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 neilderosa</i>
I recall something you said when looking at the Mars faces I was posting at the time--this is not as easy as it looks.

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

Yeah, don't hire me as an art critic. We would all starve to death.

But Larry and you have asked questions and made observations that got me to thinking. (is this good?...)

I have proposed that when two protons come together, base to base, this would trap extremely hot Elysium. And the gravitational flux would keep them closed. But, if the Sun were the size of Neptune's orbit, how do we have hot Elysium? A weak point in my speculation.

So...when the protons close, it would not only trap elysons but also some gravitons inside. They are completely disorganized, so breaking out on their own is not possible. ("This posse can't even mount up across the street.") The gravitons would have essentially no mass to contribute to the inside, trapped mass but a tremendous amount of velocity. They would give up their momentum to the trapped elysons. <b>Now the trapped Elysium is hot.</b> So, if we found deuterium on Pluto, it would probably have as much trapped energy as it would on Mercury.

Maybe I should put my cowboy philosophy to bed...

Or, as Ayn Rand would point out, "check your premises."

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is an obvious difference between the atomic structure and molecular structure in terms of the strengths of the bonds. Otherwise, alchemists would have succeeded in turning lead into gold.
[Gregg]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gold would present a problem, but given your model it <i><b>should</b></i> be possible, given enough heat and pressure, and some magic words.

In your paper, I was impressed by your explanation of the "magnetic hydrogen" experiment,” where atomic hydrogen is released into a vacuum chamber in which a powerful magnet is placed with the poles some distance apart. The hydrogen is released into the chamber trough a pinhole and as it streams toward the magnet, it splits, and half of the stream goes toward the north pole while half of the hydrogen protons go south. Your “geometry model” seems to explain what happens much better than the conventional explanation.

Petr Beckmann once said it is not enough to offer an alternate explanation (in a paradigm challenge) to the standard theory. The challenging theory has to explain phenomena that the standard theory can not (in good conscience) explain at all. You have a good start. If you concentrate on your theory's strengths, like the chemical explanations and magnetism, I believe you have the makings of a good challenge. But that’s just my opinion; don’t try to spend it.

Here are two tries at pictures to illustrate electricity, magnetism, EM waves, and focused gravitons. But they still need a lot of work.

Electricity (liquid elysons) traveling along the surface of protons; the protons should probably be attached side-to-side. Now I know why electricians call it “juice.”



Focused gravitons pushing proton and creating EM waves; both pics are cross sections of course.

I think that there is a loss of perspective when the pictures are two dimensional. For instance, the protons would not be "nose to tail", and that orientation would not allow the flow of electricity.

I have a template for the pyramids. I want to reshape them so they will have the slope of the Great Pyramid: 51 degrees, 50 minutes, 40 seconds. This is my "religious hunch". I can send it to you via e-mail. However, what type of file can you import: jpeg? bmp? etc. I print them out on a "cardstock" paper, cut them out and use tacky glue. If you make about a dozen of them then you can get a better understanding of my idea, right or wrong. (You play with them, mate!)

The atomic hydrogen splits "perfectly" into two 50% streams <b>because</b>the orientation of the hydrogen nuclei is utterly random.

With regard to your first illustration: When we see lightning, we actually see the portion of the electrical fluid that didn't make it - but was lost in the form of electromagnetic waves. Similar with steam: if you can see it, it won't burn you. The steam you can't see burns you.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I think that there is a loss of perspective when the pictures are two dimensional. For instance, the protons would not be "nose to tail", and that orientation would not allow the flow of electricity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I thought of that but was too lazy to redo the picture. Also (as you explained), the tail's repulsive force would prevent nose-to-tail alignment.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have a template for the pyramids. I want to reshape them so they will have the slope of the Great Pyramid: 51 degrees, 50 minutes, 40 seconds. This is my "religious hunch". I can send it to you via e-mail. However, what type of file can you import: jpeg? bmp? etc. I print them out on a "cardstock" paper, cut them out and use tacky glue. If you make about a dozen of them then you can get a better understanding of my idea, right or wrong. (You play with them, mate!)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I believe my Corel Paint Shop Pro X will support most images, and I have DSL so don't make them too huge. Thanks.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The atomic hydrogen splits "perfectly" into two 50% streams because the orientation of the hydrogen nuclei is utterly random.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That fact in itself allows for a good <i>a priori</i>/deductive prediction of the results, which is not allowed by the "electron spin" explanation. One can describe the geometry proton model and say "this is what should happen," and lo and behold, it does.

<i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
That fact in itself allows for a good <i>a priori</i>/deductive prediction of the results, which is not allowed by the "electron spin" explanation. One can describe the geometry proton model and say "this is what should happen," and lo and behold, it does.
[/quote]

This classical atomic hydrogen experiment, apparently carried out prior to about 1925, first brought the thought of an asymmetric proton. I also assumed, with little justification, that magnetism would be colinearized gravitons. However, I had already noted two properties reported about magnetism:

1) It, in itself, did not give off heat.
3) It was referred to as being utterly instantaneous (faster than light).

These factors led to the hollow cone. Chemistry facts then led to a hollow pyramid.

I have had to be a very open minded "Sherlock Holmes" at plant startups. Can't come up with an answer until one has discovered the root problem. Many times a "lowly" operator has pointed out an obvious problem - much to my embarrssment.

So if it comes up hollow pyramid and everyone says "not natural", well, perhaps. If it works, I don't care much about its naturalness.

Gregg Wilson