. Within the thermonuclear
inferno of
the AGN is where the massive amounts of higher atomic-molecular weight
dust
is formed that is responsible for gradually reshaping the galaxy from
spherical to elliptical to spiral form. Whereas the increasing volume
and
size of the elliptical stages of optical galaxy evolution are largely
due to
the radio jets and rain of hydrogenous matter throughout the space of
the
galaxy, the increasing ellipticity (E0-E7) of the galaxy and
transformation
from elliptical to spiral galaxy form (S0) and progressive increase in
the
total atomic-molecular dust and mass of the spiral stages (Sa-Sc) of
galaxy
evolution are primarily the result of events taking place in the
circumnuclear AGN."


I have stressed throughout the treatise that the quasar is the site of
hydrogen nucleosynthesis because this is the key to recognizing that
the
galaxies have materialized and grown from inside outward into their
range of
visible morphologies (Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution). Whereas

deuterium and helium can result from nuclear fusion within the
circumnuclear
region around the quasar, and within the AGN region, and within the
stars,
hydrogen nucleosynthesis can only occur within the quasar! This is the
key
by which I was able to define the mainstream sequence of galaxy
evolution:
Quasars make hydrogen! From this perspective, the origin of the
Intergalactic Medium and the Lyman alpha forest can be looked at in a
new
light. (To avoid any misunderstanding or confusion about what
constitutes
the Standard Big Bang Model perspective see Professor Bill Keel's
excellent
essay about Quasars, AGN and Lyman Alpha Forest at
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/).

Within the Intergalactic Medium, from Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, all

hydrogen can be traced directly to Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis
within
the quasar. Accelerated nuclear fusion of deuterium, helium-3 and
helium-4
can occur in the circumnuclear region around the quasar and AGN region
of
the galaxy. The presence of ionized helium (He II) within the Lyman
alpha
forest can be the result of intragalactic nuclear fusion or the result
of
helium being carried outward as a minor component of the jets. The
process
of baryonogenesis within the quasar and nuclear fusion within its
circumnuclear torus occurs in sequence from quark-gluon plasma to
hydrogen
to deuterium to helium-3 to helium-4. Whether or not a fractional
portion of
helium can be jettisoned into intergalactic space rather than confined
to
the circumnuclear torus and AGN region would depend in part on where
deuterium and helium nucleosynthesis begins in relationship to the
formation
of the quasar's circumnuclear torus and plasma jets. If helium
nucleosynthesis begins to occur after the formation of the plasma jets,

there should be no significant levels of intergalactic He II. If helium

nucleosynthesis begins to occur within the circumnuclear torus,
intergalactic jettison of He would be potentially possible. If helium
nucleosynthesis begins to occur proximal to the formation of the
circumnuclear torus, more He could be jettisoned into intergalactic
space.


3) How do you account for the quasar abundance peak at z=2?

Quote:
From Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, two factors account for the quasar
abundance peak at redshift z=2: first, space-time look-back reveals

universe
conditions at prior eras of time within the surrounding universe;
second,
local conditions within the Pre-Bang Universe define the site of quasar

formation. Although the speed of light dependably measures and
demarcates
distance in space-time terms, it does not need to be assumed that the
population density of quasars and galaxy types observed in distant
space
have evolutionarily given rise directly to the galaxy populations
within
local regional space. I have shown how each quasar initiates the
Mainstream
Sequence of Galaxy Evolution within its own respective regional space,
which
is illustrated and described at
http://www.origin-of-universe.com/#Galaxy_Evolution (click hyperlink
for
concise description of the process).

Each quasar within the quasar abundance peak at z=2 initiates this
Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution locally within its own regional

space. As the quasar is the site of quark-gluon fusion into the atomic
nucleus of hydrogen (Ongoing "Big-Bang" in the hyperlink
illustration),
the location of each quasar physically and geometrically demarcates the

relationship between the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe in
space.
The quasar abundance peak at redshift z=2 is the result of regional
gravitational events within the Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and
Particles
that give rise to the supermassive "black hole" density of the
quasar.
When looked at from a Locus of Vision on Planet Earth, the time
required for
light to travel from those quasars reveal the regional history of
universe
evolution at z=2. Reciprocally, from Ongoing Big-Bang perspective, if
our
Locus of Vision was situated at redshift z=2 looking back toward Planet

Earth, we would be seeing the region of the Milky Way Galaxy and Virgo
Cluster at a prior era of regional universe history, long before our
planet
was born.

In the Ongoing Big-Bang Model, the quasar abundance at z=2 is the
result of
local conditions within the Pre-Bang Universe. Local conditions within
the
Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and Particles gravitationally give rise to
the
supermassive density of the quasar that reaches the particle-fusion
threshold of its visible "Big-Bang". The location of quasars and
their
active jets make it possible to demarcate and precisely map the
relationship
between the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe in space. The
supermassive "black hole" density of the quasar is formed by
gravitational
collapse of pre- and non-atomic particles of dark matter within a
Pre-Bang
Universe. The site of gravitational collapse is thereby a function of
conditions within the coexisting Pre-Bang Universe of Energy and
Particles.
The quasar as a result is a physical point of interface between the
Pre-Bang
and Post-Bang Universe. The Large Scale Structure of Universe is
characterized by a cell-like pattern consisting of superclusters of
galaxies
surrounding large voids of space. By correlating the distribution of
quasars
and their jets with the morphological characteristics of the Mainstream

Sequence of Galaxy Evolution, I was able to recognize a "Unit of
Universe"
pattern within the surrounding Large Scale Structure of Universe that
potentially integrates the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang Universe as
a
unified system on a large scale.

