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">When you get a chance, I'd like to see how this line of thought develops. [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I can't see how this can possibly work. The task in hand is not to dump qed but to make sense of it. How photons and electrons behave in a hydrogen atom at various energy levels is correct but then how planets behaved in the crystal sphere model was workable.

By introducing ftl gravitons, we have a chance of explaining what's going on at the microscopic level. For one thing, it puts simultaneity back into the picture. It also removes the need for microscopic "observers" that inhabit a stationary ether devoid of any content, which is what Einstein did with the empty abstraction of space time.

A charged triangle leaks from the three points, a charged square leaks less, a hexagon less again. A circle, a pure circle, is a polygon of infinite points. Wrap that into a sphere of equal surface area and we have something that will retain its charge. An electron has to conserve its charge over billions of years.

If the energy of an electron is made solely from electromagnetic energy, then we can work out a radius for it, of about ten to the minus fifteen metres. As a passing remark in Cosmicsurfer's thread, I said that, out of idle curiosity, I worked out what the radius would be if an electron was going at about 17.9 billion times c. It works out as being about one hundredth of h. That suggests to me that I've got the speed of gravity a little bit too high still. With this in mind, it's small wonder that collisions are measured in discrete energy lumps.

One thing has to go, I think we simply must say that h has dimensions. it conserves angular momentum, between the electromagnetic energy of an electron and its gravitational energy. An electron would have two radii, one at h the other at ten to the minus fifteen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You may be right (or Larry may be right for different reasons) that Gregg's theory won't hold up, but I'd still like to hear the whole thing in a coherent development, if that's ok with you. I'm also interested in why you all think the theory is flawed.

Neil DeRosa

I think Gregg is right regarding his 'shape' protocol for rules of assembly in our spectrum of light bandwidth. It is obvious that crystalline structures can grow in fractals that are linear and with exact 'geometries' that probably have more to do with large scale motion then we realize. For one thing the 'static motion' in gravity fields allows for atmospheres, protection from radiation and allows for assemblies to evolve with a great variety of shapes including the evolution of life.

Maybe internal workings the further you get into the atom start appearing more circular and mimic greater balanced circulations of Universe. Larry, is probably correct also about circular motion being the fundamental orientation and shape---but still there appears to be regions that allow great variety of shapes to form. Nebula's, star clusters, great walls, are lazily strung across vast space. But, that does not mean that huge power circuits are still not involved they just are not as concentrated as found at centers of galaxies.

Stoat also has made some excellent points in his calculations regarding negative refraction that might pertain to flipping that occurs into the reverse wave. There is so much work to do to really lay out 'why' this variation occurs...allowing for our existance but for me I think that we have made huge strides in understanding the cause of motion. Now we need to lay out how this motion integrates with assemblies of mass in all shapes and sizes.

John Rickey

<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>
When you get a chance, I'd like to see how this line of thought develops. [Neil]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My work demands enough time that I can post only sporadically.

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.

I knew nothing about them other than that they were presumably built by the pharoahs to be their tombs. I will keep it short by simply saying that that is ridiculous. On reading material by Sir Flinders Petrie and Alan Alford, I took particular note that Alan had said that, upon going through the Great Pyramid, he thought it was industrial. Well, I am an engineer and that was red meat!

Having carefully examined a great many photographs of the Great Pyramid interior, it struck me as being extremely familiar to the nuclear reactors and plutonium mills at Hanford, Washington - where I had once worked. There was no great insight or brilliance here; it was simply pattern recognition. Once the idea came, I began to trace the process through the Great Pyramid. Everything was there, for breeding and extracting plutonium. My calculations indicated quite a number things, but in particular, they showed that the production rate for plutonium was very small.

Dr. Van Flandern was kind enough (or foolish enough?) to publish my article. I expected that Alan Alford would pick the matter up and carry it forward. That did not happen. After about a year and a half, I went on to examine the second and third pyramids. Their internal structures very well fitted the casting, machining and tack welding of plutonium - and then assembling engines. I did not see any evidence or motivation for making bombs. I ended the two articles by concluding that the plutonium was used as a primary fuel for rocket engines or anything similar.

I still stand by the articles except for that conclusion, Later on, I realized that the plutonium would have been used only as "spark plugs" or igniters for a larger nuclear process. Examining the "hydrogen" bomb and noting the singular failure of fusion reactors, I looked at the presumed cause and effect mechanisms in the "hydrogen" bomb. It was rather easy to conclude that it was entirely a fission bomb. The plutonium detonator provides a high enough temperature to cause the tritium to reach a great enough velocity to hit the deuterium with enough force to split it. Once the deuterium splits, its own released neutrons will carry the chain reaction forward until the deuterium is exhausted.

This is an extremely useful, "unlimited" energy source if one can avoid using plutonium and tritium. For the above reference to nuclear engines by whoever built the pyramids at Giza, they would have used the plutonium to initiate the fission of deuterium in a controlled manner in a rocket engine. I estimate that the amount of deuterium required for a trip to Mars would be about the size of a large pencil.

If true, I think that would spark everyone's interest. I will return to the thinking that led to a pyramidal proton next time...

Gregg Wilson

Stoat, if as you stated "An electron would have two radii, one at h the other at ten to the minus fifteen," could the ten to the minus fifteen radii [negative refraction can't see it] be a positron pair allowing more electrons to be located at closer ranges around protons by neutralizing the repulsive forces between electrons. A stable controlled 'burn rate' [burn rate=controlled graviton impact/modulations] can be modified such as found by Randall Mills to create a 1000:1 power ratio by further [Mills interpretation of discovered effect] lowering electron orbits to sub ground states of hydrogen in plasmas creating a whole new class of hydride compounds as by-products of process and a virtually unlimited energy source.

I am beginning to think that all explosions are matter/antimatter annihilations.

Gregg, great ideas regarding pyramids on Earth and Mars. I would like to read your article if you can tell me where to find it. Also, came across infomation that stated that the pyramids when technology was activated had a greenish glow at night. Not sure if this fits into any nuclear reactions or not. I have been collecting ancient pictures of artifacts and some could be construed as rockets. With so much vetrification [melted fused rock] of ancient ruins in Iraq, and other large areas that are covered in glass beads I would not be surprised if nuclear weapons were used during an end times of their presence on our planet.

Looking forward to your next installment,

John Rickey

Hi John, no, for the electron the radius where negative refractive index would start is much smaller than the value of h. The electron would have an outer radius of about 1E-15 metres and an inner radius of h, that is 6.6E-34 metres. This would be the zone of possible electromagnetic momentums. The radius for neg r.i. effects is smaller still but it would carry half the mass, as the inertial and gravitational mass are balanced at this radius. That radius for an electron is 6.7E-58

Sloat, I agree that QED needs a lot of work and is worth the effort. Would you start a new thread for that rather than doing it here. It seems to me QED could be a lot simplier.