<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/0825c2d2…>
I need to revise the writ in a writ from earlier toyear. (O, the URL
therein had "1326" as the thread’s lotter; I didn’t choose it even
thouh it would be relevant to my thèory.) Fe-56 is not as stabil as
Fe-58, nor is Fe-58 to Ni-62:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron#Isotopes>. So the neutronic
tètrahèdra need not apply; it seems like they prefer òctahèdra like
charges, at least more than the tètrahèdra when they can afford
these. With another alfòn it makes Ni-62, with the arketup 1+12+1, to
strengthen my theme of 14 dimensions and states as a needful bund of
the inner, hearrer, and outter.
Wait! That’s Ni-56: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel#Isotopes>.
"large quantities". It has a 6-day half-life. The EC means it makes a
good neutronic sponge, where the six neutròns jam open/shut the whole
outer nucleus. The alfòn has four bodies, which go well into the gaps
of the /òcta/hèdron. I predict that you could play with Ni-56 on
neutronic stars like K’nex, and use it for ecaneutronium sunthèsis on
or off stars. Look at all this crap!:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_nickel>.
other shapes: <http://aip.org/pnu/2000/split/pnu469-2.htm>,
<http://aip.org/servlet/Searchphys?SearchPage=/physnews/update/search….>
Hmm, in other matters, nickel into ununquadium doesn’t look so good.
(Go for ununbium maybe.) I read that 42 is the meaning of life, the
universe, and everything. So I peerd at molybdenum earlier but saw
nothing interessent. But now I see something: 42 goes into 126
threefold, as 126 /is/ a magic lotter but 114 is like semimagic. The
last stabil isotope is Mo-100(!) with 58 neutròns, and three make
126+174=300(!), and the neutròns are 10 short of their last magic
lotter. But why should I be surprisede-mòlubdainòs is Hèllenic
for plumbus. Unbihexium is ecaplutonium, and may be buried in the
Earth’s mantel: <http://www.apsidium.com/elements/126.htm>. It would
need plutonium fertiliser to reach shell: 3Mo-100 + 3Pu-242 -> ‘Pu-309
+ 3Pu-239 -> ‘Pu-310> + 2Pu-239< + Pu-238.
I’ll forward this to Ken Moody. BTW, that Nova clip was crap.
Orbitals aren’t a string of things on a ring.
-Aut
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ununbium magic
> 4Ni-64 + 8Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-292 + 8Pu-240
> …
> 4Ni-64 + 10Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-296 + 10Pu-240
> …
> 4Ni-64 + 12Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-304 + 12Pu-240
> -Aut
————————
see my model of the nuc.
if you mensioned an Ocraheder you are some where in the righ t
directioni call it a ‘rectangular pipe
it is actually if you like and ‘octahedral pipe’
yet the active orbitals are actually 4 on front pole and 4 on back
pole
so ’reatangula pipe is for paractial understanding good enough
see there for instance the Iron presentation
in a 3d presentation ans on the same page a more encrypted presentation
OF THE SAME THING but planar and more schmetic
i had to invent that encrypted system in order of being able
to handle all those complicated structures
ie quicker and easyer than repeating those 3d not easy toahndle
while you need quick(and more abstarct ) sketches
that are good enough for study and examination
please note that
the neutrons are first of all at the Alpah partiicles AS THE MAIN
SKELETON
of the nuc
while in addition that ‘skeleton; is ‘dressed’ by preiferial neutrons
(i called then the NAPAN neutrons because they are located
on an existing joint between a proton ans neutron that belong as well
to alpha particles.in addition you have more neutrons
at the front and abckpole of the nuc
each nuc is a story for itself!!!!
yet even so there are some common laws of thses structures
that i a m not giong to dwell here
i was working on it fo r many years
2 please note on much havier nucs like the Lead and bismuth
thjat i broght at trhe end of that ste
that
their main skeleton has after some ‘bloks; or subblockes of
Alpha quartets
is not continuous
ie
there are in the nuc some ‘holes’ ie
just two connections between blocks’ instead of the more abundant- 4
conenctions
of that ‘reatangular pipe’
THESE ARE WAK POINTS OF THE NUC
in which it breaks there more easyly !!!