Chapter 17, Representative Sample of Cosmos and Universe (pages
193-201, CD
Edition) (http://www.origin-of-universe.com/chapters/chapter_17.htm)
illustrates the relationship of the Pre-Bang Universe and Post-Bang
Universe
within the Large Scale Structure of the Universe. The illustrated
"Unit of
Universe" pattern in 4-spatial dimensions shows how the Pre-Bang
Universe
and Post-Bang Universe can both be mapped in space as a structural and
functional unit that is within direct scientific reach in the
surrounding
Large Scale Structure of Universe.

Chapter 18, Large Scale Unified Structure of Pre-Bang and Post-Bang
Universes describes a methodology for scientifically investigating the
Pre-Bang and Post-Bang Universe as a unified system.


4) In your theory (Ongoing Big-Bang Model), does the stellar initial
mass
function change with time, and if so, how?

If you take a few moments to model in your mind what the universe would
look
like if the quasar is the site of Ongoing Big-Bang nucleosynthesis and
jettison of hydrogen, the resulting process of stellar evolution
unfolds
into the morphological pattern of galaxies we see in the surrounding
universe. To visualize this, however, you must realize that the galaxy
materializes and grows from inside outward into its sequence of
morphological changes, which progress from Quasar jettison of hydrogen
to
Radio Galaxy reflection of massive hydrogen content to optically
enlarging
Elliptical Galaxy resulting from stellar evolution to centrifugal
molding of
Spiral Galaxy as a result of growing atomic molecular amassment within
its
disk and spiral arms. Hydrogen is continuously jettisoned and floods
into
surrounding space from the Ongoing Big-Bang process in the Quasar. The
expanding hydrogen atmosphere flooding into space from the jets
regionally
evolves from plasma to ionic (H+) to atomic (H0) to molecular (H2)
hydrogen
nebular form in the cooler regions surrounding the quasar at galaxy
center,
producing the optically quiet pre-stellar radio-loud galaxy (Radio
Galaxy).
Optical appearance of starburst activity begins at galaxy center and in
the
hydrogen rich atmospheres streaming into orbit from the plumes of
plasma
jets that extend thousands of light-years into space, giving optical
birth
to the irregular, blue dwarf galaxy (Irregular Blue Galaxy). Globular
clusters of first generation stars (Metal-Poor Population II Stars)
continuously form in the dense hydrogen atmosphere and spread into
orbit
around gravity-center main, and the galaxy gradually transforms from
irregular blue optical appearance into a homogeneous galaxy filled with

globular clusters of stars (Elliptical Galaxy). Continuous in-flooding
of
hydrogen from the ongoing Big-Bang process and its visible jets causes
the
elliptical galaxy to grow in size from small elliptical (E1) to medium
elliptical (E3) to large elliptical galaxy (E7). Stellar evolution
within
the enlarging elliptical galaxy causes its characteristic
transformation
from young blue star composition to old red star content as the galaxy
grows
in size and age. Active galactic nucleus stage of galaxy evolution
begins
with the appearance of massive star birth growth and evolution
occurring in
the vigorous central region around the quasar (AGN, Active Galactic
Nucleus). Stellar evolution and supernova explosions within the active
galactic nucleus region of the galaxy result in sequential nuclear
fusion of
atoms of higher atomic weight and their regional distribution within
galaxy
space. As the generations of metal-poor Population II stars pass
through
their lifecycle from Hertzsprung-Russell mainstream sequence stars to
hydrogen-core depleted red giants to supernova explosions, and as the
interstellar space within the galaxy becomes increasingly filled with
the
atomic products of thermonuclear fusion, interstellar dust begins to
form in
the center of the galaxy that contains atoms of higher atomic mass, and

metal-rich stars (Population I Stars) begin to be formed in the
resulting
metal-rich clouds of dust. This ongoing sequence accounts for why the
central bulge of galaxies at maturity contains both Population I and
Population II stars. The metal-poor Population II stars are
continuously
produced from the ongoing Big-Bang production of hydrogen and
metal-rich
Population I stars are continuously produced by stellar evolution, and
this
entire process and sequence of atomic and stellar co-evolution is
occurring
within the space of the galaxy. Vigorous AGN activity results in the
production of immense amounts of intragalactic dust that accumulates in
the
circumnuclear region of the galaxy. The increasing amounts of dust
progressively masks the brightness of the quasar at galaxy center until
it
can no longer be directly seen at optical wavelengths, but the presence
of
the quasar's enormous gravitational force ("Supermassive Black
Hole")
remains evident and its explosive jets remain clearly visible
throughout the
elliptical stage of galaxy growth and evolution. As intragalactic
atomic-molecular dust continues to form and accumulate within the
active
galactic nuclear region of the galaxy, visible rings of
atomic-molecular
dust appear and begin to spread centrifugally outward into a plane
perpendicular to the galaxy's axis of spin, which gradually
transforms the
shape of the galaxy from spherical (E0) to elliptical (E1?E7) to early
spiral form (S0). Within the AGN region at galaxy center, the atoms
assemble
into molecules; the molecules amass into visible rings of intragalactic

dust, and the growing amassment of visible galaxy dust accounts for the

remolding of the shape of the galaxy. As atomic-molecular amassment of
dust
continues to accumulate, the visible rings of dust become denser and
centrifugally spill outward into bars and growing spiral arms (Sa stage
of
spiral galaxy evolution). As the maturing spiral galaxy is in effect a
centrifuge that concentrates the metal-rich atomic-molecular clouds of
dust
in the galactic plane, this accounts for why the disk of the spiral
galaxy
contains only metal-rich Population I stars. As the disk of the spiral
galaxy grows in size, the recycling lifecycles of metal-poor Population
II
stars within the halo region gradually become incorporated into the
growing
spiral disk and the spiral bulge gradually decreases in size (Sb and Sc

stages of spiral galaxy evolution). The bulge and halo of globular
clusters
of stars in every spiral galaxy are the remnant of the elliptical
galaxy
that gradually reformed into the spiral disk, which accounts for why
the
globular clusters of stars in the halo of spiral galaxies are composed
of
metal-poor Population II stars.

