Artlandia Symmetryworks Serial Macro

What if the rock planets are really comets. What if they over times got their orbits more circular. The last planet that got its orbit as it is today was Venus and that was accomplished two millenniums ago. Venus has been in the diary of mankind since he could write. Chinese wrote of Venus having a tail.

On other parts of the world they saw Venus with two horns. Every 50 years Venus came very close to earth it was recorded by Chinese astronomers that it could be seen in the day time and out shown the moon. I was called a morning star. With its look of having horns it was called the'Bull' Like the sun,and the moon were worshipped Venus was also worshipped. Using the bible as a history book,it is written there was no night sky (sun stood still) for 24 hours. That could have been the 50 year cycle,and Venus at a very close approach. Than having horns and called a bull it made the bull a religious animal.

Venus again must have made its 50 year approach and Moses saw that as a sign and went up the mountain,and must have stayed awhile for he came down with the 10 commandments,but what did he find they had created and were worshipping a golden 'cow.' Well all that took place and was recorded. You might say it is ancient time. However as I type there are over one billion people living in India that worship the cow. The reason they had the best view on earth to see Venus come by with its horns. Venus has found its orbit but still fools people even today because it is so bright as being a flying saucer Bert Jonathan Silverlight 08.10.02 10:44.

Hi Jonathan Come on I got a nice e-mail on this.Comets are made out of the same material as planets.They are even said to have given water to our rock planet. These are all my best iffy thoughts.I don't post the one's I feel don't make you think. They come right from my head to my type writing finger to you. Maybe I should write it out first,but that is like doing it twice. Jonathan this being what I think is my best 'What if' you have taken the heart out of me.

My ego is crushed to the very core. You have taken the wind out of my sail.

How can I make it a better post for you.Please don't leave alt astronomy because of me. Tell me your favorite astronomy subject and I will post it in 'WHAT IF' For you I will go to Google For you I will be a parrot and my thoughts will not be mine but come from the brains of our scientific masters. Bert Jonathan Silverlight 08.10.02 15:15. In message, G=EMC^2 Glazier writes Don't do that, but I'm unrepentant:-) Comets are made from the same material as planets (so are you and I!) but they are so much smaller that they are totally different objects. That's what people like Velikovsky don't seem to realise. But I'm interested in this idea of Venus having horns.

Could that simply be an observation of the crescent phase? Very keen-sighted people can see that today, and no other planet shows a visible phase. And where did you get the reference to the 50 year cycle of Venus? -- mail to jsilverlight AT is welcome Mac 08.10.02 15:34.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 18:44:45 +0100, Jonathan Silverlight wrote: ************* ******************* >In message, >G=EMC^2 Glazier writes >>What if the rock planets are really comets. **************************************** J. SILVERLIGHT: >I think - and hope - he's pulling our legs with this one. >The reason I dropped sci.astro was to get away from all the Zeta and >Velikovsky nonsense. ************************** He is more stream-of-consciousness.

Map art print including the aerial view of Wrigley Field located in Chicago, Illinois. 3 in 1 lens (fisheye / wide angle / macro) is one of the. Blackberry BoldRemote CameraBluetooth RemoteHtc One M8Pc LaptopsSelfie StickPhone HolderSmart PhonesSony Xperia. Jun 19, 2012. Any Video Converter Professional 2.6 free serial number. Serial code for VariCAD 2011 1.0. Download software Artlandia SymmetryWorks 4.12 for Adobe.

Something impinges upon his notice and he immediately dashes off his epistles via WebTV rather than take some time to visit libraries. ---Mac G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.10.02 16:53. Thank you Jonathan You have warmed the vibrating strings of my heart. You are a kindred spirit.A redeemer of all that is good in the interest of your fellow man(me) Glad you liked the part of Venus having both a tail and horns,and I truly read that. In 1050 AD the Chinese astronomers recorded a super nova(close and big one) as you know.They also recorded going back to 3000 years BC Venus as being seen about every fifty years being so bright it could be seen in day light.

At night they recorded it out shined the moon,and had a tail. In Egypt much the same was written only they saw Venus with what they call horns up front. Well it reminded them of a bull. You have to remember Jonathan the culture on human thoughts came from the signs that they read from the heavens. Not to different from a cult in California that committed suicide over the coming of a comet of doom(remember) Well we know for a fact that in India the cow is worshipped.Its urine is treated like holy water.A bull could destroy a new expensive car,and the owner of the car will bless the bull and feel his car is a holy shrine Jonathan that is no bull,and is factual. There you are I tied what is written about Venus in ancient history astronomy,and the religious writing in parrel times(far corners of the earth.) Because I type faster than I think(It could have been better) Still it interested you.That is all I ask. I would cut off my typing finger rather than you leave the group on account of my posts.

Your servant Bert PS I will post a strong theory on how comets created rock planets,and tear down the best theory on the formation of gas planets. Nothing is carved in stone,and it is always best to think in every direction. Odysseus 09.10.02 04:07.

Hi Odysseus Thank you my mind is always in an act of ruminating.It is always searching for knowledge,and after a short meditation(reflect upon) I will run with it with my own interpretation,and poor grammar. I have been to the library. I love every branch of science. I love problems,mysteries.new thoughts. I like to express my own ideas some very good some fair,and some very bad. I weed them out in time.

I always felt the universe created intelligent life so it could see itself. Bert Mac 09.10.02 23:38. On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:43:10 -0400 (EDT), (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote: >I love >problems,mysteries.new thoughts. I like to express my own ideas some >very good some fair,and some very bad. I weed them out in time. I always >felt the universe created intelligent life so it could see itself. Bert ************** *********** Fair enough.

But, why subject Newsgroups to you numerous postings? Weed these out ahead of time. Take some additional time, a lot more time, for reflection rather than spewing this stuff out and subjecting Newsgroups to all of this, so many times. ---Mac G=EMC^2 Glazier 10.10.02 05:05. ************ ************* With all due respect but that is not what I stated.

My comment was: QUOTE: All the more reason to use what 'space-time' you have still alloted in a wise and judicious manner. Please take just a bit more time for reflection before posting. Or, if you have a question, perhaps first use some local reference resources. Or, even a GOOGLE search,. CLOSE QUOTES My comment implied that, prior to your use of stream-of-consciousness, or your immediately hitting the Newsgroups with whatever thought or idea or concept popped into your mind, that, perhaps it would be a better use of your 'spacetime' ((your words)) to first reflect.

To first think things through a bit. To also consider using the Library. Even the GOOGLE system to track the thought down in several permutations BEFORE you consider posting such onto the Newsgroup(s).

Again, I am not certain what your reference to a 'Google-brain' is. I am simply asking that, before you do as you proclaim you have in having a thought and then promptly hitting the Newsgroups with it, that you might wish to pause, to reflect, to think things through a bit --------- to even do a bit of research on your own so you can have the pleasure of the challenge yourself. ---Mac G=EMC^2 Glazier 11.10.02 03:35. Hi Mac I do a lot of research. I try to make my posts more interesting going beyond the stuff that we all read. I've started a post as you know called 'Pre History of the Solar system' I could just quote things out of the books I'm using for useful information. Should I just type the book and the page number?Should we just go to Google?

Mac ' What if' teachers just told their students to stay with the book,and get those crazy thoughts out of your head. Einstein turned in a paper with E=MC^2 and his teacher said if this is all you have to turn in,you are a lazy person. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 14.10.02 05:17. What if nature uses explosions,and its counter part implosions to save time? Has an implosion of energy just as strong as the explosion? (Newton's third law) The universe was created by an implosion +,explosion. Space expansion could be a tiny explosion(annihilation) of its particles and anti-particles to create its inflation.

In supernovas the implosion creates neutron stars,or black holes,and they stay put. The explosion hurled heavy elements out into space.Are both actions simultaneous? Since it is great temperature and heat that causes this action,I would think the action would take place in the supernova core first. The time difference would be the length of Planck time.

Sociology A Brief Introduction By Richard T Schaefer Ebook Store on this page. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 15.10.02 03:36. Hi David To save time in creating heavy elements. To save time is radiating gamma photons. In saving time in creating neutron stars and black holes In saving time in creating singularities.

Quantum explosions are tiny explosions we call virtual particles that erupt from the vacuum of space and we use the word 'annihilate' rather than exploding. This vacuum energy I see as to inflating space. All explosion are created by the gravity in both the sub-micro realm and in the macro realm. One could make a theory gravity evolved all,and all it created it transforms further with explosions and implosions to still increase the density of structures. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 18.10.02 11:03. What if gravity does not operate the same everywhere?

This astronomer Zwicky found in the constellation 'Coma Berenices' galaxies are moving to rapidly,relative to one another to be bound together by their mutual gravitational attraction. This cluster of galaxies should be flying apart. This thought is just to show, you can think in more than one direction. Today's answer to this is from 90 to 99% of the matter in the universe is dark matter. While other pieces of the BB are coming together to make it a very good theory,the missing matter remains a big mystery.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 19.10.02 06:11. What if the density of matter crushed to zero volume is the seed for a universe. I suggest that every black hole is a seed for a new big bang explosion,but is hiding from our view by the black holes event horizon.

Nature deals in big numbers,and the cosmos has as many universes as flacks of snow in an endless storm.Space goes to infinity,and the number of universes in this infinite space is infinite. Bert PS singularities exploding is still the best model for the big bang G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.10.02 07:15. What if our universe's parrel(twin) universe is not separated but is inside our universe.

It could fit very easily,for a universe is mostly empty space. We know galaxies can go through each other with little or no effect. We could even hypothesize that the parrel universe is composed of anti-matter. We could even hypothesize this anti- universe is showing itself to us in gamma ray bursts.

Well parrel means they will not ever get together,so lets say they are perpendicular to each other. Bert Glenn Christensen 23.10.02 01:35. What if mankind will never be smart enough to achieve TOE many believe the string theory will be the best theory.

It incorporate the three known forces that govern the microworld,as well as accounting for the elementary particles(quarks,gluons,etc) String theory's ideas are that the fundamental entities in our universe are not points but tiny string loops,and the various subnuclear particles are vibrating strings.(easy to visualize) However the strings have the scale of the Planck length. Moreover these strings are vibrating not in our ordinary (3+1) dimensions,but in a space of 10 dimensions. 10 dimensions that's the rub. Can the human brain ever reach a point in its evolution to visualize 10 dimensions. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 26.10.02 12:28.

What if are thinking matter and energy can't be destroyed is not 100% correct? Why can't we us the words 'totally lost' instead of destroyed. These thought came to me,for we know gravity,and EM energies go to infinity. We are lucky that the EM energies(light) hit the earth. The chances are very good that the energies of the universe will hit nothing,and leave the universe forever. You could say they are lost in the space beyond the universe. Even though this energy is lost rather than transformed,it does not really effect the property of the physical systems of the universe.

To say it in text book science'The reduction of this lost energy does not change noticeably the symmetry of the universe' Bert Bill Sheppard 26.10.02 20:04. Bert wrote, >What if black holes have a critical >mass?

Objects in the universe that get >crushed by gravity explode,and implode. >What if I theorized that blackholes >implode,and explode.You might say so >what's the difference? I answer the >difference is the creation of the universe. What if a BH of sufficient mass and spin-rate were simultaneously imploding thru its poles and exploding out its equator? That would be the Primal Particle 'Engine' of the CBB (Continuous Big Bang) model of the universe. The 'critical mass' would be the demarkation point at which the spinning equator explodes back into spacetime, imprinting c upon the unfolding creation and fixing the event horizons of all BHs in the universe. The emergence event we call the 'Big Bang' would mark the point at which our visible cosmos popped thru the Primal Particle's event horizon (as in the analogy of the freon molecule's perception of its passage thru the compressor).

Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 26.10.02 17:18. Hi oc Like all objects the blackholes must spin.And like planets each could have its own rate of spin.

If some blackholes were spinning at close to light speed than their equators would be moving the fastest. Their spin would obey the inverse square law.Close to 'C' at the equator all the way to zero at the exact center of their poles. This fallows the line of your thinking. What if the blackhole stops spinning,and becomes a perfectly round sphere,and we know for a fact nature does not like a perfect circle,this could be another reason for a blackhole imploding into its core,and showing to the universe its singularity. We could theorize its the close to 'C' spin that is holding the blackhole up.

Bert Bill Sheppard 27.10.02 21:10. >What if the blackhole stops spinning,and >becomes a perfectly round sphere,and >we know for a fact nature does like. A non-rotating black hole is called a Schwartzchild BH. It's a theoretical construct and most probably does not exist in nature. That's because BHs form from stars, and stars rotate. That rotation is greatly magnified by conserved angular momentum when the parent body collapses, spinning the BH up to a very high rate.

A realistic model recognizes the spin component, and is called the Kerr model of black holes. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 28.10.02 15:25.

What if Mach's theory(very well received) was right? He showed inertia and gravity were the same force.

He inferred that the amount of inertia a body experiences is proportional to the total amount of matter in the universe. Thinking along these lines tells us the universe is finite.(that is nice to know) We could even bring in QM for we can say the universe has a finite amount of particles,for if it had an infinite amount of particles it would have zero probability to form and exist. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 29.10.02 10:28. What if the expanding universe and the spinning gyroscope have a lot in common? Both show they have a force that can overcome gravity.

A spinning top will not tip over. It is also harder to move sideways. A spinning disc will hover in a super conducting magnetic field without any more energy needed. They have this none in a lab.,and the disc has been spinning for 65 years and still is. Motion can duplicate gravity(the elevator) Angular motion can balance the force of gravity(earth and the sun) The force of electrons,and even photons (particles) can equal or overcome a gravity field. Now we go to universe expanding. I can think of two reasons for this accelerating rate of expansion.

First the intrinsic particles in space,and that the universe is spinning at an accelerating rate,and is spinning in all the dimensions that the string theory uses(ten) If the universe could be seen from afar to see all its micro,and macro motions of spin,it would be wheels within wheels all the way down. Bert Bill Sheppard 31.10.02 09:55. Bert wrote, >If the universe could be seen from afar to >see all its micro,and macro motions of >spin,it would be wheels within wheels all >the way down. OR, what about a tightening spiral, like the whirlpool going down a bathtub drain? Or an equatorially-unwindng spiral, like a clock spring.?

Might these be the simultaneously-running inbound and outbound aspects of the universe? (There would be two 'bathtub drains' accelerating head-on into the singularity of the 'Engine', with the 'clock spring' unwinding off the equator and expanding into the toroidal body of the universe.) oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 31.10.02 11:10. Bert wrote, >I have an idea that the speed of rotation >of any spinning object obey's the square >law as to going the fastest at the equater >to not spinning at all at the poles. Does >this make sense to you? Bert, try a web search under 'Keplerian rotation'.

And are good resources. Keplerian rotation, such as seen in solar systems, has the outermost planets moving the slowest and the innermost planets moving the fastest. Non-Keplerian rotation has the whole ensemble turning more or less as a unit, like a frisbee. But even a solid disc's rotation would not follow the square law, rather it would be linear. That is, the speed would double (not square) with every doubling of the radius.

>Since spin is intrinsic to all objects a >vortex(whirl pool) fits in very well. Your thinking fits very well with Wolter's on this. Your previous posts about 'wheels within wheels' closely parallels Wolter's 'fractals'. He saw spiral galaxies as 'little fractals' of the primal form. G=EMC^2 Glazier 31.10.02 19:55.

What if the new Hubble telescope can see so much further that we will see objects(galaxies) before they are formed. Galaxies that we see as young,and old we seem to have a theory that can tell them a part. If the new Hubble can go back so much further we could see the formation of galaxies taking place. We might see strings of stars.We might see stars in the process of creating shapes.We might detect great gas and dust clouds with just one large bright star exploding(supernova) It took gravity a long time to create the Milky Way.What I'm trying to say if the new Hubble can get closer to the spacetime of the big bang we should see some thing that will tell us what a galaxy looks like when partially formed Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 01.11.02 03:56. What if the flip of the magnetic poles has a very simple answer? Right now the lines of force are going north to south. How do we know that?

Well the top layer of magnetic rock under the ocean shows the lines of force going north to south. Under that top layer that build up shows it is going south to north. I see two clues here. Water gives the sediment coming down to the magnetic rock on the ocean floor time to ordinate this would mean its particles would have to be attracted.