(because of the 2 connestions instead of 4 !!!)
so dear Auty
you are never going to formulate it in FORMULAS !!
if you try to formulate it on formulas on a paper
you are waisting your prescious time
ps sorry Autmn i did spellchek
i am too lazy for it
and hope yopu will forgive me
but i am sure
undestanding it -or not— is not a spellling problem !!!
and i think the tips i gave you are generous enough!!
and as for the location of my site
i think i quoted it too many times
ATB
Y.Porat
———————–
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Y.Porat wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > ununbium magic
> > 4Ni-64 + 8Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-292 + 8Pu-240
> > …
> > 4Ni-64 + 10Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-296 + 10Pu-240
> > …
> > 4Ni-64 + 12Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-304 + 12Pu-240
> > -Aut
> ————————
> see my model of the nuc.
> if you mensioned an Ocraheder you are some where in the righ t
> directioni call it a ‘rectangular pipe
> it is actually if you like and ‘octahedral pipe’
> yet the active orbitals are actually 4 on front pole and 4 on back
> pole
> so ’reatangula pipe is for paractial understanding good enough
> see there for instance the Iron presentation
> in a 3d presentation ans on the same page a more encrypted presentation
> OF THE SAME THING but planar and more schmetic
> i had to invent that encrypted system in order of being able
> to handle all those complicated structures
> ie quicker and easyer than repeating those 3d not easy toahndle
> while you need quick(and more abstarct ) sketches
> that are good enough for study and examination
> please note that
> the neutrons are first of all at the Alpah partiicles AS THE MAIN
> SKELETON
> of the nuc
> while in addition that ‘skeleton; is ‘dressed’ by preiferial neutrons
> (i called then the NAPAN neutrons because they are located
> on an existing joint between a proton ans neutron that belong as well
> to alpha particles.in addition you have more neutrons
> at the front and abckpole of the nuc
> each nuc is a story for itself!!!!
> yet even so there are some common laws of thses structures
> that i a m not giong to dwell here
> i was working on it fo r many years
> 2 please note on much havier nucs like the Lead and bismuth
> thjat i broght at trhe end of that ste
> that
> their main skeleton has after some ‘bloks; or subblockes of
> Alpha quartets
> is not continuous
> ie
> there are in the nuc some ‘holes’ ie
> just two connections between blocks’ instead of the more abundant- 4
> conenctions
> of that ‘reatangular pipe’
> THESE ARE WAK POINTS OF THE NUC
> in which it breaks there more easyly !!!
> (because of the 2 connestions instead of 4 !!!)
> so dear Auty
> you are never going to formulate it in FORMULAS !!
> if you try to formulate it on formulas on a paper
> you are waisting your prescious time
> ps sorry Autmn i did spellchek
> i am too lazy for it
> and hope yopu will forgive me
> but i am sure
> undestanding it -or not— is not a spellling problem !!!
> and i think the tips i gave you are generous enough!!
> and as for the location of my site
> i think i quoted it too many times
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ———————–
ps
as for the Nickel thjat you mesioned
Nickel - th e most common isotops of it –
has a different skeleton than Iron!! (in a some important detale
so it is mor elike say Cu Nuc)
it is only my model that could discover it
——————
Y.P
——————
ununbium magic
4Ni-64 + 8Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-288 + 8Pu-240
…
4Ni-64 + 10Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-296 + 10Pu-240
…
4Ni-64 + 12Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-304 + 12Pu-240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_ununbium lag behind.
-Aut
(too sleepy to check the first donation last time)
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> ununbium magic
> 4Ni-64 + 8Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-288 + 8Pu-240
> …
> 4Ni-64 + 10Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-296 + 10Pu-240
> …
> 4Ni-64 + 12Pu-244 -> ‘Hg-304 + 12Pu-240
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_ununbium lag behind.
> -Aut
> (too sleepy to check the first donation last time)
———————————–
are you more lazy than me ???
impossible (:-)
advance is for curious and industrious people …
Y.Porat
————————
All the hupe about Uup got me itchin to write a reaction that involvs
Lazar’s "gravity" waves.
.5Uup*[299m]2O3(s) + p+ + e- ->
.5Uuh[*=4*930MeV+E_G]+[300m]2O3(s) + e- ->
Uuo+++—[300](v) + .75O2+++(v) + 2p- + 4g + e- ->
Uuo[300](v) + 2y + .25O2+(v) + p-2O++(v) + 4g + e- ->
Uuh[296](v) + 2y + .25O2+(v) + C[14](v) + 4y + 4g + e- ->
Uuh[296]C[14](s) + 2y +.25O2(v) + 4y + 4g
The mass of Uus has a knee <http://www.apsidium.com/number/amc.htm>
which may allow the storeship of a bombload of ènèrjy as a nuclear
isomer of Uup. It’s hard to get antiprotòns from protòns elsewise.