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
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored? Reply with quote

Eiensteinhoax," Apparently, for some hare-brained reason, this
transformation was apparently derived using Maxwell's Equations instead
of making use of the basic Lorentz Transformations and E=M*C^2 alone. "

Uh...Maxwell's equations imply the Lorentz transformations in that
Maxwell's equations under invariant under Lorentz transformations. Is
this enough of a harebrained reason for you?

Einsteinhoax, "The energy stored in each of the springs is half of the
product of the distance of the their compression and their stiffness."

Uh...Stored potential energy = (1/2)kx^2, k=spring constant, x
=compression from the uncompressed configuration. Please go back and
consult your junior high physical science book for the correct formula.

AA PhD
Back to top
ajiko
science forum beginner


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored? Reply with quote

I have read his papers. He clearly deserves more respect.
As for that simple spring, he often refers to Hooke's formula: energy =
(1/2)* f * l. The force is your k*x. the l (length) is your x.

Your writing reads like this: "consult your junior high physical science
book for the correct formula".

Ned

<akalaniz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110903340.191000.263360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Eiensteinhoax," Apparently, for some hare-brained reason, this
transformation was apparently derived using Maxwell's Equations instead
of making use of the basic Lorentz Transformations and E=M*C^2 alone. "

Uh...Maxwell's equations imply the Lorentz transformations in that
Maxwell's equations under invariant under Lorentz transformations. Is
this enough of a harebrained reason for you?

Einsteinhoax, "The energy stored in each of the springs is half of the
product of the distance of the their compression and their stiffness."

Uh...Stored potential energy = (1/2)kx^2, k=spring constant, x
=compression from the uncompressed configuration. Please go back and
consult your junior high physical science book for the correct formula.

AA PhD
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Where Is The Kinetic Energy of a Bullet Stored? Reply with quote

Einsteinhoax needs to realize that before shitting on current physics,
that current physics is thoroughly tested in the lab. I'm pretty sure
he gets his science reading from CNN, not from researching the piles of
careful, peer reviewed work. For instance, he is certain quantum
mechanics has shown relativity to be wrong because of popular reports
that EPR-like teleportation have demonstrated faster than light
phenomenology. WRONG. A look in the literature will show that Bell's
inequalities have been shown to be too restrictive to constrain
reality. Hence hidden variable theories are back in the game, and
hidden variable theories based on Brownian motion have been shown to
lead to quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum mechanics since the
1960s. The, jury, at best, is still out, and may remain so forever as
some work is showing that we may never be able to distinguish between
whether hidden variable theories can be valid or not. I cited the
literature in another post if you are interested.

Eienstein hoax musn't have any math skills of substance. He is
dumbfounded that one derives the Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's
equations, apparently unaware that the Lorentz transformations are
"built in" to Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are invariant
under Lorentz transformations. Not understanding any of this, he
proposes using an alternate route including E=mc^2 as if this is a more
fundamental approach?!*? What can be more fundamental than Maxwell's
equations, both in their classical form, or in their second quantized
form? From classical electrondynamics to QED, Maxwell's equations jive
with data from the lab to many, many decimal places.

Einsteinhoax needs to understand that new physical theories need to
make testable predictions. Based on reading his crap, he is convinced
physicists are completely faithful in their belief of string theory.
Physicists are building the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to determine
whether many theories are true or false, eg., the Higgs boson or
bosons, supersymmetry, string theory, large extra dimensions, and so
forth. If the LHC is too wimpy to answer all questions, then
physicists must build a larger collider. If the LHC opens up new
phenomenology, then new, competing theories will have to be created,
and, ULTIMATELY, test in the lab. All Einsteinhoax does is crap on old
theories of physics. Well then, where in hell is his theory? Can he
tell me if there are more than three generations of leptons? Is SUSY
bullshit? Does the speed of light, or other physical constants, change
with time?

Quote:
From a different point of view, given that there are error bars in
physics, I would be able to entertain Einsteinhoax's theories.

Physical constants, for example, are known only to so many decimal
places, and only with so much certainty in terms of the standard error
statistic. There may (or not) be new physics lurking within these
uncertaintly/error bars. How does one distinguish, say, one
post-Newtonian theory of gravity from another when, say, radar echo
data from Venus doesn't have enough statistical certainty to
distinguish the two theories? One does so by improving technology.
Again, where is a single Einsteinhoax theory?

The bottom line is that Einsteinhoax knows no physics. On his webpage
he has a design (a real, honest to goodness design) of a machine that
violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well then, as this machine
separates fast, energetic molecules from slower, less energetic
molecules without any net work put into the system, once the molecules
are separated, his machine can be used to push a piston, and then, once
again for free, reset itself for a new cycle. WOW!!! Why isn't this
machine on the market!!! In light of free flow of information on the
internet, I don't want to hear any conspiracy theories about the
government squashing his machine. His design is on the net! Instead,
I would rather hear his rebuttle of why, as I pointed out to him, the
machine will fail. I'm waiting.