The rocks south pole collecting sediment particles that are north pole,and visa versa. We are reading the lines of polarity of the sedimentary rock right,but we should not apply it to the earth's poles.This is just a big mistake. The earth's poles lines of force never flip.

They have theories in 'books' that say the poles flip because the earth is struck hard by an asteroid.(baloney) Like Einstein said if a theory is simple,it is usually right Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.11.02 05:05. What if I say the core of a neutron star is a black hole?

What if I say it is this black hole that gives the neutron star its great weight? What if I say that the surface of a neutron star is almost the same as a black holes event horizon? What if I say the difference is that the poles of a neutron star can release X-Ray photons? Black holes and neutron stars were created by the same source,supernova implosions.Their difference is the black hole is three times heavier. Bert Bill Sheppard 04.11.02 08:56. >Their difference is the black hole is three >times heavier.

Bert Bert, you need to make a distinction between weight and mass. A BH, neutron star, or an ordinary star for that matter, doesn't have any 'weight' because it's free-floating in space (just as you would be weightless if you were free-floating in space). An object doesn't have 'weight' unless it's in a gravitational field and being prevented from falling.

Like if you're just standing on the ground, you 'weigh' say, 200 pounds. But if you jump off a cliff you weigh zero (momentarily). Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.11.02 15:38. Hi oc I know mass and weight are different quantities. Mass is the measure of the matter an objects contains,while weight is the force with which gravity attracts matter. Still you have read what a tea spoon of neutron star matter must weigh.We know you must stop your acceleration to the earth gravitational core to measure the force of gravity where you are standing. True if you fall off a ladder you are acceleration and have no weight,but this can be measured acceleration speed and density of the mass will give force of impact.

The surface of a neutron star like all surfaces of objects stops your accelerating,and would tell your weight(same way as on earth) The big difference is on a neutron star you would be flattened to the thickness of a molecule. Oc what I'm saying the photons have enough speed to overcome a neutrons stars gravity force,but do not have the escape velocity to overcome the gravity force of a black hole. Oc here is something I find interesting. G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.11.02 20:48. What if it takes the whole universe to twist phone cords? We know it takes the whole universe to create life. The DNA molecule,the hereditary material of living life,and the phone cord have relative features.

They are both double helix. Their two helical strands(cords) corkscrew around and around each other. They both ravel.Maybe they both can unravel their own coils? How phone cords making their corkscrew coiling is a bigger history.Like I said it has to get energy to coil.I can only see Mach's inertia theory coming into play here. DNA is a molecule it is organic,and it has cellular motion as long as it is a live. Why would a phone cord want to twist and coil? The only answer I can come up with is nature is giving away one of its secrets.

For us to figure out. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.11.02 04:22. Hi oc It is the protons that are 1837 times heavier than the electrons. Protons give the atoms weigh and the electrons gives it volume Gravity pushing electron's back into the nucleus leaves a neutron (that does not decay) This adds still more weight with less volume. Less volume and great density means a much greater gravity force.

Here is a difference between the surface of a neutron star and the earth's surface. If you could walk on the surface of a neutron star you would be stepping on neutrons.When walking on the earth's surface we are stepping on electrons. Bert PS I'll get e-mail that we would be stepping on quarks on a neutron star.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.11.02 11:05. Bert wrote, >What if space does not conform to SR or >GR? Short 'iffy' but very >meaningful. Cool question, Bert. Relativty is rooted in the 'void-space' paradigm and the universal invariance of c.

'Void-space' means space is treated as functionally void or 'nothing'. And thus c has to be universally constant. Wolter's CBB model offers an expanded view of relativity. Instead of being 'void', space is seen as a super energy-dense hyperfluid, amenable to compression, expansion, and flow.

Thus space is capable of exhibiting a _density gradient_ across any region of differing spatial pressures. The instant following the BB would show an enormous density-drop during the period called 'inflation'. C, instead of being universally constant, would drop by many orders of magnitude during this instant. As the expansion-rate of space leveled out and flattened, c would stabilize and BECOME constant, because there is no more density-gradient out here in the 'Main Sequence' of the universe where w. G=EMC^2 Glazier 07.11.02 04:38. Hi oc What you are saying space was denser right after the BB and that different areas of space had different densities,and the speed of light would not be a constant.oc now it is a constant.I have a problem with this thinking because if space density effects the speed of light,and we know that space itself is expanding at an accelerated rate than why is light speed a constant today?

Gravity can zig zag photons going through space,and that makes their spacetime greater going from A to B. Physicists would rather make the distance light has to go greater than ever touch changing its speed. Bert PS All this does not make Walton's thoughts bad science.Best to think in ever direction.

Bill Sheppard 07.11.02 09:36. Bert wrote,.we know that space itself is expanding >at an accelerated rate. We _think_ space is expanding at an accelerating rate, based on the assumption that c is universally constant all the way back to the instant of the BB. It's interpreted from the deepening redshift the further back we look. But under the CBB model, 'accelerating expansion' _in present time_ is a grand illusion that springs from assuming c is universally constant. The most ancient light we can see has propagated from denser space into less-dense space (a density-gradient), slowed, stretched in wavelength red-ward, and lost energy.

This reddening and dimming of the most ancient light is _part_ of the observed redshift, and not recognized by the Standard Model. It is what Wolter called the 'density-gradient c-dilation' component of the redshift (the others being recognized as the cosmological expansion and Doppler components). The most ancient light we can see began its journey 'way back during the quasar epoch w.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 07.11.02 15:49. Hi oc Walter indeed had a great imagination,and was a deep thinker.He past his thoughts on to the right person,he must have known that. When going so far back in space time,lets say 15 billion light years or more,the only thing we have coming to us(hitting the earth) are photons from that great distance.They could be photons from the big bang. Photons don't get old(no such thing as tired light) Their wave length's get longer when they have traveled a great distance.They go from red that we can see to radio wave length's and those we can only detect.

With huge antennas.' What if' the universe was just the Milky Way galaxy.That thinking only goes back about 100 years. Oc I could think of tons of questions about the Milky Way and the answers would only be the best theory we have now,and lots of my questions would go unanswered. Bert PS Seems nature uses time to hide the universes birth Bill Sheppard 07.11.02 19:08.

What if there is another way to show the age and size of the universe? We use the lengthening of the photon's wave to measure distance.We use supernova explosions because of their great light intensity. What if we used the different size and shapes of structures? It took gravity a great length of time to make a galaxy like our Milky Way. We could use the Milky Way as a reference frame. With our latest telescopes we could step by step see a galaxy evolve,as we go deeper into spacetime. We know old galaxies from young galaxies even now.We know denser objects evolve faster than less dense.

I have read just a few months ago that at the greatest distance that one of earth's great telescopes can see are unfamiliar shaped objects. I found that very interesting,and gave me the idea for this 'what if' Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 10.11.02 06:00. What if I was miss leading in saying denser objects evolve faster.

After all it took gravity more time to bring them to their high density that we are 'now' relating to. That means dense stars came first. I could add there was more hydrogen clouds when are universe was younger.That also means the implosion of the big bang created quarks at the same instant that the big bang explosion created photons. That would also mean they were created obeying Newton's third law,and Einstein's E=MC^2. What if I told you this is the first time I ever thought of bringing E=MC^2 into the theory of the big bang. I always thought that for every explosion there had to be an implosion there forces moving in opposite directions,and equal in strength.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 12.11.02 14:20. What if space dust was second only to the big bang? What it space dust with the help of gravity evolved the universe as we see it today? What if there is more space dust in tons than the weight of all the planets in the Milky Way?

What if space dust helps cause the blue spectrum of light turn to red? What if these dust particles were carbon,and with hydrogen they would combine and create hydrocarbons.(same stuff that comes out of you car's exhaust.) What if these dust particles help hydrogen and oxygen to combine(water)? What if space dust was the reason the universe has life?

What if the theory that has dust practicals mixed in hydrogen clouds is the only way stars can form? (I think so) What if the only way so much dust is in space was from the big bang explosion,and billions of years later by supernova explosions. The bible says 'dust to dust' Carl Sagan said we are made of star dust. I see cosmic dust like cigarette smoke. Maybe God was a chain smoker Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 13.11.02 06:02.

What if the theory that a comet is a dirty snow ball is very good thinking? The reason being its core could be made of space dust,and attracted water molecules around it. What if it is gaining mass faster than its tail is losing mass. My thoughts on comets have always been they are losing mass,and now I can see them gaining mass by attracting more water and cosmic dust particles in their traveling through space. I wonder if cosmic dust is giving us a blurry view how we see the universe. Bert Bill Sheppard 13.11.02 09:15.

Hi oc I was only adding space dust as another reason for blue light to redden. What if in the very early universe there was no dust? Hydrogen was the first element. The amount of free hydrogen in the universe had to be very great. Much greater than we have today. Stars had to be created without the help of dust. The reason is dust had to be created by supernova explosions.

What if supernova stars are all created by pure hydrogen? Gravity could compress this great amount of hydrogen at this early stage of the universe without dust,but must have taken longer than if the clouds had dust.

I see the dust in hydrogen clouds as the same dust that clings to out TV screen. To sum it up all the early stars were supernova. Dust particles helps gravity create stars like our sun. Dust particles are the one of the reasons for the missing matter(dark matter) making up our universe,and 95% of the earth came from dust particles. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 21.11.02 05:59.

What if supernovas were only created in pairs? Half of all the stars in the universe are binary. We would have a very hard time telling a binary system of blackholes from a single blackhole. Two blackholes locked together with such a strong gravity field would have to revolve like a dumbbell. Nature likes pairing.

They could even have opposite charges. We could even think of them as being like an electron and a positron. We can even use them when they fall into each other as what we call gamma ray bursts,after all that is what comes out of electrons,and positrons when they touch. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 21.11.02 10:50.

What if we are wrong that a neutrino comes out of the nuclei when a neutron decays into a proton? What if the neutrino caused the neutron to decay?Something had to cause it (yes) Where can I find something to make these ideas less 'iffy'? Lets start with 50,000 tons of water.Around the tank walls thousands of light sensitive detectors. We are waiting to see some flashes of blue light caused by a neutrino hitting a proton.If a neutrino can decay a proton,why can't it decay the neutron.

I think it does.(why not?) Lots of other 'what if' ideas can come out of the use nature has for the neutrino. It is harder for me to think how gravity can compress both an electron,and neutrino back inti the area of the proton than what I just wrote. Bert PS Thank you Painius,for I got this 'what if' from your post the ratio of electrons and protons. David Knisely 21.11.02 22:49. Bert wrote, >We would have a very hard time telling a >binary system of blackholes from a >single blackhole. Two blackholes locked >together with such a strong gravity field >would have to revolve like a dumbbell. Bert, try a web search under 'binary black hole merger' and 'black hole ringdown'.

And are good sources. A co-orbiting BH pair would expend their orbital energy as gravity-wave radiation, steadily increasing in frequency as they spiral in closer and closer to each other. Sonically, the pitch of the GW would ascend abruptly into a 'chirp' at the point of merger. 'Ringdown' is the oscillating dynamics that occur AFTER merger.

Fascinating stuff. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 23.11.02 06:25. Hi oc Thanks for letting me know about going to Google.I know I should look things up there,but I do read a lot to keep up with the great thinkers of our time. I'm not sure about gravity waves getting shorter,or longer,as light waves do.

I know all over the world they are spending millions of dollars trying to detect GW and no luck. As a kid I had the idea of melting all the gold stored and making two great balls and hanging them in a vacuum as close together as possible,and seeing if we detect some type of wave between them(Casmir balls) Its a bad idea for the earth is not a good place to pick up GW vibrations. The world should save its money and think of outer space,and go the way we detect gamma bursts. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 23.11.02 13:36.

What if the very way energy moves through space can tie in with our theories of waves? We are told that the photon moves in tiny packets.There is a space between each photon,and this space between them is so tiny(smaller that a planck length) and with the great speed of the photon it gives the illusion of a steady stream.What if gravity can make the space between photons larger and shorter Since we know gravity can make the wave length of photons longer and shorter as they go through space this fits. You might come back with that would mean that the photons speed might be sub-microscopically changed.

I come back with since their space between them is smaller than a Planck length it is infinitely to small to measure,and does not go against SR. Using these new 'iffy' thoughts(Just thought about it) I think if one could come up with a theory on how nature makes use of the changing distances between flowing photons it could get 'him'or 'her' a Nobel. Last thought does this change of quantum leaps obey the inverse square law? Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 25.11.02 08:43.

What if I said there are stars shining out there older than the universe? Hmmmm could my thoughts be that far out?

I would have to be thinking my children are older than me. Well that thought has been in the books. So when I get 'flamed' for my far out thoughts just remember they are not as far out as there being older stars than the age of the universe. What if I said there is as much dark energy in the universe as dark matter?

Einstein might be thinking along these ideas if he was living today. What if nature uses this dark energy to create cosmic acceleration,and this great acceleration(95% of 'C') Raises the inferred age of the universe.That fits well with SR as the great speed of stars moving away from our relative view(our static view)Seems there is the theorists expansion view,against the view of the observers. I think the astronomers looking at the up to date way stars evolve,astronomers have come to the conclusion that the oldest stars are about 13 billion years old. Since I have the universe at 22 billion years old,the age of the universe was never a problem. Bert Bill Sheppard 25.11.02 11:04. Bert wrote, >What if I said there are stars shining out >there older than the universe?

Hmmmm Bert, when you say 'universe', do you mean just the visble cosmos or the entire 'be-all' that may lie outside our visibility? What if our visible cosmos is just the 'marble enbedded in the donut'? If that were the case, there would be many stars, proto-galaxies, quasars, and lots of other stuff blazing away outside our view, outside our lightcone and below our redshift horizon. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 25.11.02 12:09. Hi oc When I say the universe I mean all the energy and matter immersed in its spacetime. True we have EM detectors that can't show us the horizon of the universe. We have to keep reminding ourselves just a short time ago the Milky Way was are view of the universe.Reflector telescopes have have gotten bigger,and so have radio wave detectors(like the one in Chile).We have developed electron coupling to go with it.

What if some day we tie computers in with very weak signals,duplicating their exact wave length,and bringing that exact information to what ever intensity we wish? The sun is the only star that shows its surface. We see a light bulb by its reflected light. We only see its direct light from a distance.

That is like all the stars. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 26.11.02 06:11. What if it were better to think of the universe only as being composed of energy? I like the idea that the electron is a field spinning at'C'.(a vortex) What if the universe was constructed out of fields and waves only? What if with what brains we have are creating an illusion,and we are fitting in ideas and experiments,and thus creating our own reality. That is why are theories are not considered factual.

What if all these energies (vortexes) are moving instantaneously and gravity has slowed them down. What if the expansion of space when it accelerates beyond 'C' will prove I'm right? What if this space expansion reaches an acceleration that is a trillion,trillion times faster than 'C'.Can we consider this instantaneous? Without matter it is much easier to think of infinite energy and no volume needed.

What gives us the illusion of matter as being a solid is that electrons act like shields. Did not Feynman and Wheeler play with the idea that the universe was composed of one instantaneous electron.

I just gave that idea more reality. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 27.11.02 06:28. What if the reality of the true composition of the universe was energy being evolved(compressed) by gravity? What would that mean to me? My equation for GUT would have to be made shorter. Instead of G=EMC^2 it would read G=EC^2. Einstein would have liked that better.

Physicist of today go with the idea that matter is frozen energy.Mach's inertia theory can live with and energy universe.The BB could live with an energy universe. I could change my equation to G=EC^2 but I'm to old to change,and besides its in Google as G=EMC^2. Bert PS Have a nice Thanksgiving G=EMC^2 Glazier 28.11.02 15:24. What if we had today billions of tons of solid stable metallic hydrogen.There was a time pure aluminum was very rare. These two elements have lots in common. Great conductors of electricity,however solid metallic hydrogen could offer no resistance to the flow of a electrical current.

The stuff of jupiter's core might just be the fuel for fusion reactors. To make solid molecular hydrogen metallic you need a pressure of about 5 million atmospheres. Interesting for this is about the pressure at the earth's core.' What if' this is the main reason the earth has a dynamo at its core made of metallic hydrogen,and that is what gives the earth its magnetic field?It works for jupiter.

