Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory

If we took an asteroid, and poured electric energy into it, so that it had a surface charge of billions of volts. Then the energy density is going to be very high on all the mountain peaks. This is a p.d. Very soon we would have something as round as a billiard ball. Then the charge would sit on the surface and be conserved. With very tiny things, like electrons, there's effectively nothing there but the charge. When two photons of the Compton wavelength bash into each other, the end result is a positron electron pair. The simplest way to explain this is to assume that the momentum of the photons is converted into angular momentum of the created particles. Their surface is spinning at the speed of light. The toroidal electron is a perfectly stable model as is the sphere. The toroidal model has the advantage of explaining the antiparticle. The electric field corkscrews clockwise or anti clockwise round the toroid. Any other shapes are going to have leakage problems. Leakage so great that it can create new particles at the leakage nodal points.

Has anyone got a van der graaf generator lying about the place? Suppose we start off with a 60 degree triangle inscribed in a circle. We make this out of copper and charge it up. The charge will distribute itself equally to the three points. Now with the Gell Mann quark model we need charge to be two points at two thirds and one at minus a third. Forget about the minus for the moment. So, we need to turn our circle into an ellipse to redistribute the charges on the three points. Or, we can tilt our triangle. The question would be, do the electric fields remain stationary?

Now imagine our triangle to be very small, inscribed in a circle of about ten to the minus sixteen metres. Hit this with one photon of the same mass energy and we "instantly" get three particles. Conservation of angular momentum springs to mind, as does the classic three body problem. We also have another irksome point, in the inertial point for this new system. Our photon can hit this triangle at any angle. So why do we end up with the Gell Mann set up? It has to be that its a stable orbital system, the rest must fly apart. Yet quarks are suppoded to be forbidden to fly apart. The force is directly proportional to the radius, rather inversely. Food for thought anyway, it's got me beat.

<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>

Here’s some speculation. We learn from Halton Arp that matter at our scale (i.e. protons) is formed at the center of older galaxies, (by immense gravitational forces) and that a jet of “plasma” is ejected at high speed in both directions from the galaxy by way of the galactic axis. These become quasars, which gradually cool as the new matter acquires mass, (by absorption of gravitons), and becomes a new galaxy filled with newly made protons. Perhaps there is some built in or intrinsic process that lets the new protons form as hollow “cones” or “cups.” This process would probably include spin. Think of the way candy cane is made at carnivals. Matter at our scale (protons) is no doubt made up of matter ingredients from a smaller scale (e.g., elisions or gravitons).
<hr noshade size="1">

I am not aware of hard evidence that protons are built up from elysons or gravitons. If so, the protons would increase in mass and increase rapidly in temperature. We have evidence of proton aggregates (which includes elysons) heating up and exploding - such as a star - but of single protons?

If the simple addition of gravitons to protons would raise the temperature of single protons, etc, then why is Pluto extremely cold but the Sun is extremely hot?
<hr noshade size="1">

<i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
Actually, “round” (spherical) is harder to explain than “cone or cup” shaped. Think of small asteroids that don’t have enough gravitational force to become spherical, and so they are irregular shaped rocks. At the quantum level, why would particles be globe shaped?

The tiny asymmetrical protons would combine into atoms of various sizes depending on conditions, i.e., depending on the pressure differentials of the surrounding elisions and gravitons. The atoms composing the primal nebula of the new galaxy condense into stars, (again due to pressure differentials) and so on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
In terms of scale, the closest things to protons are atoms and molecules. They do not display any sphericalness at all. Quite the contrary. And they are much closer in scale to protons than are stars and planets. The smaller the "planet" or "moon" or "asteroid", the further they vary in shape from spheres. So the claim that things look the same at every scale is not supported by actual, observational data. One can grow extremely large crystals - given a continuing supply of raw ingrediants - and we have many different shapes most distinctly showing straight lines, edges and flat planes.

In the drug industry, specific geometries are used to successfully predict the behavior of "designer" molecules. Perhaps this is metaphysical high treason.

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 /><b>[neilderosa] "At the quantum level, why would particles be globe shaped?"</b>

For the same reason that stars and planets are spherical.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

First off, Larry, I would like to characterize our inputs as "exploratory" rather than making them ****ing matches. I see planets, etc, being <b>mixtures</b> of an untold number of compounds. They do not have a strong chemical bonding beyond the scale of single molecules, or polymers or crystals. But, obviously a large "crystal" of iron is hard and rigid. At a planetary scale, the only "universal" push is gravity. So becoming a sphere is appropriate to the mixture with gravitation working on it.

You are supposing that a proton is also a mixture? Which means any size, any shape, any mass? If this were so then our use of chemistry would be a complete failure. We would not be able to carry out any reactions, separations or purifications. Yet we do.

<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>
Suppose the particles of our scale comprise a large number of much smaller particles, like planets and stars at our scale are built from large numbers of atoms. And suppose, at the scale of our particles, that there is a force that works, at that scale, like gravity works at our scale.

Under these conditions, our particles could not be any shape but spherical.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Obviously, from a chemist's point of view, I am disagreeing with this assumption.


<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>
I'm not proposing that these suppositions are correct. I'm just offering a possible answer to your question. Irregular shapes cannot be ruled in or out at this time, expecially for elysons and gravitons. Neither has been observed, so we know almost nothing about them. Including whether or not they actually exist.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Given our capacity of looking at details, we would reach some hint of the nature of a proton long before we could detect the shape of an elyson and a graviton. Since gravitons have a very long mean free path before colliding with one another, their shape may be physically irrelevant.