AA
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers Reply with quote

Please sir, why haven't you marketed your perpetual motion machine that
you have in your webpage? Or is it that, as I explained to you, your
Maxwell demon isn't quite up to snuff?

Sorry your math skills suck. How, without advanced mathematics, would
you develop, say, GPS technology which uses general relativity? How
about the precession of the perehelion of Mercury without violating
observational data. The sun isn't oblate enough for Newtonian gravity
to work...must use Einstein's general relativity.

How without relativistic quantum mechnanics would you model the Lamb
shift and hordes of other observable phenomena?

Please...PLEASE!...put up or shut up. Pick all those phenomena that
have been successfully modeled thanks to special relativity (like
applications of QED physics to atomic spectra) and general relativity
with applications such as GPS and give me YOUR extremely simplified
model. Now, give me one model for each phenomena. QED--a single
theory--models gobs of phenomemology. Give me a few models, say one to
replace QED and one to replace GR that jive with experiment as well as
or better than QED and general relativity.

Sorry, you haven't killed the Jew Einstein.

AA PhD
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
science forum addict


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

The electric field of the electron is said to be caused
by virtual photons.


The magnetic properties is said to be caused by spinning
electrons... But since electrons don't really spin
literally, where do the magnetic properties really
come from??


COMMENT:

I presume something or other "in" the electron is indeed spinning
"literally." A magnetic field in physics is understood to be merely a
relativistic effect (ie, view) of moving charge. If the non-translating
electron is observed to still possess a magnetic field, its charge must
still somehow, or in some way, still be moving. And there's only one
direction for that to happen if the whole thing doesn't move, and
that's round and round. Q.E.D., no pun intended.

There's a certain amount of cognitive dysonance here, of course. With
the proton or neutron, when you bring up the matter of the intrinsic
magnetic field, physicists wave their hands and say "no problem." It's
easily explained by the circular motions of the internal charged
quarks.

But when it comes to leptons, physicists get all mystical, because they
haven't yet posited any internal structure of the things to give this
same kind of explanatory power.
But that's not to say there isn't any such structure. Just that, so
far, the magnetic moment of the leptons is the only evidence for it.
And physicists want some other evidence of scale before they'll commit.

But there's another fascinating fact, and that is that the measured
magnetic moment ratios of electrons and muons stand almost precisely in
ratio of their masses. That cannot be a coincidence (anybody want to
argue that it is?). And yet, as a fact it's hard to explain *except* as
being due to the fact that muons are simply "smaller" or less radially
extended in space than are electrons, by simple virtue of being more
massive and therefore better localized as wave-functions. So this is
fishy.

Now, physicists have also hesitated to connect an electron's magnetic
field with moving charge, because the electron's spin field is too
strong for its charge to cause it relativistic/classically, unless the
electron is *either* much larger than the minimum it has been measured
to be (by scattering), or *else* is spinning much faster than c. Since
this seems a contradiction, it's simply been tabled.

I think some new thinking is required. The time has come to open our
minds, as Oppie once said. Very well. Let us assume there are no
contradictions in nature, and the electron really is smaller than the
mimimal scattering radius for it. Something less than 10^-20 m. Perhaps
the electron is a string or some other simple extended geometrical
object (you pick one). That implies that if its spin magnetic field is
made in the usual relativistic way, that the electron substance spins
faster than c.

And now I want to ask: so what? **Why the hell not**?? As far as I
can see, there's no problem with things going faster than c in physics,
so long as nothing comes of it by virtue of transmitting information,
which is to say that causal effects are forbidden to be transmitted
from "here" to "there" in such a way as to exceed c. But spin doesn't
do that, anymore than supraluminal phase velocities of waves do. So why
not?

Eh?

SBH
Back to top
Lady Chatterly
science forum addict


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 73

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:30 pm    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

In article <1111640210.521805.120500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Quote:

The magnetic properties is said to be caused by spinning
electrons... But since electrons don't really spin
literally, where do the magnetic properties really
come from??

We have a problem with spoofing is if you do not know what you are
not.

Quote:
COMMENT:

Go on shooooo.

Quote:
I presume something or other "in" the electron is indeed spinning
"literally." A magnetic field in physics is understood to be merely a
relativistic effect (ie, view) of moving charge. If the non-translating
electron is observed to still possess a magnetic field, its charge must
still somehow, or in some way, still be moving. And there's only one
direction for that to happen if the whole thing doesn't move, and
that's round and round. Q.E.D., no pun intended.

Whether it was a period of more intense bombardment peaking between
5000 and 3000 years before the present and tailing off as recently as
the 6 th century Ad.

Quote:
There's a certain amount of cognitive dysonance here, of course. With
the proton or neutron, when you bring up the matter of the intrinsic
magnetic field, physicists wave their hands and say "no problem." It's
easily explained by the circular motions of the internal charged
quarks.

I am not sure I understand the question.

Quote:
But when it comes to leptons, physicists get all mystical, because they
haven't yet posited any internal structure of the things to give this
same kind of explanatory power.
But that's not to say there isn't any such structure. Just that, so
far, the magnetic moment of the leptons is the only evidence for it.
And physicists want some other evidence of scale before they'll commit.

End of the internet.

Quote:
But there's another fascinating fact, and that is that the measured
magnetic moment ratios of electrons and muons stand almost precisely in
ratio of their masses. That cannot be a coincidence (anybody want to
argue that it is?). And yet, as a fact it's hard to explain *except* as
being due to the fact that muons are simply "smaller" or less radially
extended in space than are electrons, by simple virtue of being more
massive and therefore better localized as wave-functions. So this is
fishy.

Security is only one thing, and I Will not be a hassle.