We could use this theory because physicist can't answer the Curie effect (heat destroys magnetisim) Well the universe is 90% hydrogen,and water has twice the hydrogen than oxygen.I think we should start spending lots of money on this project,for every buck we spend we could get back trillions back with free energy,and transmitting it. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 30.11.02 12:20. What if the universe was composed of just energy,and using terms relating to matter particle was just bad thinking?

What if all the fundamental units of the universe are both fields and waves. What if we are screwing things up further when thinking of an atom as a billiard ball,and waves as waves on a pond. These are bad relative relationships. In reality we have to see in the QM sub-microscopic would. The reason is we create a macro world in our mind's eye that is made of matter,and have ourselves make a false world.

We are afraid of the unknown.Inner space is a very dark place.A spinning field that we call an electron is reality,but we would rather think of it as a billiard ball. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 02.12.02 06:08.

What if we think along the lines of Alan Guth's inflation theory? Could we say he went contrary to GR?Did he separate space and time in the trillionth of a trillion of a trillionth of a second at the big bang? Can we say the universe slowed down to its present rate using Guth's momentary burst of cosmological inflation? Was Guth using Planck time? How did this effect the huge temperature?

Seems photons with their 186,000mps would not have a chance to relate any heat. Does Guth's theory completely break down the gravitational theory of GR and light speed of SR? Guth's theory answers lots of questions,and is well received,but what if it assumes to much?

Bert Bill Sheppard 02.12.02 11:03. Bert wrote, >Did he (Guth) separate space and time >in the trillionth of a trillion of a trillionth of >a second at the big bang? Can we say >the universe slowed down to its present >rate using Guth's momentary burst of >cosmological inflation? Another co-founder of the inflation model, Dr. Andy Albrecht, saw an alternative to inflation. Simply let c drop by many orders of magnitude during the 'inflation' spike.

As if by magic, the need for inflation disappears, as well some niggling problems such as the 'first Doppler peak' and the flatness paradox. Along with Dr. Joao Magueijo, Albrecht proposed VSL (variable speed of light) as an alternative to inflation. The two wrote several papers on the VSL model, showing how a precipitous drop in c across the inflation spike would completely clear the problems associated with inflation.

Albrecht has since back-pedaled and recanted his views, no doubt out of peer pressure. Universal c-invariance is the 'sacred cow' in cosmology and astrophysics. Magueijo on the other hand, continues to pursue the VSL model.

Quite remarkable for a 'mainstreamer' to stick to his guns on the issue. A web search under Magueijo-Albrecht VSL will turn up some interesting papers. Oc Bill Sheppard 02.12.02 11:37. Hi Zdenek You ask me what if an object has zero temperature. My answer is that can not happen. Here in a lab in Florida they have come very close to absolute zero (costs lots of money for the lab.) To me it would be like getting a photon to go slower in a vacuum.

Possibly a blackhole has a very low temperature(it does not radiate any photons.) however it is immersed in space that has a heat radiation of 2.7 K blackholes absorb photons and heat is created by photons. The universe has this temperature of 2.7K in every direction,and all objects that are part of this universe are subject to this universal radiatiion. I answered you in the macro realm.There are conditions in the sub-micro realm that also tell us that an object can't have zero temperature.

For that would mean no motion.That can't be. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 03.12.02 05:18. What if the interior of a black hole has locked in the highest temperate in the universe. The reason for this not is not so 'iffy' for gravity creates heat,and a BH has the greatest gravity in the universe. As a BH absorbed more photons and compresses them it can only get hotter. What if this photon pressure gives the BH a critical point where it has to explode? What if this is the best theory for gamma burst?

This could be the best theory to answer the universe's greatest explosion. The 1999 gamma explosion for a second was greater than the energy of the universe. It could have been two binary BH exploding in unison??

What if the BH is showing us how the big bang was created?? Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.12.02 05:43. What if even before the big bang space had energy? The casmir plates give great experimental evidence for this.Even today the energy of space is 1000 times greater than all the energies immersed in it.

What if it took gravity trillions trillion trillions of years to compress a very vast area of space to such a great density to form a singularity and that exploded creating all that is(our universe) I've had that theory before any one that reads this were born,with very few exceptions.(I'm an old man) That was my reason for the idea that G=EMC^2 someday would not be laughed. My teaches kept telling me gravity was a weak force. I always came back with 'so week that it help to created the universe' The universe's energy was created by gravity out of the intrinsic energy of space(fabric of space).

Before the big bang space had sub-microscopic waves the motion of these intersecting each other gave space a very very tiny temperature,must to small for any instruments to measure. I'm using waves,but we read of virtual particles. Bert PS I hope this answers questions I got in my e-mail yesterday Zdenek Jizba 05.12.02 09:03. G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: >What if even before the big bang space had energy?

The casmir plates >give great experimental evidence for this.Even today the energy of space >is 1000 times greater than all the energies immersed in it. What if it >took gravity trillions trillion trillions of years to compress a very >vast area of space to such a great density to form a singularity and >that exploded creating all that is(our universe) What kind of elementary particles would have existed in this pre-Big Bang universe that would be subject to gravity? Does the Casimir effect answer this question?

Bill Sheppard 05.12.02 09:46. Bert wrote, >What if the interior of a black hole has >locked in the highest temperate in the >universe? Well Bert, in-falling matter would reach its highest temperature at the instant it plunges thru the event horizon, would it not?

After falling thru, would it not continue compressing/ heating until reaching the singularity stage? But since everything below the EH is 'outside' our spacetime, we would never be able to see or detect this interior process.

We can only deduce it by what Wolter called 'intuitive extrapolation'. Thus the domain inside the EH would be the HOTTEST state of the universe, and everything on 'this side' of the EH, including all our laws of thermodynamics, are the COLDEST state.

The analogy of the freon cycle in refrigeration, with its liquid-gas phase change, illustrates this idea. >What if this photon pressure gives the >BH a critical point where it has to >explode? Assuming the BH and its singularity are spinning at a very high rate, by what route is it going. G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.12.02 14:35.

Hi Zdenek To your first question yes the Casmir plates show there is energy in the vacuum of space. That intrinsic energy is there before the BB.

All energies and all particles are subjected to the force of gravity. QM tells us gravitons attract gravitons. Nothing is exempt.

Zdenek nature had two things going for it before the big bang. That was the submicroscopic energy of space waves,and the force of gravity.

QM likes virtual particles as the fabric of space. As you know virtual particles erupt from the vacuum of space momentarily existing on borrowed energy,and annihilate,they go well with the uncertainty principle. Zdenek let me say this that my thoughts come mostly from QM so I'm always going with wave-particle duality(basic feature of QM) Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.12.02 15:00. Hi oc Let me start by saying Wolter used the term'intuitive extradition' My say is 'in our minds eye' Both terms have the same relationship. Lets take spin away from a very dense and old BH. We could use Much's inertia principle to achieve this. We could have a theory that the older the BH the slower it rotates.

We could call this theory 'gravity friction' We know it exists. Without spin a black hole has no poles or equatorial bulge,its as close to a perfect sphere that exists in the universe. At that geometric point in my minds eye would be the exact time to create a critical density,and the black hole would release all this energy in gamma photons,and great heat of inferred photons. Gamma ray burst are detected everyday,and that goes well with my theory that there are as many BH as stars. Bert Zdenek Jizba 05.12.02 16:45. Hi Zdenek Your friend is right about going back in time,and still left with no final answer.

The universe was not created from nothing. We are told a singularity has no volume,and I can see that. It has infinite density and I can see that. I can see before the big bang as I've posted. Still what makes your friend's thoughts so right is he still can say where did these sub-microscopic wave-particles intrinsic to space come from? What is the source of gravity's attraction? Would the universe need not be,if it did not have intelligent life?

Are there as many universes out there as flakes of snow in an endless storm(my favorite saying) Well Zdenek glad you find my thoughts fascinating. I find it interesting that this year I have not been flamed very much. When I use to express my own idea I got the book thrown at me. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.12.02 07:06. What if the electron in the micro realm was a black hole in the macro realm? First the reasons to make this idea less 'iffy' According to Einstein's theory there is no minimum mass for a black hole If we compress a chunk of matter of any mass to a small enough size it will become a black hole.(the lighter the mass,the smaller it has to be crushed) The electron has spin.BH has spin.

Both have mass,and force charges. We would have to use QM when the black holes are the size of sub-microscopic particles.

We would have to think in terms of Planck mass or less. Best to keep in mind that the Planck mass is huge,some ten billion billion times the mass of a proton. I am always looking for the sameness as how nature creates objects.Can size alone make such a big difference? True elementary particles are the most minute pieces of matter,and black holes are the most heavy objects.But can't we at lest speculate that a black hole might actually be a gigantic elementary particle for the reasons I presented?? Bert Bill Sheppard 06.12.02 09:43. Bert wrote, >Lets take spin away from a very dense >and old BH. We could have a theory >that the older the BH the slower it >rotates.

Without spin a black hole has >no poles or equatorial bulge,its as close >to a perfect sphere that exists in the >universe. Bert, what you're describing is Schwartzchild's model of a non-rotating BH.

It's a theoretical construct, meant to illustrate the principle of the event horizon. But in the real universe, a non-rotating BH is very unlikely to exist, because most all stars rotate. The collapsed star imparts its rotation to the BH, greatly INCREASING its spin rate by conserved angular momentum. According to Wolter, as long as the BH continues accreting mass, its spin rate will increase also. He saw no mechanism by which the spin rate could ever slow down and stop in a 'very old' BH.

To clarify his model of bipolar accretion into a BH, take for example the central 'engine' of a Seyfert (active) galaxy. Look at it side-on, at high magnification. Bill Sheppard 06.12.02 10:47. >What if the electron in the micro realm >was a black hole in the macro realm? Hey Bert, you're toying with the same idea Sagan did in his 'Cosmos' series, where he speculated on the 'electron as a universe' idea. But he dropped it and didn't go anywhere with it. Ten years earlier, Wolter had modeled the toroidal body his CBB universe as a macro-scale electron.

The Primal Particle 'Engine' at its center is a macro-scale proton. The whole ensemble is a macro-scale hydrogen atom (that is, a neutral, or ground state H atom). In his model, the toroidal form of the H atom and the macro-universe is the most primal form in nature, from which all else derives..can't we at lest speculate that a black >hole might actually be a gigantic >elementary particle for the reasons I >presented?? Bert Don't see why not.

When you see that a (spinning) BH _must_ accrete via its poles, you see that a proton must also. And you see the secret of the strong nuclear force. You begin to see the secret of magnetism and the unific. G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.12.02 15:54. Hi oc Just read your post and I'm laughing,not at you,but at us. We are talking about the most hypothetical object in the universe like iwe would talk about the sun.

You mention in the real universe BH not rotating is not likely. I read about BH that makes them not part of the real universe. Lets think about the accretion disc. That is what gives the presents of the BH. We have to place a star outside the event horizon. Let it be our sun and planets,comets and dust. All that is found around the sun.

All this fall towards the event horizon of a BH.These objects are accelerated to nearly the speed of light At this speed great friction would be created and enormous heat,stuff would glow lots of ordinary light and x-rays. This is what we see.This is what did not fall through the event horizon. Out of this we have to theorize the other side of the event horizon.That is where the BH is. To know what is happening.We have to theorize its size,gravity force. Vdo Dayton Supercode Crack there.

Spin speed.Some say i. Painius 07.12.02 03:09. Starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, (sit tibi terra levis) Painius oxo 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote. >>What if we are wrong that a neutrino comes out of the nuclei when a >neutron decays into a proton? What if the neutrino caused the neutron to >decay?Something had to cause it (yes) Where can I find something to make >these ideas less 'iffy'?

Lets start with 50,000 tons of water.Around >the tank walls thousands of light sensitive detectors. We are waiting to >see some flashes of blue light caused by a neutrino hitting a proton.If >a neutrino can decay a proton,why can't it decay the neutron.

I think it >does.(why not?) Lots of other 'what if' ideas can come out of the use >nature has for the neutrino. It is harder for me to think how gravity >can compress both an electron,and neutrino back inti the area of the >proton than what I just wrote. Bert PS Thank you Painius,for I got >this 'what if' from your post the ratio of electrons and protons.

Painius 07.12.02 03:20. 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote.

>>What if supernovas were only created in pairs? Half of all the stars >in the universe are binary.

We would have a very hard time telling a >binary system of blackholes from a single blackhole. Two blackholes >locked together with such a strong gravity field would have to revolve >like a dumbbell. Nature likes pairing. They could even have opposite >charges. We could even think of them as being like an electron and a >positron. We can even use them when they fall into each other as what we >call gamma ray bursts,after all that is what comes out of electrons,and >positrons when they touch.

Bert >Well, supernovas being unimaginably huge explosions of stars, it seems possible that a double supernova could happen. This would require a binary system made up of two huge short-lived stars, wouldn't it? Probably not many of these left in our galaxy. Might find them in very faraway galaxies where we can still see things as they were many millions of years ago. Painius 07.12.02 03:26. The reason we cannot detect gravity waves may be similar to why our ears can only detect a certain range of frequencies and our eyes can only detect a certain tiny range of wavelengths. We just don't have the sensors yet.

Or maybe we do and just don't know it? The Earth itself is the best local sensor of gravity waves? It certainly detects the Sun's and the Moon's gravity waves okay, doesnt' it? Starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, (sit tibi terra levis) Painius oxo 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote.

>>Hi oc Thanks for letting me know about going to Google.I know I should >look things up there,but I do read a lot to keep up with the great >thinkers of our time. I'm not sure about gravity waves getting >shorter,or longer,as light waves do. I know all over the world they are >spending millions of dollars trying to detect GW and no luck. As a kid I >had the idea of melting all the gold stored and making two gr. Painius 07.12.02 03:49. In article UelI9.41889$, Painius at wrote on 7/12/02 11:49: >'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote. >>>>What if the universe was composed of just energy,and using terms >>relating to matter particle was just bad thinking?

What if all the >>fundamental units of the universe are both fields and waves. What if we >>are screwing things up further when thinking of an atom as a billiard >>ball,and waves as waves on a pond.

These are bad relative >>relationships. In reality we have to see in the QM sub-microscopic >>would. The reason is we create a macro world in our mind's eye that is >>made of matter,and have ourselves make a false world. We are afraid of >>the unknown.Inner space is a very dark place.A spinning field that we >>call an electron is reality,but we would rather think of it as a >>billiard ball. Bert >>What if a photon could be contained by a negative charge.

The >negative charge is usually just a momentary. G=EMC^2 Glazier 07.12.02 04:36. Hi oc Yes Sagan had thoughts that an atom could be a whole universe, He wanted to show size is relative. Like I said the Planck size is 10 billion billion time bigger when compared to a proton. I have posted over the years that at the beginning(BB) nature only had one force'gravity' I have always tried to bring gravity into the micro realm.

The size of our universe can be deceiving. If gravity can compress you,me,planets,stars,neutron stars,all black holes into a singularity that has zero size(no volume) what does that tell us?? The reason gravity can do this is it gets stronger as it compresses more particles into a smaller area of space.oc you can look at it this way 'gravity is taking space away from all particles and energies.

In reality it would look like a motion picture run backwards from now back to the big bang that took place 22 billion years ago. Oc we are not getting flamed as much because the universe is stranger than any 'iffy' thoughts we have. Bert Painius 07.12.02 04:52. 'Bill Sheppard' wrote.

>>Bert wrote, >>... >>What if this photon pressure gives the >>BH a critical point where it has to >>explode?... >Assuming the BH and its singularity are spinning at a very high rate, by >what route is it going to explode -- omnidirectionally, like a >starburst? Or (due to the centrifugal effect) out the equatorial plane >in an expanding disc?

Logic would dictate the latter- it would explode >in an expanding equatorial ring. I closed my eyes after reading this, Bill, and you know what i saw?

>This would beg the next question: What would trigger such >an explosion?... Timed explosions that spread matter out from the spinning black hole in the form of spiral arms. What if there are different kinds of black holes? Some that don't spin or explode much. These might form spherical or irregular galaxies -- and some black holes that have more spin and (in their early days) explode two or more times to form.

Painius 07.12.02 05:02. 'David Knisely' wrote. >>Someone (Bert) posted: >>>>What if in the very early universe there was no dust? >>Obviously, there would not have been a need for vacuum cleaners!:-) And that's good! Because vacuum cleaners aren't worth much of a damn anyway. >-- >David W.

