Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

A photon is constructed from superposed waves. In a weak field it has particle like entropy. It's still a wave, an infinity of waves have to be there to construct it. Now, obviously it doesn't become infinitely small, so some of the waves are imaginary. That means that the aether is a viscoelastic. This stuff is incredibly rigid but we can walk about in it, in our shirt sleeves. "The aether makes steel look like candy floss by comparison."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />A photon is constructed from superposed waves. In a weak field it has particle like entropy. It's still a wave, an infinity of waves have to be there to construct it. Now, obviously it doesn't become infinitely small, so some of the waves are imaginary. That means that the aether is a viscoelastic. This stuff is incredibly rigid but we can walk about in it, in our shirt sleeves. "The aether makes steel look like candy floss by comparison."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

A graviton flux has been postulated as the source of the force of gravity. This is much more sensible than Newton's postulation that bodies somehow attract each other without any apparent mechanism. One can "see" how this flux works at the perceptual level. The simplest explanation for the flux is to propose a graviton as fundamental particle of this medium. It is possible there is more than one kind of particle for this medium, but there is no apparent need nor evidence for more than one fundamental particle. This is a matter of applying Occam's Razor.

Dr Van Flandern has submitted adequate evidence that a "photon" is actually a geometric momentum wave in a light carrying medium. This idea fits all experimental data about lightwaves, etc. Again, this medium would have a fundamental particle, called the elyson. One can propose more kinds of particles for the light carrying medium, but again, there is no apparent need nor evidence for more than one kind of fundamental particle. Occam's Razor, once again.

I have proposed the proton as being the only fundamental particle needed for "real matter". By applying the concept that geometry is an actual part of Reality, and suggesting a shape for the proton, IMHO no other fundamental particle is needed to explain "real matter". The "electron" simply becomes a manifestation of Elysium, as it is affected by the protons and the gravitons. It does not have to be a singular particle. In addition, if two protons are attached, base to base, that accounts for the neutron. This speculation has been logically consistent with the analysis of the two other mediums. And it has used Occam's Razor.

When one postulates any entity, the burden is "proof positive", not "proof negative". If one wants to propose another fundamental particle in any of these three mediums, one must present positive evidence and logic for it. One cannot simply decree a "quark" without a rational basis.

Yet mainstream physics has decreed an entire "zoo" of fundamental particles (most of which have a declared lifespan of one millionth of a second) because mainstream physics does not recognize the existence of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium.

So, one has to have a rational basis for proposing a new, fundamental particle.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In addition, if two protons are attached, base to base, that accounts for the neutron. [Gregg]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Previously, you have given the same description to the deuterium atom.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Once in a while (one out of a trillion collisions) two protons will approach one another, base to base. Since each of then is continuously giving off expanding vapor - think rocketship - the two expanding vapor "plumes" will mutually cancel each other out. The protons will connect, base to base, at essentially no velocity. It is a soft dock. Whatever Elysium was still "inside" the hollow pyramids becomes trapped. The clincher for holding the two protons together is that the gravitational flux (force) is on the outside but not on the inside of the mated protons.

We now have deuterium. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can you elaborate?

In conventional physics the mass of a neutron is only slightly more than that of a proton. In your definition above a neutron would be double the mass. Please correct me if I’m wrong. [Neil]

[Edited] After thinking about this for awhile and re-reading your paper on the subject, I'm going to assume that when you said "<b><i>if two protons are attached, base to base, that accounts for the neutron</i></b>," that was a typo, and that what you meant to say was: “<b>if two protons are attached, base to ANY SIDE, the one with the blocked base is a neutron.</b>” Whenever a proton's base is blocked off so that the repulsive force of the exposed vaporizing Elysium is “neutralized,” the result is a “neutron.” And that's why the neutron "dissapears" immediatly upon leaving the neuclus and its base is no longer blocked off.

Am I warm?

[Edit 2] Also if so, the deuterium atom should be composed of two neutrons, and not one proton and one neutron as supposed in conventional theory.