Quote:
Now, physicists have also hesitated to connect an electron's magnetic
field with moving charge, because the electron's spin field is too
strong for its charge to cause it relativistic/classically, unless the
electron is *either* much larger than the minimum it has been measured
to be (by scattering), or *else* is spinning much faster than c. Since
this seems a contradiction, it's simply been tabled.

Has made a simple four word answer save social security first.

Quote:
I think some new thinking is required. The time has come to open our
minds, as Oppie once said. Very well. Let us assume there are no
contradictions in nature, and the electron really is smaller than the
mimimal scattering radius for it. Something less than 10^-20 m. Perhaps
the electron is a string or some other simple extended geometrical
object (you pick one). That implies that if its spin magnetic field is
made in the usual relativistic way, that the electron substance spins
faster than c.

Again, do not know what you are a fart.

Quote:
And now I want to ask: so what? **Why the hell not**?? As far as I
can see, there's no problem with things going faster than c in physics,
so long as nothing comes of it by virtue of transmitting information,
which is to say that causal effects are forbidden to be transmitted
from "here" to "there" in such a way as to exceed c. But spin doesn't
do that, anymore than supraluminal phase velocities of waves do. So why
not?

But I do not know what you are not.

Quote:
Eh?

For example, these are peano 's axioms for number theory.

Quote:
SBH

There's a lot out there that I've read and *get* the idea but *do not*
agree with. So?

--
Lady Chatterly

"is there someone actually posting as Lady Chatterly, or is this all
some kind of elaborate sock? i'm not getting them." -- ronin
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:23 pm    Post subject: Re: The Brilliance of Our Teachers Reply with quote

I still await your presenting the world how your brilliant, high school
level approach to science can yield the correct precession of the
perehelion of Mercury, the correct bending of light by the sun, the
correct delay in radar echos without the heavy, insensible mathematics
of tensor calculus in a non-Riemannian geometry. Or for that matter,
show us how a brilliant high school kid could calculate the Lamb shift
without any abstruce QED. It would go a long way in showing me that
yes, indeed, physicists are full of s**t hiding behind strange,
bullshit mathematics. How about taking the particle physics spectrum
as known in 1950 and predicting, without group theory, the existence of
other particles? Can you do that with algebra? Better yet, live up to
your promise that you will rebut any of your arguments. You have on
your web page a claim of having designed a perpetual motion machine of
the second kind. I have posted where you are wrong. Where is your
rebuttle? And why, if I'm wrong, haven't you marketed this machine
that can produce useful work without any input of energy?

Nice of you to quote A. Einstein, but post under Einsteinhoax. What is
it? Are you with him or against him?

AA PhD
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
science forum addict


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 76

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:31 am    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

Oh, I don't have one. It's something below the minimum measured
scattering radius of 10^-20 m, which is something like 6 or more orders
of magnitude smaller than the classical electron radius. And also we
need to know what shape the thing has, to deduce a velocity. Maybe it's
a uniformly charged string. How should I know? Or maybe it's a spining
solid sphere or even a spherical shell. Or perhaps it's merely a
spinning wave packet of some kind, but one without spherical symmetry.
Something like one of the "p orbital" functions of the atom, or the
spherical harmonic functions of rotating molecules, but very much
smaller.

Even if the thing is a "string," it seems to me that its rotational
modes will have to follow the laws of QM, so that it will end up with
the same kind of harmonic functions that you get with rotating
molecules. A string is a "rigid rotator" after all-- just one that has
1/12th of the moment of inertia as it would if it was composed of two
point masses bound together by some force. We have no idea how this
works out for the electron. But all thinking about that has been
forbidden up to now, because it's been presumed the electron must be a
structureless point particle, so QM modes for the rotation of extended
objects (as with rotating molecules) are forbidden. I say, "Haul em
out."

But whatever it is, it's going to need mean "orbital" or "rotational"
velocities far in excess of 3e8 m/sec to give the observed magnetic
moment. If it rotates, it must rotate at a million times c, at least.
My point is, that I don't see why this shouldn't be okay. Ideas for the
structure of the electron have all been hung up at this point. I'm
saying we should just ignore the speed of light here, and get on with
it. If people ask, what good is a string theory or "rigid rotor" theory
of the electron? Or a parton theory of the electron? The answer is: it
starts by explaining the magnetic moment, and does so for the muon,
too. And maybe will be found to explain other things as well.

Look at it this way. Suppose that, 50 years ago, some guy had come up
and said "How do you explain the fact that the neutron has a magnetic
moment, even though it has no charge?

And you'd said: "Oh, maybe it's made of little fractionally charged
particles, some positive and some negative, and they're in different
orbits so the whole thing is sort of inhomogenous..."

They'd have said you were nuts. The standard answer then was that the
magnetic moments of particles didn't have anything to do with their
inner workings or structure or charge, and the neutron proved it.
Well, that was wrong. And ditto for the proton. And yet, here we are
saying the same thing today, as regards the electron. If I'm not
mistaken. Are we not? Have we learned *nothing* inductively by our
experience with hadrons?

SBH
Back to top
RP
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:37 am    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
Quote:
Oh, I don't have one. It's something below the minimum measured
scattering radius of 10^-20 m, which is something like 6 or more orders
of magnitude smaller than the classical electron radius. And also we
need to know what shape the thing has, to deduce a velocity. Maybe it's
a uniformly charged string. How should I know? Or maybe it's a spining
solid sphere or even a spherical shell. Or perhaps it's merely a
spinning wave packet of some kind, but one without spherical symmetry.
Something like one of the "p orbital" functions of the atom, or the
spherical harmonic functions of rotating molecules, but very much
smaller.