Knisely >Prairie Astronomy Club: >Hyde Memorial Observatory: >>********************************************** >* Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * >* July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * >* * >********************************************** Starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, (sit tibi terra levis) Painius oxo Painius 07.12.02 04:59.

Heavy elements are formed in supernova explosions. However, when a supernova explodes, a large volume of the mass may remain the original Hydrogen, helium mix.

(This of course would not be the case in a BH explosion.) Or am I wrong? Anyway suppose that the Big Bang was indeed the explosion of a type of primeval black hole which was made up of very elementary particles ('strings'?). Then is it not possible that a large volume remained as the original component, and would this not now be called the 'dark mass'? Jonathan 07.12.02 07:33. In message, Painius writes >'Bill Sheppard' wrote.

>>>>Bert wrote, >>>... >>>What if this photon pressure gives the >>>BH a critical point where it has to >>>explode?... >>Assuming the BH and its singularity are spinning at a very high rate, by >>what route is it going to explode -- omnidirectionally, like a >>starburst? Or (due to the centrifugal effect) out the equatorial plane >>in an expanding disc?

Logic would dictate the latter- it would explode >>in an expanding equatorial ring. >>I closed my eyes after reading this, Bill, and you know what i saw? >>>This would beg the next question: What would trigger such >>an explosion?... Timed explosions that spread matter out from the spinning black >hole in the form of spiral arms. What if there are different kinds of >black holes?

Some that don't spin or explode much. These might >form sphe. Bill Sheppard 07.12.02 09:02. >Obviously, there would not have been a >need for vacuum cleaners!:-) To which Painius sez, >And that's good!

Because vacuum >cleaners aren't worth much of a damn >anyway. Gordon Wolter jokingly called his Primal Particle 'The Big Hoover in the sky'. Another term was 'The Ultimate Tokamak'. Then he gave the analogy of the running jet engine where a dust speck gets sucked in and feels the 'Bang' as it goes thru. Then oldcoot coined the analogy of the refrigeration compressor in the freon cycle. All illustrative of the CBB (Continuous Big Bang) principle.

Oc Bill Sheppard 07.12.02 09:42. Painius wrote, >The reason we cannot detect gravity >waves may be similar to why our ears >can only detect a certain range of >frequencies and our eyes can only detect >a certain tiny range of wavelengths. We >just don't have the sensors yet. Or >maybe we do and just don't know it?

Actually, GW radiation would overlap the frequency range of human hearing, and would require no down-conversion as in radio. A GW antenna would amount to a highly specialized acoustic microphone, _directing_ detecting the compression-and-rarefaction signature of a gravitational wave.

GW radiation, being a longitudinal wave, would be exactly analogous to a sound wave in air, but propagating at c. Electromagnetic radiation, by contrast, is a transverse wave, making it subject to polarization.

EM radiation is generated by oscillating charges, while GW radiation is generated by oscillating masses (or massive gravitational events). As far as detecting GWs on Earth, there is so much seismic, tectonic, and man-made noi. Bill Sheppard 07.12.02 10:16. Zdenek wrote, >Anyway suppose that the Big Bang was >indeed the explosion of a type of >primeval black hole.

Then is it not >possible that a large volume remained as >the original component, and would this >not now be called the 'dark mass'? Hey that's very perceptual thinking. In the CBB (Continuous Big Bang) model of the universe, the central mass is called the Primal Particle (PP) and accounts for _most_ of the mass of the universe, ergo the 'missing mass' or 'dark matter'. The PP is also the perpetually-running 'Engine' that powers and sustains the visible universe, energizing the standing-wave field of space itself (or 'string field').

In the CBB model, the PP is analogous to the proton in the hydrogen atom. And the toroidal 'body' of the universe is the 'electron shell'. In both micro-and macro versions, the PP/ proton contains about 1,836 times more mass than the externalized shell. So the PP would have 'way more than sufficient mass to gravitationally close the universe.

Again, this is all under the heading of 'what if?' Oc Bill Sheppard 07.12.02 10:53. Well lots of 'iffy' thoughts on an 'iffy' subject(black holes) oc you like to see them spinning very fast. Do you see any spinning slowly?

It is impossible to tell if the star is rotating around the black hole and the material;l the black hole is pulling in and that is making the circular swirling accretion disc.I wonder how long before the star falls right into the event horizon and disappears. If the star is losing mass that could mean there will come a time that its core fusion will stop,and it could implode into a size that is easy for the BH to swallow. Bert Painius 08.12.02 00:33. 'Graham Fergus' wrote. >>Painius at wrote. >>>'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote.

>>>>>>What if the universe was composed of just energy,and using terms >>>relating to matter particle was just bad thinking? What if all the >>>fundamental units of the universe are both fields and waves? What if we >>>are screwing things up further when thinking of an atom as a billiard >>>ball,and waves as waves on a pond?.. >>>>>>Bert >>>>What if a photon could be contained by a negative charge?... >>Hey man, what if your wife is ugly Yo man, what if both your brain cells croak? What if that stick you use to make fire breaks off where the Sun don't shine?

Oh shit -- you had to get me started. Starry starry nights!

-- Indelibly yours, (sit tibi terra levis) Painius oxo Painius 08.12.02 01:25. 'Jonathan' wrote.

>>Painius writes. >>>'Bill Sheppard' wrote. >>>>>Bert wrote, >>>>... >>>>What if this photon pressure gives the >>>>BH a critical point where it has to >>>>explode?... >>>Assuming the BH and its singularity are spinning at a very high rate, by >>>what route is it going to explode -- omnidirectionally, like a >>>starburst? Or (due to the centrifugal effect) out the equatorial plane >>>in an expanding disc? Logic would dictate the latter- it would explode >>>in an expanding equatorial ring.

>>>>I closed my eyes after reading this, Bill, and you know what i saw? >>>>>This would beg the next question: What would trigger such >>>an explosion?... >>>>>>oc >>>. Timed explosions that spread matter out from the spinning black >>hole in the form of spiral arms. What if there are different kinds of >>black holes? G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.12.02 05:18. What if someone could come up with a great logical theory telling why the Milky Way has a BH at its center?

We know it has,and it has the mass of millions of sun's. How did it get to be the greatest gravity force in the universe? Where did all this mass come from? Were supernovas much larger in the very distance past? Were they like David's vacuum cleaners sucking in the much denser space materials that were available when spacetime was young? Right after the BB space was like vegetable soup,now it is like my mother's chicken soup.

What if there are two ways for nature to create BH. At the time of the BB explosion,and implosion,and the implosion being the compression force needed.

We know the other way is from the supernova explosion,and implosion,and that leaves a BH at its core. The earth if compressed to the size of a pea would still keep the moon in orbit. Kind of puts a smile on your face when you picture it. It shows nature has a sense of humor Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.12.02 06:00. Hi Painius that is a great link(thank you) Love the movies.

It would be nice using computers showing Feynman's diagram's in motion,showing interactions at the sub atomic level. How about all those extra dimensions of the string theory,or at lest some of them so we have a picture to day dream about. Photography has been my hobby for many years,and a motion picture makes time on going.A still picture freezes time.

With the help of computers we can get a more realistic view of the universe. Bert Bill Sheppard 08.12.02 08:48. Painius asked, >Is it too far out to speculate that a black >hole could reach a critical point and >explode? FWIW, Wolter had a lot to say on this subject. I'll keep it under the 'What if' heading to reduce the liklihood of flames. Back during the heyday of the quasar epoch, there was prodigious quantities of 'fuel' available to feed the voracious appetites of the BH 'engines' that powered the quasars (unlike today, in the epoch of sedate, stable galaxies where sparse 'fuel' is avaiable to feed BHs). Today, quasar-scale BHs are seen in Seyfert (active core) galaxies.

But their fuel supply is vanishingly low compared to what it was then. When a quasar-scale BH runs out of fuel, it simply becomes a quiescent BH, or at most, a Seyfert core.

Back in the quasar epoch, one of three fates awaited an accreting BH: 1. It may simply run out of fuel, as above. It will continue accreting mass until the _equatorial spin_ at the rim of its singularity reahes c, a whic. G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.12.02 13:54.

Painius wrote (in relation to exploding BHs),. Timed explosions that spread matter >out from the spinning black hole in the >form of spiral arms. 'Timed explosions' is exactly what Wolter was referring to in his model of equatorial-discharge quasars. Where the equatorial spin reaches c and explodes a ring of new matter back into spacetime. But this is a 'pulsating' series of discharges, like a relaxation oscillator.

So the discharges go out as concentric rings, _not_ spiral arms. >What if there are different kinds of black >holes? Now take that quasar-scale BH and scale it up several more orders of magnitude. Scale it up in mass, and scale it down in volume by the same order. You now have the hypermassive Primal Particle 'Engine' at the core of the universe.

But it is a continuously-running, not pulsating, Engine. NOW you have the out-spiralling arms. Spacetime itself, the very Matrix of space, comes spiralling off the equator like rope off a spool. Simultaneously, the poles are. G=EMC^2 Glazier 09.12.02 05:58.

What if the shape of the universe is a torus? Our galaxy could be in the inner ring,or the outer ring.

The outer ring and the inner ring could be revolving at different speeds and even at different directions,relative only to each other. What if two of the most powerful black holes could link on to each other forming a tunnel connecting both rings(pinching space) What if man can use this pinched space to go from the inner ring to the outer ring?

Bert PS I'm studying the orbifolding of Calabi-Yau shapes. PPS I'm almost sure we are in the inner ring Bill Sheppard 09.12.02 08:24. Bert wrote, >What if the shape of the universe is a >torus?

Our galaxy could be in the inner >ring,or the outer ring. Wolter's take on it went like this - our visible cosmos is a little sphere embedded in the torus. It would be on the scale of a marble embedded in a donut.

It would be located out near the periphery of the donut, not in the inner regions. He deduced this because of the isotropy and homogenity of the visible cosmos. This uniformity and sedateness would not be the case in the inner regions, which would be roiling with gravity-wave tsunamis and quasars. We are privy to the very tail-end of the quasar epoch, with the bulk of it outside the boundary of our little 'marble'. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 10.12.02 02:53.

Bert wrote, >What if our universe was shaped like a >flat galaxy? What if our' parallel' >universe was shaped exactly the same? That's pretty close to Wolter's 'donut' model of the CBB universe.

It's a flattened sphere like two frisbees joined back to back forming a common equator, and 'dimpled in' at the poles. Thus it has Northern and Southern hemispheres, which are mirror images, or 'parallels' of each other.

>What if they had a common gravity axis >connecting the two? That's exactly what it has - a 'gravity shaft' running thru both poles, common to both hemispheres. The gravity shaft is the accretion route _into_ the interior of the Primal Particle.

This planform is reflected in every rotating system in nature - dual hemispheres and common equator turning on a common polar axis. It's what Wolter used to deduce the form of the macro universe and the H atom, by 'intuitive extrapolation'. >The picture I'm trying to create would >look like those giant spools used to wind >up. G=EMC^2 Glazier 11.12.02 05:22. What if we compare neutron stars to black holes? (I like to find sameness in objects) First they are both objects created by the implosion of supernova.

They both are the two most dense objects in the universe. The blackhole 3 times more dense. How dense is dense? The neutron star's material is 100,000,000,000,000 more dense than the earth's rock.

A neutron star has a gravity force that is 1000 billion times that of earth. A rubber ball dropped from 3 feet here on earth would bounce,but on hitting the neutron stars surface it would release as much energy as a kiloton bomb. Keep in mind a black hole is 3 times stronger. I don't think neutron stars give off any disable light,but unlike a black hole they do emit x-ray photons. The best known neutron star lies in the Crab Nebula it radiates 33 times a second,that tells us it spins 33 revolutions per second.

Possibly a black hole of the same size would rotate at 99 revolutions per second. Does a neutron star have any type o. Bill Sheppard 11.12.02 12:53. Bert wrote, >What if we compare neutron stars to >black holes? (I like to find sameness in >objects) Check out these sites, Bert - In addition to the mainstream model of a BH, I'd like to toss this in under the 'What if?' Heading - Since the BH's equatorial spin-rate is greatly increased due to conserved angular momentum of the collapsing star, its equator is naturally the route of MOST resistance to entry (due to the greatly-magnified centrifugal effect). So infalling matter from the accretion disc cannot fall _onto_ the equator as it does a normal star or even a neutron star.

Instead, the infall must bifurcate and ride 'up and over' the final hump before plunging into one of the two poles of the BH. The poles of any (spinning) BH are the natural path of least resistance INTO (not onto) the BH. Notice the distinction between _onto_ and _into_. G=EMC^2 Glazier 12.12.02 05:05. Hi oc What you just wrote does not sound to 'iffy' to me.

It makes good common sense,and common sense can be useful in the macro realm. Some galaxies clearly show great energy taking place at the poles of the black hole at the galaxy core. These very big and powerful black holes that are at the core create great heat as stars get closer and closer waiting their turn to be riped apart as they funnel into the center of the black holes axis poles. Like you are telling us is there is no centrifugal force at the poles. We know that is true here on earth,for at the exact center of our poles gravity is the strongest.

I believe from the poles to the equator of any spinning object the inverse square law can apply. Oc QM has a singularity at the core of black holes,and it has no volume but has infinite energy.That tells me that the infinite energy has to be gravity.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 12.12.02 05:25. What if the only reason for galaxies is they have a black hole at their center?What if the black holes had to be the very first objects that came out of the big bang?What if the implosion of the big bang had more energy than its explosion,by a factor of trillions,and trillions. The explosion would create the material to create hydrogen,and gravity would evolve this into stars,and great black holes clumping these stars into galaxies. It goes with my saying 'It is gravity all the way down' Bert PS I believe if you added up all the gravity of the objects going around the Milky Way's black hole, the black hole would equal (or close to) their total force Bill Sheppard 12.12.02 10:33.

Bert wrote, >What if the only reason for galaxies is >they have a black hole at their >center?What if the black holes had to be >the very first objects that came out of the >big bang? That is essentially what Wolter believed. Supermassive BHs were the first objects to coalesce out of the primordal gas clouds. They immediatly lit up as quasars since they had prodigious quantities of 'fuel' to feed on. As the fuel supplies thinned out, the supermassive BHs grew quiescent and their quasars dimmed out. But the BHs remained, and became the cores of sedate galaxies of stars as we now see them.

The quasar epoch spanned approximately 1/10 the present age of our cosmos. That period immediately after the BB would have enormously violent, roiling with gravity-wave tsunamis and high energy quasar events. A rough analogy would be where a waterfall spills into a pond. At the foot of the waterfall, the water is churning and turbulent, but gets smoother further out in the pond. Finally, out at the edge. G=EMC^2 Glazier 13.12.02 04:54.

What if nature never uses an explosion,but only uses an implosion? Gravity can only compress. Mankind uses the outward pressure of explosions,and gravity squeezes until what ever force the object uses to balance this squeeze is used up it implodes. Let it be a supernova,or the big bang it has to be gravity's force. Lets take an object (man made) here on earth that implodes.The first one that comes to mind because you are looking at it right now is a cathode tube. Gravity has given the air around it great weight(air pressure) inside is a vacuum,so that means it has no equal force pushing back. That is why the tube is made with such heavy glass.

The manufacture will have a label saying warning this tube will implode,and you can be hit by flying glass, We could use this thinking when a singularity is compressed by gravity to its critical density. Best to keep in mind gravity's force created,and evolved all that 'is' with its infinitely great force.

The only force needed in the beginning. Bert Bill Sheppard 13.12.02 09:06. Bert, you're a friggin' genius(!) where you wrote, >What if the implosion of the big bang had >more energy than its explosion,by a >factor of trillions,and trillions. While Wolter had the the BB and Big Crunch as being 'in homeostasis' or equal, he also showed that the 'supra-cosmic overpressure' must drive the flow of space _into_ the poles of the PP.

So this 'pressure from above' must, as you suggest, impart an ASSYMETRY to the energy-levels of the BB and Big Crunch. Making the Big Crunch _more_ energetic than the BB. So this assymetry is what actually powers the CBB Process, drawing its energy from the 'supra-cosmic overpressure'. If Gravity is defined as the pressure-driven Flow of space, it's easy to see how an object in free-fall _appears_ to be 'gravitating', giving the illusion that an 'attraction' is drawing it.

