Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
How about a naked electron? You know, the things that come out of the business end of an electron gun, such as found in the common cathode ray tube?

There are no nearby protons to dynamically support their existence.
They appear to have mass, and inertia. (a = f/m, they accelerate in a predictable way when a force is applied.)

===

Naked protons seem to exist, also, without an associated "dynamic" electron. They can be manipulated by electric and magnetic forces (and by electromagnetic forces) like naked electrons, but their benavior is different.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have indicated that if Elysium can be both liquid and vapor, that the return of liquid Elysium to the vapor phase would result where they are trapped in a graviational well but are still exposed to gravitons. The transfer of momentum from the gravitons to the elysons would vaporize them. This outward flux would represent the "repulsion field" around a nucleus which stops other nuclei from impacting the first nucleus. We may have a circumstance where the term "electron" is being used for more than one phenomena.

I am only speculating, but "electrons" emitted by an electron gun could be liquid droplets of Elysium which would have mass and velocity. Perhaps some collision mechanism within the electron gun causes then to be ejected from the gravity well of my proposed proton.

I cannot make sense of your naked proton statement. I have described a lone proton as always being naked. It is fully exposed to Elysium and gravitons. If one looks upon magnetism is being represented by focussed gravitational flux and electricity as being represented by liquid Elysium, I think that is a complete picture.

Electricity would be liquid Elysium flowing along the proton structures. Works well in a highly conductive metal. Suppose we put in a carbon filament, like in a light bulb. Here the liquid flow of Elysium would "dead end" in proton gravitational wells and then be vaporized - light, compliments of the nuclear structure of the carbon nucleus - which does not conduct electricity well in its larger molecular structures. The path of least resistance for elysons would be to be pushed into a proton's gravitational well. The only escape is by vaporization.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />
Ten minutes is a long time in the world of sub atomic particles. And it (a half life) is just an average. Half of them, by definition, live longer. Some might persist for days or weeks. There is no know upper bound. Centuries? Millenia?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Whose world of sub atomic particles? I have called out only three: the graviton, the elyson, and the proton. None of them show any half lives at all.

This half life nonsense needs to be put to rest. It is an invented human concept with the highly predictable consequence - an equation! It is used <b>precisely because</b> the mainstream scientists have not been able to measure and explain the mechanism of radioactive decay. However, the answer is obvious in their own explanation of nuclear chain reaction in a fission bomb. Collision causes the decay. When a collision with the right speed, mass and geometry will occur is a matter of random chance. And that "when" is entirely external to the nature of the nucleus in mind.

In repeating myself, there is no such thing as a stand alone neutron. It decomposes to a proton and an electron. This evolution may occur quicker if the neutron experiences collisions. What is the half life of lithium-6? It is "forever" unless it is suddenly impacted by a neutron or a high speed proton (asteroid versus comet). One could apply the half life concept to any structure built of more than one proton - or for that matter, any assembly of elysons.



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">??? A high speed proton (naked, in order to be a proton rather than a neutron or a hydrogen atom) is a proton, not a neutron. Each would behave differently from the other in the presence of an electric field.

===

Neutron activation analysis relies on the existence of neutrons. It does not work with protons.

===

Most models visualize a neutron as the physical juxtaposition of a proton and an electron. That common viewpoint doesn't automatically make these models right, but it is a logical thing to do. Especially since the mass of a neutron is about the same as the mass of a proton plus the mass of an electron.

However, a hydrogen atom is also the physical justaposition of a proton and an electron. So we have to be careful in making our models. Most of the details (especially their chemical properties) are different.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have already described a distinct difference between a hydrogen atom and a neutron. That is the point of my asymmetric proton. When the proton base is exposed you have a hydrogen atom. When two protons come together, base to base, the "electron" portion of each hydrogen atom has been trapped with the common cavity. It doesn't surprise me that the mass of a proton and an electron adds up to about the mass of a neutron. It certainly would!

One gets a proton up to high speed through use of very powerful electromagnets. A neutron, when released from a nucleus, already has that high speed momentum. In either case, it would be difficult to affect the course of either a neutron or a high speed proton because of their already existing high momentum.