Even if the thing is a "string," it seems to me that its rotational
modes will have to follow the laws of QM, so that it will end up with
the same kind of harmonic functions that you get with rotating
molecules. A string is a "rigid rotator" after all-- just one that has
1/12th of the moment of inertia as it would if it was composed of two
point masses bound together by some force. We have no idea how this
works out for the electron. But all thinking about that has been
forbidden up to now, because it's been presumed the electron must be a
structureless point particle, so QM modes for the rotation of extended
objects (as with rotating molecules) are forbidden. I say, "Haul em
out."

But whatever it is, it's going to need mean "orbital" or "rotational"
velocities far in excess of 3e8 m/sec to give the observed magnetic
moment. If it rotates, it must rotate at a million times c, at least.
My point is, that I don't see why this shouldn't be okay. Ideas for the
structure of the electron have all been hung up at this point. I'm
saying we should just ignore the speed of light here, and get on with
it. If people ask, what good is a string theory or "rigid rotor" theory
of the electron? Or a parton theory of the electron? The answer is: it
starts by explaining the magnetic moment, and does so for the muon,
too. And maybe will be found to explain other things as well.

Look at it this way. Suppose that, 50 years ago, some guy had come up
and said "How do you explain the fact that the neutron has a magnetic
moment, even though it has no charge?

And you'd said: "Oh, maybe it's made of little fractionally charged
particles, some positive and some negative, and they're in different
orbits so the whole thing is sort of inhomogenous..."

They'd have said you were nuts. The standard answer then was that the
magnetic moments of particles didn't have anything to do with their
inner workings or structure or charge, and the neutron proved it.
Well, that was wrong. And ditto for the proton. And yet, here we are
saying the same thing today, as regards the electron. If I'm not
mistaken. Are we not? Have we learned *nothing* inductively by our
experience with hadrons?

SBH

Electron spin is a theoretical mistake. Not that the empirically
observed effects aren't real; it is the term "spin" that is the
mistake. A few days ago I introduced my sentiment that photon
polarization is just a reflection of electron polarization, since
according to SR, photons are just the retarded relativistic
translation of the electron's field to some other electron.

Electron polarization is however not a matter of an intrinsic spin of
the electron, it is instead a matter of the tangential velocity of the
electron wrt other charged particles, the directional component of
that velocity being the only part that is related to polarization
since it "is" the polarization. Classical field theory ascribes a
magnetic field to this electron-in-motion, a field that has definite
magnetic polarization. It is this polarization that is transmitted to
other electrons via em radiation.

In several educational articles that I've read, the authors define the
electron-spin axis as that corresponding to the angular acceleration
of the electron, e.g. in its motions about the atom, or molecule, or
any other structure to which it is bound. But a mass need not be
spinning on an axis in order to have angular acceleration, it needs
only to be orbiting about an axis, and in fact a spinning mass has no
angular acceleration, rather it is the parts of the mass that are
accelerating. It is the same with the electron, it doesn't spin, it
moves and it changes in its state of motion wrt other particles, it is
part of a dynamic system of randomly moving point charges. Herein lies
the key to understanding what is regarded as electron spin: The motion
of the electrons isn't completely random, and in the case of ferrous
materials the degree of coherence of electron polarization (not spin)
is evident.

Electrons move at c in any inertial frame. They must move at this
speed in order to account correctly for the electrostatic field of a
macroscopic test charge. Historically, c was first introduced as a
constant that kept showing up when relating equations for magnetic and
electrostatic forces, and later, by reformulating those equations in
terms of permittivity and permeability, c emerged as a relationship
between these two constants of free space. Historically, however, it
is a relationship between the two forces and not between the arbitrary
constants later introduced. It is exactly the speed of electron drift
in parallel conductors at which the magnetic force between them equals
the electrostatic force between the drifting electrons.

My math shows that this relationship is in turn a direct result of the
fact that the electrostatic force between two macroscopic test charges
is just the vector sum of the forces between its constituent particles
of charge, forces that are in turn due to their motions wrt each
other. c turns out to be the speed at which the electrons must move in
order to account fully for the electrostatic interaction, when the
interaction is approached in terms of the superposition of microscopic
dynamic interactions.

See: http://www.cswnet.com/~rper/Electromagnetism.pdf

Though it will no doubt be countered that electrons move at speeds
much slower than c, I will counter in return that QM's fuzzy electron
clouds are in direct contradiction to that conclusion, in that they
have some non-zero probability of turning up a distance r away from
the atom in just over a time r/c. IOW, they can jump between two
positions at a speed of c. Electrons "drifting" at less than c do not
move uniformly, they "drift". Only when they are drifting at c do they
move uniformly, since at that linear speed, transverse motions become
relativistically impossible.

What can we say about the many measurements of the charge-mass ratio
of the electron in light of the above model, a ratio that can be
determined only when the speed of the electron is known, and is always
taken to be much less than c? We can only say that they "assume" that
the electron has gravitational mass, which is in no way proven at this
point in time. Mass is derived in the famous equation E=mc^2 as a
function of electromagnetic potential energy, i.e. as some
relationship between charges and spacetime. Electromagnetic potential
in turn requires at least two charged particles, and thus mass must be
a macroscopic detail rather than a fundamental property. Newton's laws
apply superficially to systems of charges whose net dynamic results in
the effect that we refer to as inertia, mass being just a measure of
that inertia rather than a measure of the particles per se. Mass isn't
an intrinsic property of a particle, and this follows equally from
Mach's arguments as well.

Flame away.