These reactions are self-powerred as the fuel comes as a cake, rather
than the coppery coin that Lazar seems to describe, so they aren’t the
exact same–but if you want a plausibil description for a book or
script, you can borrow the processes above. Lazar’s ship has a chimney
to a "gas target", so this alluds to a loftscoop that runs on outside
oxujèn. O2 is positive (Alton Brown was wrong anoth.) so it can
easily eat antiprotòns which are like elèctròns but giv
thousandfolds the work in the annihilation.
They believe that gluonic and mesonic waves are "Gravity Wave A", and
call gravity "Gravity B". Wright writes that Bi and Uup hav loos
nuclei, so their last protòn leaks the strong force, and he mings this
with gravity for his nuclear gravitation thèory.
Now to point out all the mistakes that this Ken Wright has kept for ten
years without clue or check:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Gravity_Generator.htm
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Government_Scientist.htm
These contradict: "Supposedly the craft uses 223 grams, cut to a
triangular shape…" and "The copper-orange colored fuel pellet aliens
use is about the size of a fifty-cent piece, and it weighs about 223
grams." It seems like the 223 grams is the wedge of many coins, and
223 grams would be too hefty for something that is 31.5 g/cm^3 of a
half-dollar–which would be 6 g. (Where are those properties from?,
BobLazar.com?) Other sites repeat the mistake that the coin is 223 g!
The thèory’s pages are overlong and very redundant. I save the main
wrong points here, after I hade to go to sleep to write up the answers.
>Quantum Mechanics provides the means for the "weak force of Gravity" to overcome the "Electrostatic force of Repulsion" of the protons from one another in the nucleus. Classical Physics predicts the Electrostatic Repulsion force to be about 3×10^35 times greater than the Gravitational Force of Attraction. The Electrostatic Field disappears when protons are within 10^-4 Angstroms from one another because the wavelength of the Electrostatic Field is larger than 10^-4 Angstroms.<
The wavelength has no bearing on the existence of the field; if there
were no field, there would be no wavelength.
>A photon, or quanta of light<
quantum
>The smallest possible electric charge is that which is associated with a proton or electron.<
Quarks come in thirds of elèctronic charge.
>The field intensity established by the "Strong Nuclear Force" propagating outward from the nucleus "drops off" much faster than a 1/r^2 function. The "Strong Nuclear Force" field intensity at any given point appears to be inversely proportional to at least the seventh power of the distance from the center of the nucleus (the "Strong Nuclear Force" is proportional to 1/r^7) which is inconsistent with Newton’s Law of Gravity.<
The many quarklike compounds (mesòns) about each hadròn make the
strong force multipolar as above.
>The "Weak Nuclear Force" is the "Force of Gravity."<
This is /your/ claim, not the scientists’.
>A new theory, law, or principle is acceptable if, and only if, the new theory, law, or principle provides the same results as an older, accepted, theory, law, or principle where that older, accepted, theory, law, or principle is known to apply.<
Wrong, it must predict truthefully. Any makeup/fakeup can match any
true thèory.
>The "Strong Nuclear Force" can be explained to be the same as Newton’s Law of Gravity on a macroscopic scale because the Electrostatic Repulsion Force does not have any significant repulsion effect on a macroscopic scale as long as the masses used for measurement of the gravitational field are neutral in charge.<
Radiation pressure is one. Neutrality is scale-dependent and is a
careles average.
>600 degrees Kelvin<
600 kelvins
>This is a fair and reasonable assumption because the most probable location of the electrons "orbiting" a nucleus would vary from about one-tenth atomic radius to one atomic radius.<
One atomic radius is the mean radial distance; it’s not the mean/mode
position, which would be /at/ the nucleus.
>Electron Size < 10^-18 m
Neutron and Proton Size = 10^-15 m<
Nucleòns hav elèctric and nuclear sizes; as they are more massive
than the elèctròn, they are smaller in that respect. The ground
elèctròn is nowhere near that small, and these masses should be
switched.
>The Schrodinger Wave Equation can be used to evaluate the "Strong Nuclear Force" assuming it is the same as Gravity, for a given nucleon, either a proton or a neutron, relative to the rest of the nucleons in the nucleus is as follows:<
Schrödinger
Well you /can’t/ assume it’s the same as gravity because your equation
mings h and G which are incommensurate; h yields elèctric work so it
needs k; you’d need a new, experimental h_G for G so you can tell what
wavelength/wavestint of gravitòns corresponds to what work of gravity.