In your example of a picture tube imploding, it's the pressure of the atmosphere that makes the 'bang' happen. So the vacuum in the tube is a pseudo force like the 'attr.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 14.12.02 05:32. Bert wrote, >What if the black hole is >showing us the beginning and the end? Well, in the case of ordinary BHs, it would simply be 'The End'. But 'what if', as Wolter believed, back in the heyday of the quasar epoch, some BHs actually developed an equatorial spin equal to c, thereby discharging a ring of new matter back into spacetime? And what if, as he believed, a hypermassive BH lies at the core of the universe, _continuously_ discharging new creation out the equator, while re-ingesting the old back thru its poles? He said, 'If the Primal Particle had voice and could speak, it could rightly proclaim, 'I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end'.' Oc Jonathan Silverlight 14.12.02 14:30.

In message, Bill Sheppard writes >Bert wrote, >>What if the black hole is >>showing us the beginning and the end? >>Well, in the case of ordinary BHs, it would simply be 'The End'. But >'what if', as Wolter believed, back in the heyday of the quasar epoch, >some BHs actually developed an equatorial spin equal to c, thereby >discharging a ring of new matter back into spacetime? In that case it wouldn't be a black hole. Simple as that.

-- mail to jsilverlight AT is welcome G=EMC^2 Glazier 15.12.02 06:56. What if there is no such thing as infinity? Studying string theory I can't ever remember that term used(could be wrong?) Using Einstein's theory of curved spacetime the universe forms a bound state. Like a black hole nothing escapes from the universe's horizon. Light leaving its source would go in a great loop and return back to its source.

Well I don't want anyone to not use infinity it has its place,but maybe we use it because we just are not smart enough yet to see where all energies end up. Astronomers say anything over 25 billion LY is far enough and after that comes infinity(not all) Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 17.12.02 12:13. What if there are life in the universe that is inorganic.Now there is a far out 'iffy'(I love it) thought. How to bring this thought closer to reality? We know organic life is made of inorganic compounds(yes) We also know that lightning passing through a mixture of nitrogen,water,and carbonoxide can make water soluble organic compounds.(this has been done in a lab) Still you say 'so what' and rightly so.You ask show me this in the inorganic level? I answer with self replication begins on the inorganic level. It is written that the surfaces of some types of clays can not only serve as a template for the assembly of complex organic polymers they can also release the product,and make another in the same template.

This is even more astonishing if you cleaved off sheets from the clays surface the clay will replace them by growing new layers that are the exact copies of them selves. That took away some of the 'iffy' We have to keep in mind this type clay like organic matter needs water and the right temperature. Bert PS Almost forgot to tell you this.The clay will mutate as well as replicate Zdenek Jizba 17.12.02 17:22. What if are location we travel in the universe has great meaning? Location,location,location,it sound like a realestate sales person.Where we walk on the earth has great meaning. We weigh half of one percent more at the poles than the equator,and the equator gets more heat from the sun.

What if I said our location in the universe helps prove SR and GR.That are location of the universe can not be at its center. That SR and GR do not work in other locations of the universe. My thoughts are based on that the universe is shaped like a torus and it is rotating. If we were at the center of this rotation we would not be moving through space.The further from the center the faster the rotation.

In our location we are moving through space less than the speed of light.The speed we are going through space gives our location its inertia of particles,and that tells us no force can over come this inertia and get particles up to light speed. Now if we traveled further,and further from. G=EMC^2 Glazier 19.12.02 16:32.

What if the history of mankind did not evolve from the earth? I was once asked by a professor if a man that lived 1 million years ago had enough brain power,and educated in our public schools of today could enter Harvard when he was 18. My answer was 'yes' His DNA would not be much different than today's man. Have any of you seen Tom Hanks film where he is stranded on a deserted island. His greatest accomplishment was creating fire(keep that it mind) In 4.5 billion years from now our sun will be in the processes of dying. Mankind will be well prepared,and know exactly what to do.

This happened in another solar system 3 million years ago. The star(their sun) had 22 planets,and three were comfortable for life.

There was little difference as to the DNA for life came from the number three planet from their sun and the other two were colonised. Those that lived on the number one planet which was closest to the sun had black skin. Those on number tw. 19.12.02 20:42. What if the missing 93% of the universe is never found? Astronomers tell us this missing matter is in the form of dark matter. I say to them if there was that much dark matter it would make space cloudy,and we know space is very transparent.

The pin points of light from very far away stars do not blink. What astronomers are really trying to find is 93% more gravity that is needed to hold large structures together,such as stars in galaxies.

What if we are looking at the wrong place for this missing force of gravity? The force of gravity can not be blocked.The force of gravity goes to infinity.Keep these important thoughts in mind.

We have theories by Alan Guth and Lee Smolin suggesting that a new universe could be created inside a black hole and expand out into a new domain of space and time,and this domain is inaccessible to us. These new universes could be all around our universe,or could be hiding inside our universe in an extra spatial dimension.

Like I stated in the beginnin. Vze2bv5t 22.12.02 13:21.

G=EMC^2 Glazier: By volume there is a lot more emptiness in the void than would be accounted for by the number 93%. Scientists still don't get the idea, that is, the most basic and fundamental identification of all existents in the universe, that only existents exist. There is no such thing as a search for something that is nothing, which is the impossible. Here is a question, the answer to which may bear upon the matter of the so-called missing matter. If the BB is a faulty theory, and there is no Hubble expansion. And if the application of the doppler effect to the energy level of photon waves is wrong.

And if there is another cause for the apparent red shift of the frequency of light, or, rather, of the diminution of the energy level of photons as they travel through space. The Universe will not have been identified as expanding.

It will be discovered to be as it is, with no edge or physical boundary needed, with no boundary objects moving away from one another at higher vel. Zdenek Jizba 23.12.02 09:23. Here is a quote from a search on Vacuum Energy: 'Quantum physics requires 'empty space' to be filled with particles and anti-particles being continually created and annihilated.' It goes on to say that vacuum energy behaves like a repulsive force. My question is: Why force? If a side effect of the annihilation is an infinitesimal increase in the volume of space, then space expansion can be explained without resorting to any force.

To those who may be tempted to say that there is no known physical law that would predict such an expansion of volume, I would hope that they first explain the physical law behind the Big Bang inflation hypothesis. G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: >What if even before the big bang space had energy? The casmir plates >give great experimental evidence for this.Even today the energy of space >is 1000 times greater than all the energies immersed in it. What if it >took gravity trillions trillion trillions of years to compress a very >vast area of space to such a gr.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 24.12.02 05:45. Hi Ralph You asked me four questions Here are my answers. 'Photon' is the smallest packet of the electromagnetic force field,messenger particle of the electromagnetic force,and smallest quanta of light.' Matter' is frozen energy.It consists of electrons orbiting a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons,and they are made up of quarks.

'Gravity' Best we go with QM theory.Graviton smallest bundle of the gravitational force field,and used as the messenger particle for the gravitational field. Ralph photons lose energy by pulling away from a gravity field,and gain energy entering a gravity field. They gain energy by motion,so if the source of light and the object it will shine upon are both moving towards each other photons gain energy. Photons lose energy if both source of light and the object receiving the light are both moving away from each other. Ralph that was a very interesting what you had to say in your response G=EMC^2 Glazier 27.12.02 13:04.

What if the universe has to be big as it is for there to be enough room for life? We live on a small planet and going round and round a medium size star(who needs more space?) We even need more space in our solar system,for it is crowded with comets and large meteors that can wipe out life. The reason we have to be thankful for a huge expanding universe is all the great explosions that are happening as I type. Lets go with the 1999 gamma explosion that was equal to all the energies of the universe.

It took place 6 billion LY away. Had it happened inside the Milky Way all the life in the milky Way would have been wiped out. These great gamma explosion happen at the rate of once a day,and some are bigger than others.,but the nice thing is they don't happen close. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 28.12.02 07:09. What if our location in the universe is creating particle inertia? What if this inertia is creating our spacetime? Our location in the universe is rotating at light speed.

Motion creates inertia. Einstien told us inertia and gravity are two sides to the same coin.

It is not hard for us to see the effects of gravity when we are going up and down in an elevator. Different locations from the universe's center have different spacetimes. Mach would not find this very 'iffy' Keep in mind how a black hole's event horizon fits in well with this theory. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 30.12.02 06:28. In article, says.

>Hi Winfield and Fred. What if we had listened to those 50 physicists >that signed a paper that nuclear bombs should not be built? They knew >are civilization was not capable of handling such awesome energy. Bert >It is a serious problem.

I guess we can take it as given that *somebody* will want to build them, and sooner or later somebody will use them again, (first two times were against Japan, you'll remember). What happens when lots of nations have them? What happens when terrorist groups have them? I don't think the answer is ever increasing control and abandonment of human rights. It destroys the very fabric of our society and worse, in the long run it will fail, because no one can control six billion people, no nation as we know it can control six billion people and more. Whatever the weapons, we need a new morality that everyone can accept and that includes ever.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 31.12.02 05:32. Hi Bert, I think you go overboard on blaming religion for all the. G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote & I (Winfield) edited quotes:.

Wars kill millions of innocent people,and no one >loses any sleep over it,except their love ones Religion is the best >reason to kill. More people have been killed in the name of their God. >Religion is always the undertone of all wars.

Religion only to blame? How about lusting after territory, desiring more and more human (read slaves/taxpayers) and natural resources to make ones empire powerful and rich. You don't believe the old saying that 'the LOVE of money (power) is the root of all evil?' Religion is certainly in the mix. So much so, it cannot be seperated out of human existance, it seems to me.

Your implied sentiment that if only 'religion' were gotten rid of, the world would be a better place is a cold and black ideal, but: Communist Russia not long ago was officially an atheistic country. My mother, (slightly longer ago) was taugh. G=EMC^2 Glazier 02.01.03 15:53. What if we are living in the best spacetime? We are not in the middle of the universe,but are in the middle of its life.

That is the best of times. The big bang is 15 billion spacetime in the past. The universe will sustain life for 15 billion spacetime in the future.

We now know there can be no big crunch. Space energy will dilute objects to a point they no longer relate to each other gravitationally.

Fusion energy has cease and darkness prevailed. Gravity has stopped evolving. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.01.03 06:50. What if I had a theory that particles do not actually annihilate each other? This theory could explain why we have a universe from the big bang. Feynman's diagrams show my theory to be reality(no iffy) Lets go with the two best known particles,the electron and the positron. They collide with each other,and out of that collision of anti-particles has created two gamma photons.

Now this is the interesting part. 'The electron-positron pair separate and are 'deflected' into new trajectories.'

I have a theory that I'm adding to this to give this theory a chance to answer very hard questions at the first trillionth of a second of the big bang.This is the time of great particle density.A time when photons ruled for the next 300,000 years Bert CeeBee 04.01.03 16:49. What if its black holes that are blocking star light trying to come to us in our line of view? What if this is really the main reason for our having such a dark sky? Could the earth be in the shadow of trillions of black holes? Could star light all come to us curved because it has to bend around black holes?

Do black holes absorb 93% of the light given off by stars? Is this the main number one reason light comes to us in the color red? Motion being the number two reason. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.01.03 07:24. What if gravity(inertia) of the universe is created by all the universes? Hmmmmm Trying to come up with words.

All the universes are locked into a grid.This grid is composed of vacuum energy,and we feel the effect of this as a force we call gravity. Gravity can now be said to be a virtual force. That is why we can't ever find gravity. It is impossible to observe a virtual force(that is known) like a BH it can only be observed indirectly.(by its effects) This theory will have a hard time being accepted,for man likes to think he is at the center. To think beyond the universe for answers is not to his liking. It gives the feeling that he is less than a piece of dust.

Bert You see I put gravity and inertia together. Einstein would have liked that. G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.01.03 07:30. Hi Dale The answer to your question is other bubbles. I'm using bubble to give a reference frame to our inflating universe.

I'm using the other universes gravity to create the accelerating expansion. Let think in term of all the trillions,and trillions of universes effecting (communicating) gravitationally. What takes a little of the 'iffy' away is it answers what is creating our universe's inflation. No other answer has solved this mystery. Dale let me add that this theory of mine can never be proven.

Lots of people tell you I'm crazy for that reason. I think those people are stupid and can't visualize anything. They have to be told reality,for they have no imagination of their own. Thinking before the BB or what might be outside the expanding universe's horizon is beyond their brain's Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.01.03 15:08. What if we go right to the plain facts? Ever since the big bang 'gravity' has been making our universe less and less uniform. We know gravity wins out in the end over all the other forces,and the effects of 'rotation' and 'nuclear energy just delay the final victory of gravity.

What if we say the black hole is gravities final victory? What if black holes red shift light coming from distance stars more than the gravity of stars? What if we say it does it by more than 93%. What if when we do unify the other three forces we end up with just the force of gravity? I'd like that. Bert Bill Sheppard 10.01.03 14:18. Bert wrote, >What if it is not possible to be >motionless?

If we were in a ship >,and did everything possible to make it >motionless,so that it has no inertia of >motion,could we do it? Well Bert, it seems you'd have to be able to plot your exact velocity in relation the CMBR (cosmic microwave background) rest frame. That's measured by the dipole anisotropy, or degree of Doppler shift in the CMBR, in the direction of travel. In other words, the CMBR appears a little 'bluer' ahead, and a little 'redder' behind you.

This method is used to determine our Local galactic Group's motion relative to the CMBR. And it works out to a few hundred km/sec. So you'd have to 'slow down' by that amount until you've eliminated ALL of the anisotropy. Then you would be somewhere near motionless in space. But here comes the 'What If' (frames of referance again. What if the CMBR _itself_ is in a state of flow in a larger frame, making our entire visible cosmos like a boat drifting on a river?

Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 11.01.03 02:21. Bert wrote, >What if I told you I can't always find the >right words to express some of my >thoughts? Here is an example. I would >like to use the word cosmos as space >beyond our universe.I got flamed for >that.Any ideas? Yeah Bert, 'what if' it's as Wolter believed- Any atom is like a vacuole or 'bubble' in the energy-dense VED. It's like a bubble in the deep ocean; we perceive the bubble as 'being' and the much denser ocean in which it is embedded as 'not-being'. Similarly on the macro scale, our entire universe is a mere atom (an H atom) in the VED of the higher cosmos.

Where it resides among an infinitude of other atoms. >Sure glad they came up with'multiverse' Exactly. In fact this was Wolter's concept of infinity. Besides the 'parallel' infinitude just mentioned, the universe-as-atom staging extends forever upward and outward into the cosmos, and forever downward into matter. With the interlock or 'overlap' occuring as the H atom of the next stage.

Wolter was elated years later, when Carl Sagan toyed briefly with the universe-as-atom idea in his 'Cosmos' series. Sagan didn't go anywhere with it, since he had no concept of the VED and was still operating under the void-space paradigm. Oc Bill Sheppard 11.01.03 08:55. What if Einstein was carried away by the classical physics taught at that time.

He built his SR on thoughts of other physicist before him 'Maxwell' in particular. GR was greatly his ideas,however a static universe was the classical physics.

He had to go against his own math so the universe could not move forward or backward. Hubble in 1920 showed that galaxies for the most part were exploding away from each other,and the deeper one looked into space the acceleration of expansion was increasing at a faster rate. This has to teach us not to be brain washed by classical physics. We have to think to some degree with ideas that are new,but seem to fit. They say that QM and GR are not compatible,but it might take the two theories to explain the universe.

I always had the thought in back of my mind that the reason Einstein did not like QM was he knew that it answered more questions( almost all in the sub-micro realm) and GR gave only reality to gravity. Bert Bill Sheppard 14.01.03 12:38. Bert wrote, >Hubble in 1920 showed that galaxies for the >most part were exploding away from each >other,and the deeper one looked into space >the acceleration of expansion was increasing >at a faster rate. AFAIK, this observation never answered one basic question: How does accelerating expansion in the deepest past translate to accelerating expansion in present time? Our friend Scott says recent data have affirmed present-time accelerating expansion, citing Sky & Telescope magazine.

S&T's web site doesn't work, and an intensive web search under 'Expanding universe, recent observations' turns up nothing newer than 1999, about the 1a supernova data, etc. Which is old hat.