One should keep in mind, especially for persons on this board, that mainstream science does not recognize the existence of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium. This makes them 2/3rds blind to Reality. So, logically, they must invent many new sub atomic particles to completely explain phenomena. Interesting how all these "fundamental" particles have <b>extremely</b> short half lives.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />QM is a model of the world that views forces differently than models based on classical physics. It makes some very accurate predictions about what will happen if you do this or if you do that.

But a model's ability to acccurately <u>describe and predict</u> things (the mathematical part of a model) is different from a model's ability to <u>explain how and why</u> those things happen (the physics part of a model).

On the physics side of things many followers of QM have concluded that "there is no deep reality". And the followers of geometric GR have concluded that geometry (IOW, an equation) is able to influence something physical like a mass.

I prefer models that postulate (assume) that there is a deep reality. That's why I'm here. MM may not be right either, but it has a better chance than the Name Brand models. IMO.

Still, I try to keep an open mind - they might be right and I might be wrong. But until I see someone build a mechanism of any sort that can make a measurement in 4D space-time, I'm going to assume that reality is 3D. To the best of my knowledge, ALL scientific measurements (and in fact all non-scientific measurements, too) that have ever been made have been made in 3D-space-plus-time.

[If someone knows of an exception, I'd like to hear about it.]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I grok your above statement completely.


Gregg Wilson

OK; so I guess force is in then. Now what about half life that has been inserted? It is said the proton has no observed half life but what about in a different environment? It seems to me the process out of favor at this time called proton decay is a much more logical process to make stars work and in an environment like a solar mass the half life of a proton would be observed. The half life method is useful in some ways is it not?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />OK; so I guess force is in then. Now what about half life that has been inserted? It is said the proton has no observed half life but what about in a different environment? It seems to me the process out of favor at this time called proton decay is a much more logical process to make stars work and in an environment like a solar mass the half life of a proton would be observed. The half life method is useful in some ways is it not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is no <b>positive evidence </b>that a proton decays under conditions on the Earth's crust, where the experiment was conducted. However, it is possible for it to happen within the interior of a star. But again, such a decay is not needed in order to explain how a star behaves.

In essence, a star forms because gravitons push on elysons and a grouping of protons is in the way. Starting with my speculation (or SWAG, if you prefer) on protons, if sunspots - being giant nuclear masses - eventually lose orbital momentum, they would sink towards the center of the star. At some point, this gathering could be "imploded" by the gravitational flux. If they become one giant mass, which is impermeable to elysons, then all the remaining Elysium has been <b>literally</b> backed into a corner. With nowhere to go - as in my speculated proton gravity well - the Elysium would be heated up by the momentum transfer from the incoming gravitons. You would have a nova or supernova, depending on the "perfection" of inner nuclear mass. After it is over, we would observe a neutron star. No surprize there. Since gravitons travel at approximately 20 billion times the speed of light, the distance a graviton could come from, so as to participate in the explosion, would be astronomical - like several galaxies away. There would be no short fall of gravitons to keep the nova going. As mentioned by Dr. Van Flandern, the actual source of energy to "run" a star, is the gravitational flux. I think that thought was a very important insight, and it does away with any need for mysterious nuclear energies hiding inside our fundamental particles.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />OK; so I guess force is in then. Now what about half life that has been inserted? It is said the proton has no observed half life but what about in a different environment? It seems to me the process out of favor at this time called proton decay is a much more logical process to make stars work and in an environment like a solar mass the half life of a proton would be observed. The half life method is useful in some ways is it not?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There are uses for the half life concept when one has large aggregates of a particular radioactive isotope or groups of very similar isotopes:

1) Knowing the half life enables management to determine how long a worker can be exposed before he must be removed from that environment. (they are very optimistic about this exposure time.)
2) Knowing how long a plutonium reactor has to "cool down" before it can be dissolved in nitric acid.
3) Medically speaking, some isotopes have an extremely short, useful life. My wife had to receive an injection for a cancer scan. If we had missed the appointment time by two hours or more, the proceedure could not be done.
4) For thyroid cancer, I had to be given the right amount of radioactive iodine and run through a scanner so many hours later. When I was given a lethal dose (for the thyroid cells) I had to remain in isolation for four days.

The half life is accurate for large amounts of a radioactive isotope but it is entirely useless and meaningless for predicting when a particular nucleus will undergo decay. It depends on a chance collision. The equation has mathematical accuracy but does not explain the how and why of decay.

Gregg Wilson