Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

<b>[Gregg] "Why does fundamental Reality have to be unduly complicated?"</b>

It doesn't, of course. That is one of the primary messages of this Website.

<b>[Gregg] "Let's see: the electron has to be in an orbital, which is part of a subshell, which is part of a shell. I like the 4N, 3f, 2p orbital myself. Oh, and it has to have either top spin or bottom spin, in the form of +3/2s or -1/2 or....I'm getting dizzy. This is splendid choreography but where is the Reality?</b>

This is nothing more than an accounting system (although it seems that not everyone using it understands that). Its purpose is to facilitate the calculation of outcomes. Predicting (numerically) what will happen when you do this or when you do that. Any theory that is going to be taken seriously has to develope one sooner or later.

Your proposed alternative will have to have one before it can be taken seriously. So will mine. Either of them may turn out to be less complicated than the present mainstream setup. Hopefully much less complicated. Or they might actually end up being more complicated. We just need to remember to not place the math above the physics. (The power of prediction is awesome. Elevating it above physics seems to be a very seductive thing, and many fall prey to it. IMO, it is a candidate for the title "Dark Side Of The Force".)

Once we can actually detect and measure properties of elysons, the process of developing such an accounting scheme can begin. It will be necessarily incomplete until we can detect and measure gravitons as well.

===

In the mean time, please keep working on the physics part of your theory. It has some interesting aspects. But don't negelect your study of the basics. IOW, the foundation upon which you are building your theory. Earlier you mentioned that you don't have a strong understanding of elysium. It shows in some of your speculations. And you seem to be unclear about other basic topics, as when you mistakenly equated the forces of EM waves with static electrical force.

Try to correct these and other deficiencies in your Personal Knowledge Base. Study, and ask questions. Re-read old posts where others have made comments about your ideas, and see if you still agree with your responses. It will help you build your theory.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
No, but I have a pending problem. My wife, Bonnie, does not approve of my idea of placing my 91 inch battlewagon on the mantel over the fireplace. What...is...her....issue?
Gregg Wilson<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Really Gregg, a 91in ship on a 72in mantle (standard size) and you do not see an issue. Like Larry says 'do the physics before the math'. I'm sure the box gave the finished size. Seriously, I do appriciate your reasoning.
Bob Smith

Following up on Larry's points, there's also the problem of the monopole. There's no way that hydrogen is a monopole. I found one paper on the subject of hydrogen and the monopole, and it's hardly setting the world of physics on fire. "Interaction of a slow monopole with a hydrogen atom Ya.M.Shnir" the reason for that is that the guy talks of a "hydrogen like atom" He's, theoretically removed from this strange atom, the very monopoles that would be expected to alter the energy state of the orbital electron, when they interact with a "stray" monopole. That makes the maths easier but the maths isn't very easy, but we cannot make such an atom, so it could hardly be used as a detector.

If the monopole exists, then it has to be massive, i.e. tiny and never far away from its partner, and a matter particle. A free monopole has never been detected, though there have been reports of them. If they exist in the free state they have to be a remnant of the big bang. So, we would have to have a big bang to have them. No thanks!

At this stage I don't think it would be fruitful to worry too much about them

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by thebobgy</i>
[brReally Gregg, a 91in ship on a 72in mantle (standard size) and you do not see an issue. Like Larry says 'do the physics before the math'. I'm sure the box gave the finished size. Seriously, I do appriciate your reasoning.
Bob Smith
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I am looking for moral support and you give me facts?!

But seriously, build a few pyramids out of heavy paper. I make them on the computer and cut and glue them.(my seventh childhood..)

Put three of them together, side to side. This is Helium-3. The common point is where one could have a "chemical bond". The bases represent the zone of "Coulomb replulsion". The "chemical bond" forms because two nuclei get in each other's way when the repulsive sides push two of them together. So, make two of the suckers. Then you "play" with them...wait, I mean "seriously maneuver them". You can demonstrate to yourself the "STRANGE, BIZZARE, UNBELIEVABLE" behavior of Helium-3 atoms:

1) Why and how they move through a vacuum to create a <b>monoatomic</b> layer on the poles of a magnet.

