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

Nitrogen needs three electrons to fill its l shell, so three hydrogens give us ammonia. Dinitrogen Pentoxide, on the other hand has five oxygen atoms. The answer is that there are two nitorgen atoms here, each nitrogen atom has two oxygen atoms and a shared oxygen atom. The l shells of both are then filled.

If you wish to gain an audience for your model of the atom, then it's not a good idea to rubbish the model which you want to replace. You're letting your frustrations, with what you see as wrong, lead you close to questioning the integrity, and sense, of the very people you need to convince. Simply explain your ideas and let them stand on their own two feet. I think there's a hint of sarcasm creeping into your posts, and that cannot help your cause.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have sensed that some long term members may think that I jumped to the pyramidal proton straight from the Great Pyramid. That is not the case. In the 1960s I did not care for or believe in the Bohr Atom or any derivation of it. However,I did not have the intellectual ammunition to come up with an alternative. I came across Metaresearch in about 1994. It made a great deal of sense to me. The gravitational flux idea was easy to "see" and it removed the insanities of an exploding Universe, black holes and singularities. Gravity became finite. And Reality is not compelled to obey Newton's Law of Gravitation. I had considerable trouble grasping the idea of a light carrying medium. It took about eighteen months of patient explaining by Dr. Van Flandern to make me able to see the light. (pun intended.)

In April, 2001, Dr. Van Flandern posted his evidence about artificial structures on Mars. I thought and think that he is correct. I noticed that one structure was a pyramid - and four sided at that - if one corrected for the damage done by an "asteroid". I then looked at the Egyptian pyramids.[Gregg]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm sorry I'm way behind the curve on this. I'm following your "theory of the proton" carefully, and appreciate the imput of Stoat, LB and others. But due to my limitations, it will take me months to process what you are saying. Anyway, about pyramids:

I went back and reread your MRB article on the Great Pyramid. I have no doubt that you and your co-authors are qualified to formulate the hypothesis that the pyramid was a breeder reactor or nuclear power generating facility. It should be a falsifiable theory. But it may well be that the Egyptians built it best because they practiced first on the other lesser pyramids, and they used pry bars (levers) to raise the big blocks. I once saw a little 70 year old welder shimmy a 500 lb pump and motor down a 2x6” ramp off his pickup truck tailgate with one hand holding a big pry bar and the other balancing the motor.

Robert Schoch's book, <i>Pyramid Quest</i>, reviews your article in some depth but then discounts it as he does the Cydonia face and all things extraterrestrial, and then mainstream Egyptology rejects <i>his</i> theory in turn, and so it goes. The essence Schoch’s hypothesis is that civilization is much older than we (those who accept the mainstream theory) think. Men built monuments with a knowledge of astronomy that far exceeds our expectations. This includes the zodiac, calendar regulation, and the precession of the equinoxes, the earth's “wobble” in a pattern that repeats itself every 26,000 years.

Schoch believes the Great Pyramid was constructed by Egyptians as per the traditional assumption around 2500 BC, but that the Giza plateau was laid out (and the Sphinx built) with reference to ancient knowledge of constellations and astronomical observations that existed 10,000 years ago.

There’s a lot more. Thanks for spurring my interest in the subject once again. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>

I'm sorry I'm way behind the curve on this. I'm following your "theory of the proton" carefully, and appreciate the imput of Stoat, LB and others. But due to my limitations, it will take me months to process what you are saying. Anyway, about pyramids:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<i>In 2004, I wrote to Dr. Van Flandern, that, having arrived at a pyramid as the geometric answer for the proton functions, it had struck me that the proportions of the Great Pyramid worked very well. A bit of a stretch, I admit. In particular, Sir Flinders Petrie had written, in 1881, that all four sides had a slight but consistent concavity to them. Thus, my imagination knowing no bounds, I could "see" a small amount of liquid Elysium being trapped within this small cavity - which would reflect the weak nuclear force or energy. I think he, and others, may have had some scepticism about this mental leap. In contrast, Petrie was extremely careful and diligent in his measurements and observations of the Great Pyramid. He concluded that no known civilization in human history could have built it. He had no vision of extraterrestrials, "flying saucers" or nuclear energy. He stated that he did not know the purpose of the structure.</i>
GLW
<hr noshade size="1">
[/quote]
Originally posted by neilderosa

I went back and reread your MRB article on the Great Pyramid. I have no doubt that you and your co-authors are qualified to formulate the hypothesis that the pyramid was a breeder reactor or nuclear power generating facility. It should be a falsifiable theory. But it may well be that the Egyptians built it best because they practiced first on the other lesser pyramids, and they used pry bars (levers) to raise the big blocks. I once saw a little 70 year old welder shimmy a 500 lb pump and motor down a 2x6” ramp off his pickup truck tailgate with one hand holding a big pry bar and the other balancing the motor.[/quote]
<hr noshade size="1">

<i>Egyptian history does record that they built the Meidum, Bent and Red Pyramids - but not the Giza Pyramids. Some Egyptian artistry from about 3,400 to 3,300 BC shows pyramids. This is 800 to 900 years before they built their own pyramids. I am not knocking them; they did a very good job.