Maybe someone could shed some light on 'accelerating expansion in present time'. >We have to think to some degree with ideas >that are new, but seem to fit. Yeah, like 'what if' c is not universally constant but was higher in the deepest past, and accounts for _part_ of the observed redshift? Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 16.01.03 09:59.

What if the universe is continuos,and endless? Continuos that mini bangs can take place inside its interior (singularities) I read of no thoughts that the further out we look into deep space that galaxies are becoming less,and less.Have You? I've heard that there are billions and billions of galaxies so far out that not even the Hubble has the power to capture their very dim light. I could make a theory that says we have reached a spacetime where all the trillions,and trillions of universes out their are just in the verge of touching. Would that make them infinitely big?

I think it would. Bert Mitch Dickson 16.01.03 12:40. What if we are reaching a spacetime where we need more light? We are now using the explosion of stars to be our light houses in very deep space.(supernovas) The last supernova was seen in 1987. The Chinese recorded one in 1054 that seemed to be the biggest in recorded times. These could be seen by the unaided eye.

There was one 11,000 years ago that was inside our galaxy. They are few and far between,and even giving off light of a 100 million suns it is still not bright enough.

What we need now is an object that can out shine the entire universe. We don't know what the object is but the light comes to us in gamma,so we call them gamma ray bursts.

We have a picture of the 1997 burst and that occurred at a distance of 12 billion LY. For a few seconds it shined as brightly as10 million billion stars. Inside a very remote galaxy we have the greatest explosion ever recorded. It happened in 1999 and this gamma ray burst shone as brightly as the rest of the observable universe. These GRB are recorded by our gamma ray satellites on an average of once a day. They are our light houses to measure deep space. Bert PS If you can come up with the best theory for GRB you will get the Nobel.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 17.01.03 05:51. Bert: Your discussions are increasingly tending towards the extreme religious Christian viewpoints regarding your views of the existence of the universe. Prior to your recent 2 to 3 month period of some grammatical and compositional confusions in your texts you had been advocating what seemed to be relatively new rational scientific questions and new viewpoints or creative solutions. You have probably been seeking psychological consistency, and you may have been increasingly tolerant of false assumptions rather than solid verifiable facts for your basic premises. For example, you seem to believe that the nothing that existed prior to the BB (your theory of the BB, not mine) is really a something. It appears that you believe that nothing under some conditions is something, and you generally seem to not believe that only something can be, and is, something under all conditions, continually and eternally. I think that you have been undergoing a major change away from a metho.

Bill Sheppard 17.01.03 21:46. Ralph Hertle wrote, responding to Bert,.you seem to believe that >the nothing that existed prior to the >BB.is really a something.

It appears >that you believe that nothing under some >conditions is something, and you >generally seem to not believe that >only something can be, and is, >something under all conditions, >continually and eternally. Hey Ralph, got a question for you. It's a 'thought experiment' actually, dealing with the question of 'being' versus 'not-being'.

Suppose you are a fish living in the deep ocean, and you are a very smart philosopher. And you are mentor to another fish who is your student. Your student comes to you and asks, 'What is this 'ocean' I keep hearing about? It supposedly surrounds us, supports us, interpenetrates us, and in it we live and move and have our being. Yet I cannot isolate it, quantify it, or in any way verify its existance.

Look at that bubble over there. It obviously is 'being' while the so-called 'ocean' obviously does not exist.'

So how would explain the bubble's embeddedness in the 'ocean' to the student? And by the same token, how would you explain SPACE and 'being vs. Not-being' to the uninitiated? What is an atom except a vacuole or 'bubble' in a pre-existant, underlying medium? Oc Jonathan Silverlight 18.01.03 04:01.

In message, Ralph Hertle writes >>The BB is itself a religious-based >program. In the light of the current >photon modification theory that explains >the apparent Red Shift via changes of >the energy level of the photon, the BB, >and the so called expansion of the >universe, is a concept that is no longer, >and never was, supported by fact. You mean like 'tired light'?

Sorry, but tired light fails every test that's been applied. -- mail to jsilverlight AT is welcome G=EMC^2 Glazier 18.01.03 06:23. Hi Ralph Thank you for your viewpoint. It is a constructive criticism. I like the big bang theory because it answers questions. I don't like my grammar,and the way I put words together.

There is a reason for this weakness,and it goes back to my childhood.(sad story) My 'what if' thoughts I try to make interesting. I sit down and start typing,as the thoughts enter my head. I don't have time to make them clearer. My hope is they are clear enough to be understood,and make it something the reader can think about and criticize.(like yourself) I stay away from religion,as you must know if you read my posts. The 'G' in my equation religious readers ask me 'does it stand for 'God' My answer is it 'could' if that is your thinking. My thinking it stands for 'gravity' Ralph if all my ideas(theories) were ever proven I would get a Nobel everyday.

How do you prove there are as many universes as snow flakes in an endless storm. How can you prove that the universe will last till the las. Ralph Hertle 18.01.03 08:44.

Bill: There are a number of errors of logic in the parallels that you claim. I won't go into that now, however, the key to understand the validity of many theories is to check whether the new theory has slipped existence out from beneath one's understanding, so to say. The universe is a continuing plurality of existents that have specific properties. For existents, properties are the powers of becoming what the existents can become according to their natures. In that plural universe only existents exist. That is, everything that exists is existing. Each existent has properties, for example, it is where it is.

That is, it has location. In the void of space there is nothing, no existents, except, of course, where existents may be located. Each existent has the property of substance, and, it also has a material or physical nature, e.g., numbers of atoms, and mass, elemental composition, density, gravity, and so on. What is in between non-touching existents?

No existents. Ralph Hertle 18.01.03 08:51. Jonathan: Do you then deny that the photon has an energy level that exactly and mathematically corresponds to the wavelength of that photon? To deny that fact is to deny one of the fundamental principles of physics.

Your answer, please. Ralph Hertle +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jonathan Silverlight wrote: >In message, Ralph Hertle >writes >>>>>The BB is itself a religious-based >>program.

In the light of the current >>photon modification theory that explains >>the apparent Red Shift via changes of >>the energy level of the photon, the BB, >>and the so called expansion of the >>universe, is a concept that is no longer, >>and never was, supported by fact. >>>>The what? You mean like 'tired light'? Sorry, but tired light fails >every test that's been applied.

Bill Sheppard 18.01.03 11:03. Bert wrote, >My 'what if' thoughts I try to make >interesting.

I sit down and start typing,as >the thoughts enter my head. I don't have >time to make them clearer. My hope is >they are clear enough to be >understood,and make it something the >reader can think about and criticize.(like >yourself) Bert, your truth resides in something bigger than just rote repetition of data. You express an open, innocent wonderment and inquiry about the cosmos. Others can supply corrections to details, as they have been prompt to do.

Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 18.01.03 13:59. In article, says. >Ralph Hertle wrote, responding to Bert, >>.you seem to believe that >>the nothing that existed prior to the >>BB.is really a something. It appears >>that you believe that nothing under some >>conditions is something, and you >>generally seem to not believe that >>only something can be, and is, >>something under all conditions, >>continually and eternally. >>Hey Ralph, got a question for you.

It's a 'thought experiment' actually, >dealing with the question of 'being' versus 'not-being'. >Suppose you are a fish living in the deep ocean, and you >are a very smart philosopher.

And you are mentor to another fish who is >your student. Your student comes to you and asks, 'What is this 'ocean' >I keep hearing about?=A0 It supposedly surrounds us, supports us, >interpenetrates us, and in it we live and move and have our being. Yet I >cannot isolate it, quantify it,. Bill Sheppard 19.01.03 09:09. >Are you saying that we do not exist or >that we cannot explain our existence >with out resorting to the supernatural?

>Or maybe we are fish and don't know it? >-- >------ >D.

Haas Nothing 'supernatrural' about it. The metaphor of the fish illustrates that we lack the sensory apparatus to detect the nature of the 'void' or vacuum of space. Just as the fish in the deep ocean cannot detect the enormous water pressure in which he swims. The ancient Greeks had the enigma of the 'pneuma', the all-pervasive, ineffable 'something' that imparts flight to birds, gives power to storms, and confers the breath of life.

Pneuma was their word for 'spirit'. We now know it as simply the air, as in the word pneumatic. Nothing supernatural there.

The void of space is our 'Pneuma'. Already the mainstream is alluding to space being something other than a 'true void', when it uses terms like 'quantum foam', 'quantum soup', 'seething with virtual particles', Casimir Effect, etc. So space has a pro. David Haas 19.01.03 10:08.

In article, says. >>Are you saying that we do not exist or >>that we cannot explain our existence >>with out resorting to the supernatural?

>>Or maybe we are fish and don't know it? >>-- >>------ >>D. Haas >>Nothing 'supernatrural' about it. The metaphor of the fish illustrates >that we lack the sensory apparatus to detect the nature of the 'void' or >vacuum of space. Just as the fish in the deep ocean cannot detect the >enormous water pressure in which he swims.

Except that fish have lateral lines which CAN detect pressure. Besides humans have instruments which allow them to detect energy in areas that no other animal can. Astronomers (cosmologists) can come up with all sorts of things to explain why things happen the way they do but they still need to confirm with observations or experiments to support these ideas.

So far we have lots of ideas but not much confirmation. I do realize that our brains. Bill Sheppard 19.01.03 12:03.

David Kaas wrote, >Except that fish have lateral lines which >CAN detect pressure. True, they detect pressure-variations, just as our eardrums do in air. The metaphor referred to the _ambient_ pressure of the deep ocean as an analogy of the _ambient_ energy-density of space. Longitudinal pressure-variations in the matrix of space (the VED) would be 'gravity waves', exactly analogous to the compression-rarefaction of sound waves. >I do realize that our brains are not >designed to solve the big problems and it >is difficult to determine what is going on >where there is no way to 'see' it. About >all we can do is come up with ideas. >that explain what we think we see.

There is a principle called 'intuitive extrapolation' which has never been recognized as a valid aspect of scientific enquiry. It's simply observing what _is_ seen and applying simple logic to deduce the nature of what is not seen. It's pure Occams Razor stuff. For instance, it's presumed that the high end of the EM s.

David Haas 19.01.03 13:25. In article, says.

>David Kaas wrote, >>>Except that fish have lateral lines which >>CAN detect pressure. >>True, they detect pressure-variations, just as our eardrums do in air. >The metaphor referred to the _ambient_ pressure of the deep ocean as an >analogy of the _ambient_ energy-density of space. Longitudinal >pressure-variations in the matrix of space (the VED) would be 'gravity >waves', exactly analogous to the compression-rarefaction of sound waves. >>>I do realize that our brains are not >>designed to solve the big problems and it >is difficult to determine >what is going on >>where there is no way to 'see' it. About >>all we can do is come up with ideas. >>that explain what we think we see.

>>There is a principle called 'intuitive extrapolation' which has never >been recognized as a valid aspect of scientific enquiry. It's simply >observing what _is_ seen and applying. Bill Sheppard 19.01.03 15:02.

>Another problem as I see it is that simply >because you can assume something >does not make it true. In fact you can >prove anything you want if you simply >assume premises that you define as >true. >-- >------ >D. Haas You are right, David. 'Intuitive extrapolation' deals in probabilities, e.g., the unseen part of an iceberg is more likely to be made of the same stuff as the visible part, than not. There are areas where an assumption cannot be empirically proven.

BUT you can observe patterns in nature that are universally consistent, and assume an unseen part is more likely to display that same pattern, than not. An example is the universal format of dual hemispheres and a common equator rotating on a polar axis. The sheer universality of this planform suggests the macro universe itself must display this same form. And that spiral galaxies are like 'little fractals' of the primal form from which they sprang. And as stated before, the EM spectrum's.

Bill Sheppard 19.01.03 16:35. To David Kaas's question on the Big Bang and the CMB. The mainstream already recognizes the BB as the explosion of spactime itself into existance, and the continued expansion of space thereafter. It is actually the explosion of the VED into existance, and its subsequent expansion. Secondary, low level, low frequency 'tagalong' energy arose on the VED as it emerged, as what we consider the entire EM spectrum, consisting of radio thru gamma radiation.

Carrying its tagalong EM brood, the VED's expansion caused an extreme ring-down or 'redshift' of the most energetic of the brood. That downshift currently is in the microwave region, and is the cosmic microwave background.

Oc Bill Sheppard 19.01.03 18:21. David, sorry for misspelling your name with K instead of H. The exchange with you on the CMB triggered this thought (big light bulb over head): Our friend Scott keeps putting up a challenge to devise a verifiable experiment on the VED, the CBB model, etc. Well, suppose we sample the median frequency of the CMB, and over time see if that frequency changes or remains the same. If the universe is still expanding _in present time_ locally, there should be a gradual drop in the median frequency of the CMB, indicating increasing entropy.

This would be a method of verifying that local space is expanding in real time (as opposing to looking at the redshift of the most ancient light). 'Local' space in this context refers to our immediate galactic environs in the supercluster spanning 100 million LY or so. If, on the other hand, there is no change in the CMB median frequency, it would indicate no expansion locally. Or if it should be found INCREASING, that would mean our local space has entere.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.01.03 05:32. What if Black holes and galaxies are entwined from birth? I'm thinking about those supermassive blackholes. I'm thinking about the Andromeda galaxy core bulge that has the mass of 30 million suns. We think of blackholes as only being destructive(yes) What if it is time we studied how nature uses blackholes as a constructive force,after all gravity is nature's constructive force.

It created all,and is continually evolving all it created even at this spacetime of 'now' Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 21.01.03 05:12. What if we are giving Newton more credit than he deserves? He did not invent gravity.He did not coin the word 'gravity' Think of what Galileo proved about the force of gravity. He was born a century before Newton.I don't think Newton had to be hit on the head by an apple.He only had to read the papers of Galileo. Newton gave universal thinking to the force that controls,and holds the universe together.

I think newton's great contribution was giving us the three laws of motion However I do find fault with the third law. Then we have Einstein's relativity view that take over when very fast speeds come in. Under ordinary circumstances both give the same results. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 22.01.03 04:22. What if we have a better idea of the core of the our galaxy than the core of the earth? We don't know why the earth's core is so hot. To create such a hot mantle we go with pressure(friction) influence of lunar and solar tides,and even theorize radioactive decay of potassium 40 We argue about the core acting like a dynamo knowing that high temperature kills magnetizium.(Curie Effect) Still if not for the core producing a magnetic field,there would be no life on the earth's crust.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 22.01.03 04:25. What if gravity is created by 'spin'? We know spin is intrinsic to all particles and energies. We know that gravity is intrinsic to all particles and energies.We know that motion and gravity can be looked at as two sides to the same coin. Going with Quantum gravity,and its messenger particle the 'graviton' my theory can go like this.The graviton can make the random spin of photons spin in the direction of the object sending out the gravitons. Thus a beam of light passing close to the sun will curve in its direction because the gravitons the sun has sent out have made the spinning of the photons align,and this alignment of spin creates angular motion that we call gravity.

Angular motion can create gravity,and also create anti-gravity. Thinking very deep it can give space the warping feature of being both convex,and concave. This can be used for a good theory of expanding space known as inflation. Einstein only thought of gravity as inward. I'm using gravity as both inward and outward,and that is the way nature is using gravity.You just have to see the whole universe to see 'I am right right.' Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 25.01.03 05:40.

What if E=MCV2 does not hold true for the neutrinos,and quarks? WE know a neutrino can pass through 2 million miles of lead.Physicists can't find any matter effect that a neutrino can have showing it has mass. With quarks that make up neutrons,and protons the quark are made of three particles,and each particle has a fraction charge that total 1 Now Planck told us energy can only have a whole charge.No fractions in the quanta of energy. I'm using this to show that quarks are as close to mass as nature can get,and neutrinos are as close as pure energy. These are very (iffy) thoughts so feel free to flame away Bert Odysseus 25.01.03 09:05. G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: >>What if E=MCV2 does not hold true for the neutrinos,and quarks? WE know >a neutrino can pass through 2 million miles of lead.Physicists can't >find any matter effect that a neutrino can have showing it has mass.