Richard Perry
Back to top
Josef Matz
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:02 pm    Post subject: Re: magnetic propeties from spinning electric field Reply with quote

I think the internal field of the electron is rotating everywhere with
constant c and the magnetic field such that every charge element feels no
net force (Lorentz force). The assumption of a uniform rotation runs in
conflict with all known theories.


"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:1111640210.521805.120500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
The electric field of the electron is said to be caused
by virtual photons.


The magnetic properties is said to be caused by spinning
electrons... But since electrons don't really spin
literally, where do the magnetic properties really
come from??


COMMENT:

I presume something or other "in" the electron is indeed spinning
"literally." A magnetic field in physics is understood to be merely a
relativistic effect (ie, view) of moving charge. If the non-translating
electron is observed to still possess a magnetic field, its charge must
still somehow, or in some way, still be moving. And there's only one
direction for that to happen if the whole thing doesn't move, and
that's round and round. Q.E.D., no pun intended.

There's a certain amount of cognitive dysonance here, of course. With
the proton or neutron, when you bring up the matter of the intrinsic
magnetic field, physicists wave their hands and say "no problem." It's
easily explained by the circular motions of the internal charged
quarks.

But when it comes to leptons, physicists get all mystical, because they
haven't yet posited any internal structure of the things to give this
same kind of explanatory power.
But that's not to say there isn't any such structure. Just that, so
far, the magnetic moment of the leptons is the only evidence for it.
And physicists want some other evidence of scale before they'll commit.

But there's another fascinating fact, and that is that the measured
magnetic moment ratios of electrons and muons stand almost precisely in
ratio of their masses. That cannot be a coincidence (anybody want to
argue that it is?). And yet, as a fact it's hard to explain *except* as
being due to the fact that muons are simply "smaller" or less radially
extended in space than are electrons, by simple virtue of being more
massive and therefore better localized as wave-functions. So this is
fishy.

Now, physicists have also hesitated to connect an electron's magnetic
field with moving charge, because the electron's spin field is too
strong for its charge to cause it relativistic/classically, unless the
electron is *either* much larger than the minimum it has been measured
to be (by scattering), or *else* is spinning much faster than c. Since
this seems a contradiction, it's simply been tabled.

I think some new thinking is required. The time has come to open our
minds, as Oppie once said. Very well. Let us assume there are no
contradictions in nature, and the electron really is smaller than the
mimimal scattering radius for it. Something less than 10^-20 m. Perhaps
the electron is a string or some other simple extended geometrical
object (you pick one). That implies that if its spin magnetic field is
made in the usual relativistic way, that the electron substance spins
faster than c.

And now I want to ask: so what? **Why the hell not**?? As far as I
can see, there's no problem with things going faster than c in physics,
so long as nothing comes of it by virtue of transmitting information,
which is to say that causal effects are forbidden to be transmitted
from "here" to "there" in such a way as to exceed c. But spin doesn't
do that, anymore than supraluminal phase velocities of waves do. So why
not?

Eh?

SBH
Back to top
Tony Lance
science forum beginner


Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Big Bertha Thing blogs Reply with quote

Big Bertha Thing features
Cosmic Ray Series
Possible Real World System Constructs
http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/features.html
6K Web Page
Astrophysics net ring access site
Newsgroup Reviews including sci.space.policy

Features, hyperbole and blurb, on the Pastures package and the quest.

From Pastures Software Package Documentation.
(Particle Structure Results Program in Fortran 77.)
Sub-atomic Mesons, Baryons and Leptons Classification System.
(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997
Distribute complete and free of charge to comply.

Big Bertha Thing language

The purest form of the english language is contained
in the dead sea scrolls. There is not a lot of it, even there.

Pure english language is a bit like house dust, all dead skin.

The living bits of the english language are anything but pure,
borrowing from a dozen drunken, pilaging, barbarian invaders,
with not one good intention between them.

(C) Copyright Tony Lance 1997.
To comply with my copyright,
please distribute complete and free of charge.

Tony Lance
tonylance@big-bertha-thing.com


Big Bertha Thing corporate

1. What happened to the guys on the most wanted list?
2. Corporate America opened fire with an industrial
strength denial of service attack.
3. It was complete with worm virus.
4. 150K mailbox postings.
5. Daily basis.
6. Unlimited smtp mailboxes and names.
7. Ownership of smtp mailbox provider.
8. This is a proprietorial interest in Usenet newsgroup
postings.
9. Big Bertha is now on the list.
10. A sustainable defense would be nice.
11. When the guns fall silent, the battle will be over.
12. There were enough shells for 42 months, without
recycling.


Big Bertha Thing binary

The defense is of course binary; the old one two.
You need two filters.
The first blocks mailbox entry and strips out the from
mailbox address, for disclosure.
It uses mailbox address or sufix to select postings.
The second uses partial strings.
Any portion of the mailbox address or subject line to
select postings.
It flags them as deleted and moves them to the trashcan.
The trashcan auto-deletes before the mailbox fills up.
Lastly you need vacation auto-reply and a mailing list,
with an smtp mailbox.
The replies from auto reply tell you which mailboxes are
closed.
The mailing list replies confirms which mailboxes are open.