>On the surface, the different values of the "magic numbers" for the electrons in the atom and the "magic numbers" for the protons and neutrons in the nucleus seems to indicate that the "Strong Nuclear Force" and Gravity cannot be the same.<
Nucleòns arrange themselvs in tètrahèdra and tètrahèdra into
stacks, whereas elèctròns arrange themselvs in petals and collars
because they have to stick out from the nucleus.
>The atom is transparent to visible light because the wavelengths of the visible light at 4000 Angstroms to 7000 Angstroms are too large to "see" the atom.<
Wrong!, whether atoms are transparent depends on whether they’v
inductances; that is, whether they are conductive. If a subject is
smaller than some wavelength, then it will appear rather uniform in the
fields; it win’t be all /clear/. If you make the subject coherent, you
can see it go throuh briht and dark because its charges still wiggel at
that wavestint. The dimensions of ae elèctric wave are a consequence
of the finite speed of liht: If celerity were infinite, then there
would be no spatially-variant E waves. And if the subject is so small,
you can mock up its snapshot by squishan all its waves within, say, a
metre, into its size to get "fine" details.
>The diameter of the nucleus varies from 1×10^-15 meter to 1×10^-14 meter, therefore, the nucleus is transparent to the Gamma rays and X-rays just as the atom is transparent to visible light.<
meter;
Wrong also, they respond to any radiation if they hav the polar moments
to take them.
>Therefore, when two protons or a proton and a (positively charged) nucleus are in close proximity, they no longer repel each other because each are well within the wavelengths of the electric fields produced by either the two protons or the proton and the nucleus. The Electrostatic Repulsion Force becomes transparent or invisible, that is, the repulsive force between like charged protons disappears. … Therefore, the much, much weaker Gravitational Attraction Force can hold the nucleus together without the Electrostatic Repulsion Force (which is on the order of 10^35 times stronger) from tearing the nucleus apart.<
invisible;
Shove off, sailor. The wavelength of E radiation will shrink as the
work and strength grow. The wavelength is not the amplitude.
>millions of degrees Kelvin<
kelvins
>1.0×10-15 meter<
>To determine the approximate diameter of the sphere of the Uranium-238 nucleus, it must be assumed that all 238 cubes must fit inside the volume of the sphere of the nucleus.<
tètrahèdretocubòctahèdra
>The electron mass is only 1/1840 that of the proton or neutron. Therefore, the surface area of an electron will be equal to the surface area of a proton or neutron multiplied by the cube root of 1/1840 squared. … The ratio of the amount of energy absorbed by the electron, assuming Quantum Mechanics, versus the amount of energy absorbed by the electron, assuming Classical Physics, is on the order of 1.2×10^9 times greater or over a billion times greater.<
That’d be the reciprocal. You took the wrong surface area of the
charge/mass, and later used that to bullshit the greater supposed
strength of nuclear gravity beyond gravital calculations. The area of
the /field/, integrated by diminuent strength from the /rim/ of the
charge/mass, must be what you’d use to find the intensity. BTW,
intensity is X/m^2, not N/kg,C,etc.
>Let’s assume that the ratio, above, can be applied to the Nuclear Gravitation Field of the 92U238 nucleus. In Chapter IX, the Nuclear Gravitation Field was calculated using Classical Physics and Newton’s Law of Gravity and the value of 1.607×10^-7g was obtained. If the Nuclear Gravitation Field is a quantized, or discrete, field, then the ratio of the "Photoelectric Effect" Quantum Mechanics electron energy versus Classical Physics electron energy, equal to 1.201×10^9, for the absorption of light energy by the electron can be used as a multiplier to the Classical Physics calculation for the Nuclear Gravitation Field in order to obtain a "ball park" value for the intensity of the quantized Nuclear Gravitation Field of the 92U238 nucleus.<
Shut up.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>If a wavefront of light is propagating at the speed of light (as expected) and a wavefront of gravity is propagating at the speed of light is following the wavefront of light, the interval between the two wavefronts will never change. The wavefront of Gravity will never "catch" the wavefront of light. In
…
read more »
Sleepless and lotters don’t ming… Here’re the reactions fixed.