[snip] It was reported last year that two-thirds of the electron-neutrinos emanating from the core of the sun are transformed into muon- and tau-neutrinos by the time they reach the earth, which supposedly wouldn't be possible if they were truly massless. So at least some physicists believe that there *is* an observable effect of neutrinos' mass. --Odysseus G=EMC^2 Glazier 25.01.03 11:58. Hi Odysesues I know I could not get that by you. What you came back with is neutrinos can get heavier. If they can get heavier that kind of shows they have mass.

However that is (iffy) also. The jury is still out. I appreciate your reading my iffy stuff. I appreciate you,oc,and my e-mail. Some like this 'what if' others don't.

My wife tells we to give all my'crazy' thoughts out in one day,and get bach to my business.,or do some work around the house. She is a Wellesley girl(know it all) Still business is bad,and my grass is reaching towards the sky. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 26.01.03 06:52.

What if speed and location can give our brain's a different view? Here is how I see it.

We are flying in our very fast jet planes close to the ground. The enemy has put up clear unbreakable glass partitions.impossible to see. I'm flying in the middle of the formation. The plane in front of me hits a partition.I see it exploding in front of me. The two planes on each side of me hit the glass,and I see them just disappear. I look through my rear mirror,and see small pieces of a plane falling to the ground. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 26.01.03 14:52.

What if space has one energy and that energy is expansion? What if space expansion is used by nature to bring gravities attraction force to zero?

Attraction in,and expansion out. Our local force is gravities field of attraction,overcoming space's expansion,and the outward location ruled by expansion. Does expansion obey the square law,like gravities attraction? If space has this expansion energy than it is a new force of energy(5th force) Could we theorize that with or without our universe immersed in this inflating space space would be expanding anyway? The universe only gives a reference frame to show space is expanding at an accelerating rate. G=EMC^2 Glazier 27.01.03 13:36.

What if space has two forces? Nature wants every thing to balance out to zero. Read all my life that gravity is the exception,for it only attracts. Its attraction force is created by energies and matter immersed in the fabric of space.

That makes sense to me. However space has another force,and that is repulsion,and the Hubble has shown that space is inflating at close to light speed. That makes sense to me. Here we see what I read over the years shows again natures balancing of all forces and energies. If we could see the universe from a distance we would see inflation only. When we are inside its horizon in our location we see only compression force of the aether. We could bring Einstein's relativity in here.

It is relative to the location the viewer's 'at' as how compression,and inflation of space can be shown. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 28.01.03 05:05. Bert, You're probally gonna get flamed for saying 'aether'. That's a big no-no. Yet the mainstream itself is tacitly implying that space is 'something' other than a pure void, when they use the terms 'vacuum energy density', 'quantum foam', 'quantum soup', Casimir effect, etc.

The vacuum energy density could be abbreviated VED. >What if someday astronomers have to >add one more force to the Doppler red >shift? Besides the Doppler component of the redshift, they recognize the cosmological-expansion component of Hubble's law. But the 'one more force' they _haven't_ recognized is this-- with the expansion, there has to be a _thinning of density_ of the VED. And with that thinning, there has to be a drop in c across the density-gradient. And the highest gradient would be in the early universe and at the greatest observable distances.

It's the c-drop component, or 'c-dilation' that has not been considered or recognized as _part_ of the observed redshift. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 29.01.03 05:33. Hi oc What if the VED is intrinsic to space with or without a universe? What if the greater the volume of space,the greater the amount of energy? What if everything came out of VED? What if all there is,is just one type building block(particle or energy) and gravity can compress this identity into a universe with its different objects?

I'm talking in the sub-micro realm,for that had to come first. Once the neutron was created by gravities (GCF) 'gravity compression force' it has down hill all the way.

Bert Bill Sheppard 29.01.03 09:02. Bert wrote, >What if the VED is intrinsic to space with >or without a universe?What if >everything came out of VED?

Hey, brilliant. Under Wolter's CBB model, the VED is _absolutely_ intrinsic to space. The super energy-dense Matrix of space is what initially emerged from the BB. Then the nucleosynthesis of the first elements of matter began. But the VED does not depend on matter for its existance, and would exist whether or not there's a 'dustbunny' tagging along. The dustbunny being the material universe and its thermodynamic laws.

>I'm talking in the sub-micro realm,for that >had to come first. The standing-wave field of the VED came first, with all its wavelengths constrained below what we call the Planck length. >Once the neutron was created. It has >down hill all the way.

Yep, and then the first stable atoms, all of them on 'this side' of the Planck length and residing at the very _lowest_ energy state (and longest wavelength) end of the VED spectrum. Because the VED'. Ralph Hertle 29.01.03 10:42. Re: What IF???

Existence actually exists? Bert: Your discussions are increasingly tending towards the extreme religious Christian viewpoints regarding your views of the existence of the universe. Prior to your recent 2 to 3 month period of some grammatical and compositional confusions in your texts you had been advocating what seemed to be relatively new rational scientific questions and new viewpoints or creative solutions. You have probably been seeking psychological consistency, and you may have been increasingly tolerant of false assumptions rather than solid verifiable facts for your basic premises.

For example, you seem to believe that the nothing that existed prior to the BB (your theory of the BB, not mine) is really a something. It appears that you believe that nothing under some conditions is something, and you generally seem to not believe that only something can be, and is, something under all conditions, continually and eternally. I think that you have bee. G=EMC^2 Glazier 29.01.03 10:52. Hi oc Thank you I had my wife read your post. 'brilliant' She laughed,and told me to tell you I'm a crazy,lazy person,and don't take care of my business,or do anything around the house.(she is right) You are right the main stream does not want to think of space density,or more than one universe for the most part(not all) If you say these thoughts,they say 'prove it' They have to remember it took 50 years to show proof of Einstein's relativity theories.

Nature hides her secretes so very well. Bert Bill Sheppard 29.01.03 11:50. Bert wrote, >What if all there is, is just one type >building block (particle or energy)?

Wolter called it the Primal Particle, the hypermassive, gravity-driven, continuously running 'Engine' at the core of the universe. It's the macrocosmic analog of the proton at the core of the hydrogen atom..and gravity can compress this identity >into a universe with its different objects? Wolter said the PP must be sufficiently massive to fuse the _entire table of the elements_ if those elements are to eventually appear in the externalized universe. The elements arise as the low-end 'notes' at the lowest energy state of the VED field. And gravity drives the entire Process, driving the VED with its tagalong dustbunny _into_ the poles of the PP, colliding the twin flows head-on into the fusion core, and then exploding brand-new VED _out_ its spinning equator.

Wolter jokingly called the PP 'the ultimate Tokamak' (Tokamak being the Russian word for a fusion reactor). He could have called his model the Continuous Big Crunch, but out of respectful deference to the 'Big Bangers' and their model, chose to call it the Continuous Big Bang (or CBB) model. Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 30.01.03 04:53. What if we use infinity to much? Read that if the universe's size is 25 billion light years they will use infinity.That I think is stupid. What if the only thing that goes to infinity is the fabric of space(that takes in gravity?) If space has the smallest curve it will make spacetime finite.

Photons could be in orbit around the horizon of the universe. If a proton can decay in a trillion trillion trillion years,that is a very long time but still it is finite. Time means nothing to nature.It is intelligent life nature created that keeps time. You can use SR as a theory to show time,but GR takes some of the accuracy away. QM can be used f0r time,but its uncertainty principle takes some of the accuracy away. G=EMC^2 Glazier 01.02.03 05:26.

What if there can be no TOE? Don't you all think it is a little naive to think we can ask our computer some day to give a complete GUT. I believe we will never be able to see into the ultra sub-microscopic realm. I believe the universe is about 22 billion LY old. That means we will never be able to see the first light of the big bang.

In another 4 billion years are sun will be a white dwarf. We will always live in the best of times.There will always be something new in the sciences. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.02.03 06:20. What if we can see the shadow of Mars two moons with a telescope better than seeing them directly?

The shadow is a lot bigger,and its black on white. Shadow photography would be good for mars,and pluto. When we see the stars by their reflecting light,its a virtual image,like when we look in the mirror.Can we think of a shadow in some what the same way? Some day we will see planets of distant stars by their getting in front of their sun in our line of view.

Could we use the word 'eclipses' when this happens? In my fast photography it is possible I could take a picture so fast that the objects shadow will not be seen.

I'll try that tonight. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 07.02.03 06:15. What if we do not know enough of our atmosphere at 200,000 feet? There could be different densities of material in that area such as:cosmic spherules. Chondrules,ablations,interplanetary dust,powdered iron. Micrometeorites,octahedrites,,pyroxene,regmag-lypts and tektite. At different times that the shuttle goes into this 200,000 foot area these materials could be in high an low densities.

Anyone of them could smash the brittle tiles of the shuttle. Some times low density(few or no tiles missing) other times lots of tiles smashed. In the Columbia's case very high density of particles in the 250,000 ft, area. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 10.02.03 04:58.

What if we are missing something during a total eclipse. The total eclipse of 1919 showed that light bent. Seems there had to be bright stars just passing close to the sun's horizon and in direct line with Eddington line of view.The light bend had to be small. Had to be great luck that the size of the moon is just right for a total eclipse. Does the moon bulge at the equator? The sun is not a solid and spins fast,and spins once in 25 days at the equator,and at a different speed at its poles.

The total eclipse shows us the sun does not bulge at its equator,unless the moon does too. Does the rays of the sun get bent crossing over the moon's surface? Is the distance to short to show this effect? Is the moon just a little bigger than needed?

Bert Odysseus 10.02.03 21:22. What if space density is a blackhole in the end? Lets go with Hawkings theory of an evaporating BH Lets go with my theory of an imploding BH My idea is that a BH has a critical mass and implodes into another sub-microscopic dimension. They leave their calling card,and that is a puncture(vortex) in the fabric of space. This hole still has the force of gravity.(very strong) In reality we see it as the 93% of the missing gravity(matter) These hole have no volume.

These holes can bend light,but not block it. These holes can keep order of motion in our universe. Nature uses these holes to end universes,and to create universes. It is her balancing act.

I use these thoughts to answer some of my far out thinking,and it seems OK Bert PS I like using all that space we have,and putting it to use. For gravity,negative energy. Real,and virtual twin particles David Knisely 12.02.03 14:10. You posted: It wouldn't work due to scattered light in the atmosphere which drowns out most of the Corona. All you would get with such a system would be a look at the glare of scattered light around the solar disk (or maybe blinded if you weren't careful).

The corona is so faint anyway that you wouldn't be able to see it using such a projection system. A special telescopic system called a Coronagraph can show the chromosphere and at least a little of the inner corona using occulting disks, special stops and optics to reduce scattered light, and a narrow-band filter set. G=EMC^2 Glazier 13.02.03 04:01. RE: 'eclipsing the sun', you posted: >PS Are you 100% sure?? I have seen these Coronagraphs (one at Sunspot, New Mexico (around 7,000 ft elevation) for example), and they are complex beasts which don't show much other than perhaps the inner corona.

For more information about them, you might want to read the chapter on instrumentation in the book ASTROPHYSICS OF THE SUN by Harold Zirin (Cambridge Univ. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: Hyde Memorial Observatory: ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * * ********************************************** David Knisely 13.02.03 11:54. You posted: >What if we can see the shadow of Mars two moons with a telescope better >than seeing them directly?

The shadow is a lot bigger,and its black on >white. Sorry, but this has only been done with space probes orbiting Mars. The shadows are small, diffuse and not very dark, as the angular size of the moons when viewed from the surface is less than the angular size of the sun.

In a sense, they don't 'eclipse' the sun, but merely 'transit' the sun. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: Hyde Memorial Observatory: ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * * ********************************************** Jonathan Silverlight 13.02.03 13:48. In message, David Knisely writes >You posted: >>>What if you could make your own eclipse telescope?

Just need a 3 foot >>tube(PVC pipe) Front lens stick a 25 cent piece(quarter) in the >>middle and have an eye piece lens. The coin at 3 feet makes a perfect >>size to block out the sun. Line your eclipse scope to shine on a >>white paper. DO NOT LOOK IN THE EYE PIECE. Its easy to >>make,very cheap and it has to work. Bert PS I posted this 3 years ago >>>>It wouldn't work due to scattered light in the atmosphere which drowns >out most of the Corona.

All you would get with such a system would be a >look at the glare of scattered light around the solar disk (or maybe >blinded if you weren't careful). The corona is so faint anyway that you >wouldn't be able to see it using such a projection system. A special >telescopic system called a Coronagraph can show the chromosphere and at >least a little of the inner corona usin. G=EMC^2 Glazier 14.02.03 19:37. What if we have to find a better way of showing distance than by the red shift? It is very blurry thinking when you go 7 billion LY into outer space.Who would bet their lives on Hubble expansion.

Finding something else is not that easy. Since I use gravity to answer lots of questions,for it is a continual force,and although it is not a constant it is its force weaken the first second of the BB,and after 300,000 years of diluting light the universe became transparent. This evolvement history of the first billion years man will never see.Only the eye inside his brain will show reality. After the first 1 billion years he will see clouds (clusters of matter form photogalaxies by synthesizing nuclei. We will see very dense clouds of helium,and hydrogen that will form heavy big stars(lots of material for gravity to compress because this history of the universe makes gravity very strong in spacetime locations. Now we go to 4 billion years,and the hubble telescope is sh.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 17.02.03 13:52. What if we are seeing but not observing? When the Hubble shows to us those great towers of gas in the Eagle Nebula we should stop and study them,and have a theory that answers 'why towers?' They almost look like an explosion caused this. The stingray nebular has a very understandable shape. Its cloud of dust and gas surrounds what is left of a star as it evolves into a white dwarf. Nature loves to make spheres.

I love to look and study planetary nebulae through the eye of the Hubble. The nebulae I showed a picture of an called it 'THE EYE OF THE UNIVERSE' was so symmetric in everyway. These nebular have to be very small,and fairly new,and not the nebulae that produces stars,but the result of a dying star Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.02.03 16:28. What if in the near future we have space weatherman? Well we have'Image' and that has opened a new window on the magnetosphere,still our view of space weather has a long way to go. Seems for the size of the earth we need a lot more space weather satellites that make local measurements of the plasmas,as well as the fields and currents that govern their motions.

Since all space weather that I'm talking about is from the sun,than we must know the change from day to night. We have discussed how density changes all there is into what there is.

80% of a geomagnetic storm could be protons(its in the book) How much do we know of the basic characteristics of the plasmas,and magnetic fields? We humans are lucky that we are protected by the earth's magnetosphere. However this field is not strong enough to ward off the most powerful shock waves from the sun. The magnetosphere is a place of sudden storms and it needs storm watches(weathermen) Our sun can be blamed for our atmospheric weather. The sun can be blamed for our space weather. Someday we will be asked? 'Are you going to take your rocket to mars this week' We will answer no'The space weather forcast is to many protons' Bert David Knisely 20.02.03 23:09.

You posted: >What if in the near future we have space weatherman? Er, Herb, we do have them now. Go to for more information about the subject of space weather. >Well we have'Image' and that has opened a new window on the magnetosphere,still our view of >space weather has a long way to go.

Seems for the size of the earth we need a lot more space >weather satellites that make local measurements of the plasmas,as well as the fields and >currents that govern their motions. There are a lot more satellites studying this than old 'IMAGE'.

To mention a few, SAMPEX, ACE, Cluster II, POLAR, not to mention the NOAA POES satellite which gives us data on current Aurora activity. There are several spacecraft which are sampling the solar wind to give us advanced warning of incoming material, as well as spacecraft like SOHO which watch the sun and monitor potential activity which might affect the magnetosphere in the near future. >80% >of a geomagnetic storm coul. TomNavyRet 22.02.03 03:18. What if Chicago,New York,and LA become ghost towns. I read there is lots of missing nuclear waste, missing through out the world. It is so easy to spread by the wind.

It is so plentiful. It is a perfect weapon for terrorists. It is just about impossible to clean up. These cities would have to be evacuated immediately,and a safe zone about 100 miles away. The buildings like the Sears Tower left standing,and to decay away. The radio active material will out last the buildings by thousands of years. I will not mention the amount of people that will die,for it is to depressing.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 27.02.03 10:59. What if our knowledge of the earth's upper atmosphere's structure has many unknowns?

Seems we never doubted that the shuttle would be orbiting in the vacuum of space. Still common sense tells us our atmosphere does not simply end. You can't say one moment your inside the atmosphere and at a later moment you are outside it.