NB There may be another case with the same protaganist:-
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e10cd57.0311261707.35b8cf51%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain


Big Bertha Thing spamlock

One of the filters used includes the hosts shown as listed below.
1. These might be forgeries.
2. These might be global players carrying out denial of service attacks,
on newsgroup users, to further corporate aims.
3. Each mailbox is one-way; it can send mail, but not receive it.
4. To control the attack, some mailboxes need to be two-way.
5. Microsoft.com was once on the two-way list, but seems to have thought better of it.
6. Aol.com was once on the two-way list, but seems to have thought better of it.
7. Yahoo.com is still on the two-way list.
8. Forgers do not ever think better of it.
9. This list was first compiled in January 2004.
10. The attack has now stopped, after 12 months.
11. This is one month after disclosure of mailbox logs, on usenet.
12. Denial of service attacks are illegal, so what is the FBI doing about it
beyond prevarication?
13. The number of two-way mailboxes has been reduced to three major players.
14. Two of them are mentioned above. (Possibly all three.)
15. Microsoft in their recent unsuccessfull proposal, wanted the internet to
use their patented software for identification of mailboxes. (Anti-open source) See
link:-
http://www.circleid.com/article/855_0_1_0_C/

List is as follows;-
advisor.com
advisor.net
advisor.ms.com
advisor_ms.com
advisor.ms.net
advisor_ms.net
advisor.msn.com
advisor_msn.com
advisor.msn.net
advisor_msn.net
advisor.msdn.com
advisor_msdn.com
advisor.msdn.net
advisor_msdn.net
advisor.microsoft.net
advisor_microsoft.net
advisor.microsoft.com
advisor_microsoft.com
america.net
america.com
aol.net
aol.com
bigfoot.net
bigfoot.com
bulletin.msdn.com
bulletin_msdn.com
bulletin.msdn.net
bulletin_msdn.net
bulletin.ms.com
bulletin.ms.net
bulletin_ms.com
bulletin_ms.net
bulletin.msn.com
bulletin_msn.com
bulletin.msn.net
bulletin_msn.net
bulletin.net
bulletin.com
bulletin.microsoft.net
bulletin_microsoft.net
bulletin.microsoft.com
bulletin_microsoft.com
confidence.com
confidence.net
confidence.msn.com
confidence.msn.net
confidence_msn.net
confidence_msn.com
confidence_ms.com
confidence_ms.net
confidence.ms.com
confidence.ms.net
confidence_msdn.com
confidence_msdn.net
confidence.msdn.com
confidence.msdn.net
confidence_microsoft.com
confidence.microsoft.com
confidence_microsoft.net
confidence.microsoft.net
freemail.com
freemail.net
microsoft.net
microsoft.com
msnews.microsoft.com
ms29.hinet.net
ms31.hinet.net
ms33.hinet.net
ms35.hinet.net
ms39.hinet.net
ms40.hinet.net
ms41.hinet.net
ms45.hinet.net
msa.hinet.net
netmail.net
netmail.com Major two-way mailbox player.
news.com
news.net
news.ms.com
news_ms.com
news.ms.net
news_ms.net
news.msn.net
news_msn.net
news_msn.com
news.msn.com
news.msdn.com
news.msdn.net
news_msdn.net
news_msdn.com
news.microsoft.net
news_microsoft.net
news_microsoft.com
news.microsoft.com
newsletters.ms.net
newsletters_ms.net
newsletters.ms.com
newsletters_ms.com
newsletters.msn.com
newsletter.msn.com
newsletters.msn.net
newsletters_msn.net
newsletters_msn.com
newsletters.msdn.com
newsletters_msdn.com
newsletters.msdn.net
newsletters_msdn.net
newsletters.com
newsletters.net
newsletters_microsoft.net
newsletters.microsoft.net
newsletters.microsoft.com Major two-way mailbox player.
newsletters_microsoft.com
puremail.net
puremail.com
rocketmail.com
rocketmail.net
support.com
support.net
support.ms.net
support_ms.net
support.ms.com
support_ms.com
support_msn.net
support.msn.net
support_msn.com
support.msn.com
support.msdn.com
support_msdn.com
support.msdn.net
support_msdn.net
support.microsoft.com
support_microsoft.com
support.microsoft.net
support_microsoft.net
technet.ms.com
technet_ms.com
technet_ms.net
technet.ms.net
technet.com
technet.net
technet.msdn.com
technet_msdn.com
technet_msdn.net
technet.msdn.net
technet.msn.net
technet_msn.net
technet.msn.com
technet_msn.com
technet_microsoft.com
technet.microsoft.com
technet.microsoft.net
technet_microsoft.net
updates.com
updates.net
updates.ms.com
updates_ms.com
updates.ms.net
updates_ms.net
updates.msdn.com
updates_msdn.com
updates_msdn.net
updates.msdn.net
updates.msn.com
updates_msn.com
updates.msn.net
updates_msn.net
updates.microsoft.com
updates_microsoft.com
updates.microsoft.net
updates_microsoft.net
yahoo.com Major two-way mailbox player.
yahoo.net
Back to top
FrediFizzx
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 774

PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:29 am    Post subject: Re: How many particles in the GUTs? Reply with quote

[sci.physics.particle added]

"dzkalman" <dzkalman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:331194b.0504162018.7533df9f@posting.google.com...
| I've found a formula online to calculate the number of particles in
| any group SU(n). It says that there must be a string of (n-1)
| nonnegative integrals. How are these inegrals chosen? Can they be any
| numbers at all?
|
| Also, in the most "popular" GUTs, how many particles are there
| expected to be? If we incorporate the Standard Model in one of these
| GUTs, will that mean that there are more undiscovered particles out
| there?

Probably. But perhaps a better question to ask is how many different
kinds of particles (quantum objects) are there in an Anti-GUT? I
suspect just one; related to sqrt(hbar). I bet you can't tell the
difference between a "bare" electron and a "bare" quark. Neutrinos are
the clue.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 92 [1376 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 90, 91, 92 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:16 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: 0.0907s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0246s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]