<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>
Note also that for many purposes (such as predicting orbital behavior) the shape of an object is not important at or beyond distances of about a few dozens of diameters from the object. And from such distances all shapes look the same - like a point.

Experiments strongly suggest that the regions of positive and negative charge in an atom are separated by hundreds of thousands of diameters of the nucleus. It is one of the reasons we model atoms as a nucleus with one charge being orbited by distant particles with the other charge. Other models exist, but in order to be viable they must account for the observed charge separation.

Right now I favor a model in which the repulsive nature of the electron's gravity field prevents it from approaching the nucleus to within less than a few hundred thousand nuclear diameters . If it gets farther away, the much larger (but intrinsically weaker) attractive field of the nucleus pulls it back. A balance point exists. Such electrons would be free to move about on a spherical "surface" at that distance, but for the most part they would be more or less in a stationary hover. If two or more electrons were hovering over the same nucleus they would face the additional constraint of having to arrange themselves for maximum distance from each other.

It solves a few problems (such as why electrons in an atom don't rediate EM waves - because they are not constantly accelerating). And it suggests a reason for inter atomic bonds with specific angles. But I have not pushed this model very hard so far, and it may have some fatal flaws that I just haven't stumbled across yet.
LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Once again, this business of positive and negative charge requires the conceptual acceptance of attractive force acting at a distance. I see neither the need for this nor the evidence. The standard atomic model is circular in verifying itself. It is the same problem as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation - which logically demands that the Universe is either exploding or imploding. As a startup engineer, our process designs must face up to the most severe and ruthless critic of all: Reality. If the plant doesn't work, we have failed.


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 Stoat</i>
<br />If we took an asteroid, and poured electric energy into it, so that it had a surface charge of billions of volts. Then the energy density is going to be very high on all the mountain peaks. This is a p.d. Very soon we would have something as round as a billiard ball. Then the charge would sit on the surface and be conserved. With very tiny things, like electrons, there's effectively nothing there but the charge. When two photons of the Compton wavelength bash into each other, the end result is a positron electron pair. The simplest way to explain this is to assume that the momentum of the photons is converted into angular momentum of the created particles. Their surface is spinning at the speed of light. The toroidal electron is a perfectly stable model as is the sphere. The toroidal model has the advantage of explaining the antiparticle. The electric field corkscrews clockwise or anti clockwise round the toroid. Any other shapes are going to have leakage problems. Leakage so great that it can create new particles at the leakage nodal points.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Photons have been successfully identified as being geometric waves of momentum transfer within a light carrying medium. They are not single particles. To be fair, it took me eighteen months to understand this.

The torroidal electromagnetic assembly appears to be a solution looking for a problem

Gregg Wilson

<b>[Gregg] " ... the claim that things look the same at every <s>scale</s> size is not supported by actual, observational data."</b>

In MM, there is no such claim. Please carefully re-read the appropriate chapters of <i>Dark Matter...</i> . Rather, the claim is that things look similar <u>over various ranges</u> of <s>scale</s> size.

For example, "our" range of <s>scale</s> size (right now, but it changes as technology evolves) runs from approximately 10^-20 [meters] on the small end to approximately 10^+20 [meters] on the big end. Within that range of <s>scale</s> size we see individual particles that <u>seem</u> to have no parts, and larger objects that are assemblies of these particles, or assemblies of assemblies of these particles.

These assemblies manifest themselves in two primary ways. As <u>particles</u> (eg protons, galactic clusters) and as <u>waves</u> (eg light, sound) that propagate within vast fields of mostly similar particles we refer to generically as "media".

===

We postualte that <s>scale</s> size is infinite, so even though we cannot see things bigger than the voids and walls of inter galactic space we assume that there must be such things. And we assume that when we build more powerful telescopes we will be able to see them. Likewise we cannot see things smaller than the current crop of sub atomic particles, but we assume that as soon as we can build a more powerfull magnifying glass they will be there.

Within "our" range of <s>scale</s> size we see hints of things repeating themselves over various sub ranges. Some of our models of atoms bear a resemblance to solar systems, for example. Galaxies also look a little like solar systems. And those voids and walls look like they could be bits and pieces of the compression and rarefaction zones of a wave traveling through a "medium" made of a whole bunch of galaxic super clusters.

===

The claim of repetition really focuses on any of the many possible finite ranges of <s>scale</s> size that can exist in the infinite range of <s>scale</s> size above "our" range, and on the the similar finite ranges of <s>scale</s> size that can exist below our range.

Suppose, for example, that we have a new magnifying glass that allows us to "see" things over the range of <s>scale</s> size from 10^-2210 [meters] to 10^-2310 [meters]. Because we anticipate repetition, we would not be surprised to see, somewhere within this large range of <s>scale</s> size, things that looked (at least a little, perhaps a lot) like the atoms of our <s>scale</s> size range. And we would not be surprised if these "atoms" interacted with each other in a number of ways to create more complicated assemblies, some of which might resemble (at least a little, perhaps a lot) the stars and galaxies and other objects of our <s>scale</s> size.

A few other points
<ul><li>Within "our" range of <s>scale</s> size, we probably have not seen everything that can exist.</li>
<li>There may be ranges of <s>scale</s> size, perhaps vast, that contain no things that we recognize.</li>
</ul>