Gregg,
In your paper, which I will give link to with Tom’s permission, and which I will post illustrations from with your permission, you state that:

“The reader may state that the hydrogen bomb is a clear case of fusion releasing an incredible amount of energy. But does it? The reaction is actually between tritium and deuterium. Refer to Figure 13 for the arrangement of tritium:”

You then show a tritium atom modeled under your “pyramid proton theory.” Then in a series of images you show the tritium atom being “bombarded” with a deuterium (two base-to-base proton pyramids, shown previously) atom. This process “splits” or breaks open the base-to-base bond of the deuterium atom, thus releasing a tremendous amount of energy. In effect, you are demonstrating that the so-called “hydrogen bomb” is not really a fusion bomb but a fission bomb. (I’m fuzzy on the details about why the hydrogen bomb gives off so much more energy than the plutonium/uranium bomb, but they are not needed here.)

The implication seems clear that if this model is correct, that it would be a relatively straight forward matter (over simplification on my part) to adapt this principle toward developing a potentially limitless, and safe (re: radioactive waste) form of atomic power. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Hi Neil

Sorry for the confusion. If two protons come together, base to base, then you have <b>two "neutrons". </b>Any proton, with its base closed, would be a "neutron". <b>But the mating is only base to base</b>. Two protons, attached side to side, would simply be two protons.

If you have three protons mated, side to side to side, you have Helium-3. If one actually makes the Helium-3 model from three proton models, it will be almost entirely repulsive, with very little room for an attachment - that is, a chemical bond. When the temperature is almost to absolute zero - and there is extremely little motion by protons or elysons, two Helium-3 nuclei will couple together and then that assembly is <b>completely</b> repulsive. And Helium-3 shows precisely this behavior. "A dimer that defies gravity, flows over surfaces, etc."

In the "hydrogen" bomb there is a very small amount of tritium and a lot of deuterium. The initial blast by the fissioning plutonium releases very hot Elysium. The tritium nucleus has one proton with an open base. The released Elysium goes through the process of piling up against the tritium nucleus, migrating to the bottom of the one open proton, and then being released as vapor. In effect, the open proton on the tritium nucleus is precisely like a rocket engine. The tritium nucleus is thus propelled at very high velocity into deuterium nuclei. This is like an artillery shell hitting an ammunition magazine. The deuterium nuclei are split, thus releasing much more Elysium - and two high velocity "neutrons", which continue the chain reaction, just like a standard fission bomb. The expanding energy release does not stop until the deuterium is exhausted.

The two "BIG SECRETS" about the "hydrogen" bomb were:

1) It has to have a small amount of tritium.
2) The deuterium must be in a "condensed" state, i.e. a solid or a liquid.

In a plutonium bomb, there are two to three splits of deuterium units within the plutonium nucleus. That is a release of the energy out of four to six "neutrons" from a total nuclear weight of 239 protons plus "neutrons". Not much bang for the buck. If one is splitting deuterium all on its own, it is a split of two out of two, or 100% efficiency.

If one can figure out how to split deuterium - without resorting to a plutonium trigger and some tritium - then one has "umlimited" energy. This is what Pons and Fleischmann were actually achieving - except they had the wrong theory. I <b>do know </b>that they were adsorbing deuterium onto a precious metal matrix and using electricity to achieve an energy release. I don't know the details of their experiment, but "running them out of the business" was perhaps the greatest socialogical - technical mistake ever made. Everyone needs to drop the nuclear fusion idea and go back to the nuclear fission idea.

I will go into details of why deuterium is two "neutrons" and not a proton plus a neutron in my next posting. Have been extremely busy.

Gregg Wilson

Gregg,

Thanks for the clear concise explanation. It appears you have the makings of an elegant new theory here (as I believe Einstein would say). I have more questions and comments that I’ll post as they become clear for me. But first there is one burning question; would it matter to your model if protons were “cone-shaped” or even “hat-shaped”? Perhaps made of a malleable material that could flatten out when pressure is applied in order to form a better “seal.” (Pictures to follow eventually.) It seems kind of hard to swallow that nature could form perfect little pyramids for us to use (figuratively speaking). One might expect something more, well, natural. But I agree with you that perfect spheres are unlikely. Neils Bohr’s “little solar system atom” seems even more of an intuitive stretch, it probably stems from ancient philosophy when spheres were thought to be the “perfect form.”

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If you have three protons mated, side to side to side, you have Helium-3. If one actually makes the Helium-3 model from three proton models, it will be almost entirely repulsive, with very little room for an attachment - that is, a chemical bond. When the temperature is almost to absolute zero - and there is extremely little motion by protons or elysons, two Helium-3 nuclei will couple together and then that assembly is completely repulsive. And Helium-3 shows precisely this behavior. "A dimer that defies gravity, flows over surfaces, etc."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is this something like what you mean?