It is not the weight of stones that disqualifies the Egyptians from being the builders of the Giza Pyramids. It is the extreme accuracy and precision found in the Great Pyramid. In particular, Petrie noted and measured drill marks in the sarcophagus. He computed that the drill bit - of unknown composition - had to have 2 to 4 British long tons pressure on it. Unless we want to "recognize" that the ancient Egyptians could form very large tungsten carbide drill bits - perhaps with industrial diamonds imbedded in matrix on them - they could not have done this. There is another point to be made about the granite used in the pyramid. Faces, which had to have flat, smooth surfaces, in order to fit - were ground with high precision. Faces which did not have to fit, were left in very, very rough condition. Appearence or beauty did not matter, only function.</i>
GLW<hr noshade size="1">
[/quote]
Originally posted by neilderosa

Robert Schoch's book, <i>Pyramid Quest</i>, reviews your article in some depth but then discounts it as he does the Cydonia face and all things extraterrestrial, and then mainstream Egyptology rejects <i>his</i> theory in turn, and so it goes. The essence Schoch’s hypothesis is that civilization is much older than we (those who accept the mainstream theory) think. Men built monuments with a knowledge of astronomy that far exceeds our expectations. This includes the zodiac, calendar regulation, and the precession of the equinoxes, the earth's “wobble” in a pattern that repeats itself every 26,000 years.

Schoch believes the Great Pyramid was constructed by Egyptians as per the traditional assumption around 2500 BC, but that the Giza plateau was laid out (and the Sphinx built) with reference to ancient knowledge of constellations and astronomical observations that existed 10,000 years ago.

There’s a lot more. Thanks for spurring my interest in the subject once again. [Neil]

[/quote]
<hr noshade size="1">
<i>I have to wonder if Mr. Schoch has ever worked in nuclear mills, coal fired power plants, metal smelters, pulp mills, etc. The photographs of the inside surfaces of the Great Pyramid are a dead giveaway that the structure was industrial. They show wear, "corrosion", scaling etc. In particular, the "eating away" of granite blocks in the King's Chamber and Antechamber indicates centuries if not thousands of years of active service. The granite also shows the distinct darkening that happens to stone exposed to hard radiation.

GLW</i>
I will get to Mr. Stoat and the "I" shell of electrons in a day or two. Books are at work.


Gregg Wilson

Hi Neil, In defense of Gregg's ideas I have seen reference to protons being cone shaped as a result of Cherenkov radiation where by light is slowed down creating the cone shape around the positively charged proton. It is also possible that the elysium atmospere around the proton is cone shaped with a back eddy behind the graviton flow at bottom of proton adding to a cone shape.

Regarding ancient civilizations, there is no doubt in my mind from the archeological evidence that visitations occured from some advanced off planet humanoid species, e.g., I have many pictures of artifacts depicting flight, astronauts, space ships, genetic engineering, giants with human slaves, and machines. Take for instance the Yonaguni quarry site off coast of Okinawa, this site is at least 13000 years old and reveals large block cuts where it is obvious that these blocks were too large to be handled by men alone. There are over cuts just like on a construction site, with two large cylindrical holes and saddle between holes at top of plateau that looks like a machine sat at this location. Also, there is no visible wastage at base of quarry which depicts the precission of removal of material. It is one thing to move 500 lb blocks, but we could not today with modern machineray move 1000 ton blocks much less stack them on such huge scales in high precission engineering using cranes much less a group of men with pulleys and wooden blocks. Large scale technology had to have been involved. Cranes lift 75 ton blocks, but there is no way that huge blocks 30 feet long 15 feet wide weighing 1000 tons could be moved with out advanced technology.

Larry, here is latest update on refining descriptions in my Reciprocal Motion Universe Model:

“The Theoretical Framework for the structure of a balanced Reciprocating Motion Universe; here are the primary points: 1) The Universe has always existed, 2) Space is infinite, flat, and without curvature; only fields of energized particles in motion generate mass, time, and curvature, 3) Universe operates in a wide range of motion to include infinitely small atomic structure to infinitely large circulations of mass, a wide range of motion above and below the speed of light, and a wide range of frequencies that operate above or below the frequencies of light, 4) the faster the speed of motion by a particle the higher the frequencies generated, 5) All mass in motion is the result of a higher scale cascade of higher frequencies and higher speed particles in motion collapsing into lower frequency lower speed range of scales of motion creating mass accelerations, mass regeneration, gravity and all quantum forces, 6) In a multiple scale wide spectrum Universe each scale of motion has a specific band width of frequencies such as found with in the visible universe spectrum of light that is the base rate of motion within that scale, all atomic particles with in a given scale of motion forms an inverse mirror of large scale order with each successively smaller sub particles representing cycling of ever higher frequencies that are matched to greater universe motions that also form in pairs of matter and antimatter opposing rotations in a wide range of ever greater scales of size, frequency, and speeds of motion around coordinated axis centers of rotation, and finally 7), within all scales of motion, gravity and mass accelerations are the result of opposing forward and reverse reciprocating circulations around coordinated axis centers of rotation of Matter and Antimatter portions of Universe attempting to collapse back to the zero point.”

John Rickey

To all,

I do not <b>own</b> the idea, although I have to "own up" to it.

I really hope others will "play" with it, work with it, examine it. The best news I could have is that someone took it, advanced it, and left me in the dust. I'm not getting any younger. Fresh minds, please.

Gregg Wilson

Lose the faces, they simply cannot exist. Keep the tetrahedral form, no one is going to have problems with the idea that the atomic nucleus is close order packed with alpha particles.

Gell Mann's quark model. Add a fourth point, and call it the inertial node of the system. We now have our tetrahedron, without faces but the four particles are held together by shadows of lower spatial density.

When we talk about mass energy equivalence, the energy is given in Joules i.e. angular velocity. Our tetrahedron is not collapsing in on itself because it's spinning. The fourth inertial node point is what it spins around. I won't go into why I believe this to be a bec nodal region with negative refractive index.

It spins like a little top, its shadows spin like a little top. So we have a cone shaped shadow zone, which is still slightly unbalanced, in that there is still the potential for some work to be done, the energy density varies. Work would be done when the little top is influenced by another proton or neutron, otherwise not.