2) Why, if they collided at extreme velocity ("a million degrees"), that the only result would be an outward flux of protons (University of Wisconsin reports "140 million protons per second").

3) Why, when they are cooled down very near absolute zero, they form "dimers" which "defy gravity" and float upward and over hard surfaces.

4) Why, when Helium-3 is finally condensed under high pressure - near absolute zero temperature - it forms two, distinct, liquid phases. You can make two versions of Helium-3: one is straight and the other is a bit "kinky". Each isomer will form a dimer only with itself.

Equations and calculations are not needed.

Wait a minute. I forgot to label them. The first proton is P1. The second proton is obviously P2. The last proton is a bit of a problem: It could be P3s for a straight arrangement, or a P3r or a P3l for right hand and left hand isomers. I have absolutely no idea what this labeling does for us, but it is in keeping with labeling the electron shells, subshells and orbitals. Perhaps this labeling gives a certain aura of respectability to my silly idea.

Gregg Wilson

<b>[Gregg] "Equations and calculations are not needed.</b>

Hmmm.

<b>[Gregg] "Wait a minute. I forgot to label them. The first proton is P1. The second proton is obviously P2. The last proton is a bit of a problem: It could be P3s for a straight arrangement, or a P3r or a P3l for right hand and left hand isomers.</b>

Hmmm.

<b>[Gregg] "I have absolutely no idea what this labeling does for us, but it is in keeping with labeling the electron shells, subshells and orbitals. Perhaps this labeling gives a certain aura of respectability to my silly idea."</b>

It is the beginning of the accounting scheme I mentioned. Re-using ideas from the old accounting system is not an unreasonable thing to try, as a first pass. Your scheme will evolve. And that leads inexorably to the equations and calculations that most definately are (or will be) needed.

Physics really is nore important than math. But that does not mean that math is not important.

LB

<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>

It is the beginning of the accounting scheme I mentioned. Re-using ideas from the old accounting system is not an unreasonable thing to try, as a first pass. Your scheme will evolve. And that leads inexorably to the equations and calculations that most definately are (or will be) needed.

Physics really is nore important than math. But that does not mean that math is not important.

LB

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

It is normal and practical to organize phenomena for human use. If one reaches a useful algorithm then organizing equations and doing calculations enable us to quantify what is needed for our purpose. But, the common human error is sub-consciously thinking that Reality becomes subservient to our model.

If "electrons" are not singular particles and do not travel in "orbits", then the labelling of this has absolutely no utility.

We have the Periodic Table. It has some value but it does not determine Reality. There are a great many assumptions and rules tied to it which simply are not correct. The use of positive and negative signs is a perfect example. This might be a "useful" accounting tool but it is a very lousy predictor of chemical behavior. For instance, the Table tells us that Tungsten has a +6 charge. Apparently, the tungsten nuclei do not know this. I can form tungsten dichloride or tungsten trichloride or tungsten tetrachloride or tungsten pentachloride or tungsten hexachloride. The poor thing seems to "not know the rules".

If we apply the "octet rule" then we "understand" why we get hydrogen fluoride, HF. Except HF2 also exists. Whoops.

The poor Nitrogen atom apparently has shizophrenia cubed. It can't make up its mind about its charge, all the way from -3 to +5. It can form up to five bonds with oxygen but only three bonds with hydrogen. The existing rules do not explain this. If the electron shells around a nucleus are 10,000 times the size of the nucleus, how does this assertion explain five bonds with oxygen but only three bonds with hydrogen? But geometry of a nucleus can explain it.

I am a practical engineer. A plant startup has to be made successful. If a tool works, I use it. If it does not work, I toss it overboard.

I have dealt with chemistry for 43 years. Every working day, I write equation systems, solve them and do the calculations. But if my model predicts a pH of 36.8 for my aqueous brine, it is wrong and I better start over.

Many things taught in universities do not get Reality tested. So, the incorrect assumptions and ideas get a "free pass". After some decades, they become official and must not be challenged!!

I have a different idea about atoms. The horror of it all. Were the Lords and Ladies saved?!!

Gregg Wilson