.5Uup*[299m]2O3(s) + p+ + e- ->
.5Uuh[*=4*930MeV+E_G]+[300m]2O3(s) + e- ->
Uuo+++—[298](v) + .75O2+++(v) + 2p- + 4g + e- ->
Uuo[298](v) + 2y + .25O2+(v) + p-2O++(v) + 4g + e- ->
Uuh–[294](v)·He++ + 2y + .25O2+(v) + C[14](v) + 4y + 4g + e- ->
Uuh[294]C[14](s)··He(v) + 2y +.25O2(v) + 4y + 4g
-Aut
notes, my guesses
Ball-packing works like this: 1, (3+6+3)=12, (1+6+9+12+9+6+1)=44.
(With skill you can draw this stack to see what it looks like.) Two
layers add to 57; what’s weird is that /nobody/–
<http://google.com/search?num=100&q=57+"sphere-packing"+OR+"ball-packing"+OR+"kissing+number">;
<http://google.com/search?num=100&q="57+balls"+OR+"57+spheres"+OR+"57+3-spheres"+OR+"57+3-balls"+-score+-game+-match+-sports>;
<http://google.com/search?num=100&q="1+ball"+OR+"1+sphere"+"12+balls"+OR+"12+spheres"+"44+balls"+OR+"44+spheres">;
<http://google.com/search?num=100&q=1+12+44+"sphere+packing"+OR+"ball+packing">;
<http://google.com/search?num=100&q=1+12+13+44+57+"sphere+packing"+OR+"ball+packing">
–aknowledhs this pattern. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number)>
has nothing either, except for the coincidental 57-cell, a fat 4D
shape. Neither has /44 or /56. However two 57s make 114, which /is/ a
[semi]magic lotter. Without the twoth layer, two 13s make the 26 of
iron, but /28/ is magic. Thus, semimagic nuclei depend on ball-packing
and vice versa.
Whether or not you include the poles, Ca-42 and Ca-44 are very stabil.
Hmm, as "the meaning of life", Ca-42 would be the most abundant metal
in us if Ar weren’t so neutròn-gredy. Then again, the slihter Ca-40
would be favored in mètavòlism. The alfas in Ca-40 are like the
nucleòns in the outer shell of Ni-62.
when balls mock up broadder balls to break cubòctahèdral summètry:
Mo: 2(1+12+8), cap it to get Sn; Tc: 2(1+12+8)+1
Nd: 2(6+8+16), cap it to get Hf; Pm: 2(6+8+16)+1
Bi: 2(1+12+8+20+2)-1, cap it to get U; Po 2(1+12+8+20+2)
Uuh: 2(6+8+16+24+4), cap it to get Ubh; Uus 2(6+8+16+24+4)+1
uud
+ddu: -2.2MeV
++uud: -5.5MeV +ddu -12.5MeV
++ddu +1.9MeV
Hmm, neutròns fall apart forely the same as H-3 falls apart: d-d
repulsion. Standard neutronium blows up because neutròns corepel;
thus heavier isotopes hav lifetimes even shorter than the free
neutròn. To make stuff that seems like neutronium, one needs to mock
up atomics like diamond: (2+4)(uddudd + ‘u”u”d”d”d”d’)* = (1+4)(nn
+ ‘p’-'Delta’+)*. Thus "neutronium" is like "positronium" in that the
bonds are between neutròns and antineutròns. The * wedges open the
charges so they don’t decay, or they forbid lower transitions.
The lifetimes for isotopes of heavy elements vary wildly for the same
isotope; as you can see from the raw data in the Wikipedia talk pages,
some same isotopes from different sources vary from seconds to
/minutes/. And the publicists weenie out and only report the
/shortest/ time, which is bogus. As meta states of isotopes /add/ to
the lifetime of the isotope, meseems that the excess cinetics of these
hot radionuclides is why many decay too quickly to make these poor
scientists believe that they always behave so fleetly–so they giv up
hope to ever make a stabil overheavy element. They should fus even
colder, install a laser cooler behind the target so that each nucleòn
should not be hotter than about 5 meV. Do these nuclear scientists
understand what cold is for, at least in bulk atomics? I’ll bet that
we’ll get elements near 104, 108, and 114 to last for years with the
same old isotopes, as sure as I smashd the scientists’ claim that
lasers need a population inversion to work on Wikipedia’s laser
articul.
Next, I think that if neutròns fall apart on their own, and bump apart
in nuclei, and that strong gravity can keep them awhole, that strong
elèctronucleia can too. Keep neutròns a’hittang each other, and you
will keep their down quarks together. So a static beryllium trap of
hot and|or hard neutròns should show a longer half-life.
-Aut
Now I shall doff Dr. Morgan’s critique of Lazar
<http://serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm>:
>Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way.<
Heh, if you’re confused, then it’s /you/ who has the lack of
understanding of his thèories.
>For these reasons, I don’t feel that Lazar’s pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.<
I will show your readingly and thinkingly problems, and that scientists
are dumbasses. (To skip to my lateste show, on transmutation, see
<http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/25647>.)
>I will focus on the parts of Lazar’s text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar’s text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar travel…<
>>This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.<<
>I’m less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it’s misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That’s what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING.<
Only positive mass attracts everything.
>A gravitational field is a gravitational field<
noooh!
>…you can’t pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you’ll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50′s, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!<
If superaliens can shield E, they can shield G. Okay, gravity is
rather weak, but Lazar’s gravity isn’t the same as yours.
>Now I’m no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not "gravitational" in nature. (In other words they would not "attract" things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I’m talking about an entire star’s-worth or even a galaxy’s-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.<
You’re not, and those solutions /are/ gravitational. Is a mirror not
elèctric? The size of a object is rather deceptive if you can’t see
all of it–a particul can be almost infinitely-broad/big/long because,
as I proved on sci.physics.particle, size and distance are the same.
And, because neutrality is a careles mean, all objects are that same
size. "If you had everything, where would you put it?" "Why,
everywhere!, of course." There is less need to put the whole ènèrjy
of the chunk of the univers, which does yae fine to expand and defy
your gravity with its own negative gravity, into a creaft if it can be
hade by the creaft immediately. As better engines don’t combust, but
react and regenerat coherent work, after the ship makes its Krasnikov
pipeline it can pay back the work to the univers because both ends in
spacetime are equipotentials.
>>There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.<<
>These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It isn’t a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.<
/You/ are "total nonsense". He said /about/ gravity, not /of/. This
gaff is about grammar, not science; the "is" should be a "has" or
"does".
>All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work. But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon – which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
(To add to the confusion of Lazar’s statement, in any quantum theory of
gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in a sense,
BOTH a particle AND a wave!)<
It /is/ nonsense. A ènèrjetic bosòn is not a particul at all–the
charge and field (mote and whit) are the particul. The bosòn is ae
arbitrary interval of waving–and the line-of-fliht between two bodies
is only a line; it has nothing to do with the fotòn or whatever benan
a particul. A X/y/Z^0 "ray" is only a mathematic ray as some element
of a wave, and space still has many dimensions that the field is
disturben by.
>>The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don’t actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.<<
>As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don’t exist? I can’t think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that’s about it.<
gravitòn, dilatòn, inflatòn, higgs, higgsino, tèknicolor gravity;
dark matter chaff to explain the missing [gravital] mass–I don’t even
hav a degree and I can kick your arse.
>>You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form an atom.<<
>These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn’t "matter" than what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.
It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like these are
what make Lazar’s "theory" so dubious. How can we give much
consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations
of particle physics, when it’s fairly obvious that he isn’t even
familiar with the terminology?<
Uh, you aren’t familiar with the common pop-sci declaration that "all
matter is made up of atoms, with protons, neutrons, and electrons"?
>>Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics …<<
>This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.<
He said Gravity A, not Gravity B.
>If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
It’s not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A
wave". You’ve got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do
with gravity if you’re going to attach that name to it! The words by
themselves are meaningless. I want to see
…
read more »
Autymn D. C. wrote:
>(2+4)(uddudd + ‘u”u”d”d”d”d’)* = (1+4)(nn + ‘p’-'Delta’+)*.
Dammit.
(1+4)(uddudd + ‘u”u”d”d”d”d’)* = (1+4)(nn + ‘p’-'Delta’+)*.
BTW, I updated the masses for the heavier elements on Wikipedia.
"Autymn D. C." wrote:
[snip crap]
> Next, I think that if neutròns fall apart on their own, and bump apart
> in nuclei, and that strong gravity can keep them awhole, that strong
> elèctronucleia can too. Keep neutròns a’hittang each other, and you
> will keep their down quarks together. So a static beryllium trap of
> hot and|or hard neutròns should show a longer half-life.
Idiot.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Uncle Al wrote:
> Idiot.
idiot = lonester
You are a retard.