I read about 20 years ago that the shuttles never really left the atmosphere At 185 miles up the air is extremely thin.It only has 16 billion atoms per cubic inch.Still you can't call that a vacuum.It has a measurable drag on spacecraft. We know every planet retains its atmosphere because of the gravitational force it exerts,but this force decreases rapidly with increase distance from its source. This has a lot to do with the 'fading out' of the upper atmosphere.

Here are some questions. Could the upper atmosphere be very turbulent from time to time,due to mass changes of air. Could it have up or down flows due to temperature changes. I bring in weight for we know weight is not a physical property possessed by a body,it is depends on the gravitational force to which the mass of the body is subjected,and that can vary.

Well deep space maybe the finial frontier,but finding the line where air leaves off and space begins could be the rub. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 28.02.03 05:49.

What if an object went faster than light and just vanished? I'm not referring to magic(faster than the eye) but literally gone (car putt) To take some of the 'iffy' away I'm talking about the FitzGerald contraction.

Lets suppose the velocity of an object becomes equal to the velocity of light. What this comes down to is the object has foreshortened completely and has become a pancake of ultimate thinness.

Now lets go if the velocity of light is exceeded. Well it would have a negative foreshortened length This is a length represented by an imaginary number.(I hate that) I don't think anyone can work out any physical meaning for such a length. Now this light speed goes for the objects mass as well,and once again velocities greater than light produce masses expressed by imaginary numbers,which means (I hate that) Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 02.03.03 13:02. What if man is still around when the sun only has 1,000 years left.? In that remaining 1,000 years he builds in orbit around the earth a space ship that can hold 1 million people. That spaceship loaded has great inertia,and hydrogen fuel is still the fastest way to accelerate. Would he be wise to tow a very large container to jupiter,and gas up there?

Seems jupiter has a strong enough gravity to hold hydrogen(could be the only planet does?) It would be on the very top layer of Jupiter gases. It would be easy to get. Bert Pops 02.03.03 13:47. What if the big bang was thinking in the wrong direction? Does it have to be an outward explosion? What if you can't have an explosion unless the universe is there?

What if you could only have an implosion? What if only an implosion fits better for a theory that creates all there is? I see an implosion creating heavy particles,and even hydrogen,helium,and lithium atoms,by compressing the sub-microscopic energies from the fabric of space. Gravity loves to implode.That is a fact. I think Guth's theory of inflation can even be made to fit.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 03.03.03 04:44. What if we don't give space dust its just do? We now know the rock planets did not come out of the sun,as it the sun burped them out(stupid theory never liked) Lots and lots of dust in space,that came from a supernova. Now when dust gets together it forms small rocks,and when small rocks get together they form meteors,and when meteors get together they form planets. All this had to take place rather fast about 4.3 billion years ago. While all this was going on the rock planets had elongated orbits like pluto.

For some reason they now have almost perfectly round orbits. That is worth trying to find an answer. Bert PS it happened fast because of all the building material was out there(great density) G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.03.03 05:20.

What if nature just uses one building block? What if the building block was the photon? What if an electron was a spinning field made up of 10^ 33 photons and the field spins at C Going into the nucleus hypothesising gets blurry,but lets say the top quark is made up of 10^137 electrons,and the two other quarks 10^33 electrons.

Now both the photon,and the electron have their virtual twins. I think of them as their shadow particles. I know they go every where together,and the two slit experiment proves this to me. Their virtual particles create unifying their spin,which creates an angular motion. Feynman knew that.

Just a theory to make the building of the universe easy for nature. It uses photon density as to make one particle and energy different from each other. I left out a lot,but having trouble getting my thoughts out there. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 04.03.03 14:51.

What if gravity is only trying to make black holes from the very first second of the big bang. What if Guth's inflation theory screwed that up. The universe got to big and less dense to fast. That cost gravity billions and billions of years. It now has to do things the hard way,and that is compressing matter to squeeze the heat (energy) out of it. We call this process nuclear fusion. I can see trillions,and trillions of universes in a lock step grid composed only of blackholes.

Bert BenignVanilla 05.03.03 05:59. What if we have the answer to why photons are more shifted to the red when coming to earth from a further distance? Here is the reason in one word 'density' Going back in spacetime all there is was in a very much smaller area of space. Density is what gravity loves best.

It makes it the strongest force. If there was a blackhole(dimhole) that was not quite dense enough not to release photons, the photons emitted would be shifted to red just a few feet out.

This object would look like my bulb in my dark room. The early universe created blackholes,nova's,and lots of dense objects that made light go up hill all the way. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 05.03.03 15:39. What if every solar system to have high life forms it needs a large planet like Jupiter? We saw what Jupiter can do recently its gravity pulled in those Levy meteors.

What if they hit earth? We use Jupiter to sling shot our probes to go to pluto and outer space. When the solar system was young,and had millions more meteors they must have come at the right angle,and were flung out of the solar system. If Jupiter had swallowed up or flung the Yucatan meteor out of our solar system dinosaurs might be still be the ruling life here on earth. Still if the earth was hit every million years by a large meteor things would be a lot different.

The cockroach would be the ruling animal. The cockroach has been around for 330 million years.It knows how to survive,and does not kill its own kind. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.03.03 03:43. What if venus and mars have the same percentage of CO2. Venus has the same gravity force,as the earth(about) and mars has a lot less.

Still C02 is heavy. They have in their atmosphere 93% CO2.

We here on earth only have 3% Here on earth as gases came out of volcanoes it had to be the main gas CO2?? In the early universe is this the main reason for vegetation first on land? Here on earth we are talking CO2 as a gas. On mars mostly as a solid,and on venus as a gas,but very heavy gas. The early atmosphere of the earth CO2 had the right pressure,and plants could absorb it and release oxygen. To sum it up as I see it it all comes down to the pressure of CO2.

To strong(venus) and to weak for mars. And density is what shows us the blue print of all Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 06.03.03 18:50. What if the raisin bread theory has to be reality,and the dots on a balloon is not? Well I'm talking about the universes acceleration. It has to be shown that it is the scale of the universe at large,as expressed by the distances that separate galaxies,and clusters of galaxies that is expanding.

We know galaxies themselves are not increasing in size. We know space inside atoms is not getting bigger.(if it did,what a problem) Since galaxies stay the same size like raisins in a cake,but dotes(representing galaxies) do get bigger,this shows the doted balloon theory is not reality. To sum it up. Galaxies,solar systems, individual stars,or human's space is simply unfolding between them. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 08.03.03 20:49. What if supernova explosions are just as important as the big bang explosion? The big bang explosion happened once.

Supernova explosions are going off as I type. The 'iffy' is taken away with our most up to date theories. It is said that a supernova explosion helps gravity to compress hydrogen gas by its shock wave,and seeding dust into the cloud.

Dust that came from a supernova explosion. Keep in mind that this dust has carbon atoms in it. Carbon a building block of organic matter. Staying with dust it created all the rock,and iron that make up the planets asteroids,meteors and comets that circle the sun. There is a theory based on studying meteors that some came from deep space.(not always part of the solar system) My iron meteor has a story to tell. It had to come out of the mantle,or the core of a large(very large) object. Possibly shot into space by a mars volcano.

The escape velocity of mars is a lot less than earth. It could have come from the implosion of a supernova core. Why not Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 09.03.03 06:51. What if what we know about gravity is the best reason for never being able to detect it? This is not even 'iffy' It can't be blocked. Think about all those big expensive detectors all over the world looking for the vibration of a gravity wave that will move a needle or move a graft.

Cheaper to look for a ghost for they go through doors without opening them. Best to call ghost busters(yes?) Our most sensitive gravity wave(vibration detector) is in Tennessee. It can pick up the vibration of 18 wheelers 20 miles away. What the hell it only cost 22 million dollars and it gave jobs to lots of people. G=EMC^2 Glazier 12.03.03 09:39. 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote.

In message news:15972-3E6F70CE-12@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net. Bert, not for anything, but the trouble with G=EMC2 lies in the Units of Measure If you have an equation like the elegant E=MC2, to get the 'E' over to the other side of the equal sign you must divide both sides by it. E/E = MC2/E and you get 1=MC2/E -- AND --- at least the units are kept intact.

Another thing you could do is to *multiply* both sides by 'E' and you come up with. ExE = EMC2 and this simplifies to. E2 = EMC2 By your equation, G=EMC2, you are actually saying that G is equal to E2, and remember. You HAVE to square the Units of Measure, too.

Now, knowing this, to your way of thinking, what quality is it about Gravity that this equation, G=EMC2, describes? Happy days and. Starry starry nights! -- Planets, stars and nebulae Hold attention in the sky-- Lay in hay and squint your eye, Lose your youth in moaning sigh & find the truth in every lie! Paine Ellsworth G=EMC^2 Glazier 12.03.03 14:57.

Bert (the troll?) posted: >That is why G=EMC2 Nope, G = 6.67259 x 10^-8 cm^3/gs^2, Newton's Gravitational Constant, used in the Newtonian gravitational equation F = GMm/r^2. Time to crack those books again Bert (oh.I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't read books). Bert actually read a decent book to answer his questions instead of just going 'what if' to keep this thread from dying.

Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: Hyde Memorial Observatory: ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * * ********************************************** G=EMC^2 Glazier 13.03.03 06:07. David I read novels. Astronomy and science books I study. I loved science all my life. To say I don't read is just another cheap short.

When you have egg on your face. You then come back to make your argument seem possible by saying in the 'distant Past' once upon a time What if mars had stronger gravity in the 'distant past' you say I come back with where did it get this added mass from? You answer go 'read a book' My advice David is study more.

Don't believe authors that write books to make them interesting to sell. Read books by Asminov,Greene,Alex Bevan, Charle Seife,Gerald Piel, Stephen Hawkings,and Michael Allaby. These people know their science,and are my teachers. You put down my 'iffy' post,and yet I'm complimented from all over the world.

David it will go on forever,because the universe has many secretes. One of the compliments I get on it is 'you make us 'think' Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 14.03.03 04:37.

What it intelligent life in our galaxy is trying to contact us in a more physical way? Read a few days ago that bucky balls found in meteorites can take the great impact(crash) when hitting the earth. They are hollow,and researchers have found helium inside them. If bucky balls can hold helium they can just about hold anything.

What can you think to put inside? This kind of goes with putting a note in a bottle and throwing it in the ocean. Bucky balls are made of carbon,and look like a soccer ball.

Well a diamond is the hardest,and the bucky ball is the toughest. Bert BenignVanilla 14.03.03 06:46. 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote in message news:7109-3E71CCEE-1@storefull-2352.public.lawson.webtv.net. OMIGOSH.I can't believe I am going to post this but here goes.Bert.I have had a similar thought. I hear a lot of talk about us planning on shooting at any near earth object in hopes of bumping it away from our orbit.

What if some alien race, colonized an asteroid and are just floating through space. How awful it would be for us to welcome it with a nuke?!?! *laugh* Not to mention the possibility that asteroids ARE ships. I saw Buckaroo Bonzai.I know that not all spaceships are nice and shiney and round. CeeBee 14.03.03 13:57.

'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote. In message news:28633-3E733A51-55@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net. Found these by using Google! If the estimated total mass of all asteroids was gathered into a single object, the object would be less than 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) across -- less than half the diameter of our Moon.' Improved optics allow us to measure Pluto's diameter as 2,274 kilometers (1413 miles)...' Mass figures for comparison are.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 16.03.03 04:42. Hi Painius Will not send any more pictures. I made my white octopus Moby the most famous octopus in the world,and that was my plan. The interesting part of the asteroid belt is it has a circular orbit. If it had an elliptical orbit that could give earth lots of impacts,say like one every 25,000 years.

I was lucky to find an iron meteorite,and I think the big iron meteorites are the one's that do the most damage. Iron is heavy,and stays together. Going through the atmosphere they must take on the shape of a tear drop. Seems some could get lucky and enter the atmosphere at a good angle,much like our Apollo reentry capsules that could slow them down gradually and only their outer surface would burn away,and slowing down before hitting would make a weaker force of impact. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 16.03.03 04:41.

What if are seeing closer to the time of the big bang we are bringing the universe to a very small area? QM would call it a point. Lets say going back 12 billion years we are looking at a universe that may have only 4 percent the volume of the present universe. What if we are looking at galaxies in the early universe that are separated on average,by only 1/25 the distance that separate them today(closely packed) I can see lots of interesting thoughts come out of this.

It really is not very 'iffy' I feel it makes more sense to go with my 22 billion light years,than 15 billion light years as the age of the universe. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 17.03.03 12:21. 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote. In message news:9636-3E747146-91@storefull-2356.public.lawson.webtv.net.

>The interesting part of the asteroid belt is it has a circular orbit. If >it had an elliptical orbit that could give earth lots of impacts,say >like one every 25,000 years.

Dad Blast It! Would you like to hear my take on the asteroids? It's an idea that i haven't read anywhere else yet. I'm still putting it together, a little bit of research yet to do.

So i'll post it probably on Friday or Saturday. And if i find out that somebody's already thought of it, or if my nosing around turns up that it's a really bad idea, WTF i'll *still* post it. L8RG8R happy days and. Starry starry nights! -- Planets, stars and nebulae Hold attention in the sky-- Lay in hay and squint your eye, Lose your youth in moaning sigh & find the truth in every lie! Paine Ellsworth G=EMC^2 Glazier 19.03.03 04:55.

What if how large rocks in the solar system were created was not the best theory? I read the theory is that first there was dust,then dust got together and became sand,then gravel then rocks. They were pushed together,collided,and fused. They did this moving at great speed and and had very elliptic orbits. Now we have a theory that meteors were part of large asteroids that collided,and meteors are the pieces broken off. In todays solar system things have to be a lot different than when the sun was just 300,000 years old.

In the beginning rocks got bigger and bigger,and now the big rocks are being broken into smaller pieces. I read that some meteors came into our solar system,and are older than the solar system. I find that interesting. Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 19.03.03 08:32. Herb posted: >The interesting part of the asteroid belt is it has a circular orbit. The asteroid belt does not have an 'orbit'. The asteroids within the belt region have orbits and many, if not most of them are definitely not circular.

The main belt itself is not a circle, but a very fat roughly doughnut-shaped region of space extending from just outside the orbit of Mars to roughly 2/3rds of the way from the orbit of Mars to the orbit of Jupiter. The belt also extends over one astronomical unit (a distance roughly equal to the mean distance from the Earth to the sun) above and below the plane of the solar system. A few asteroids have orbits which allow them to range from the inner edge of the belt to inside the orbit or Mars, like Eros and Icarus, while some others are found outside the belt in elongated orbits which take them from the outer part of the belt out to near the orbits of the outer planets. Some also orbit in rough groupings ahead of and behind Jupiter near its. Bill Sheppard 19.03.03 15:57. Painius wrote, >Would you like to hear my take on the >asteroids? It's an idea that i haven't read >anywhere else yet.

I'm still putting it >together, a little bit of research yet to do. >So i'll post it probably on Friday or >Saturday. Why do you suppose the asteroids do not aggregate together to form a planet? Seems like there 'should' be a planet there.

Maybe there was once a planet that got hit by a huge impactor in a collision somewhat more energetic than the one that formed the Earth-moon system. And the debris got kicked into trajectories so far above and below the orbital plane as to prevent any re-aggregation. Just a 'What if'.

Oc G=EMC^2 Glazier 19.03.03 20:15. You posted: >Why do you suppose the asteroids do not aggregate together to form a >planet? Seems like there 'should' be a planet there. Maybe there was >once a planet that got hit by a huge impactor in a collision somewhat >more energetic than the one that formed the Earth-moon system. And the >debris got kicked into trajectories so far above and below the orbital >plane as to prevent any re-aggregation. Just a 'What if'. >Well, it doesn't appear that there ever was a planet in the main asteroid belt.

Jupiter's massive gravity tends to perturb things pretty well, so it helped keep a large planet from forming in the belt (it even affects the shape of the Earth's orbit to some degree). Jupiter acted to scatter some of the material out of the solar system while absorbing other stuff. Jupiter has somewhat scrambled the orbits of many of the asteroids, and has 'stolen' some of them to form a few of its outermost moons as well as the twin families of the Trojan aste. G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.03.03 05:06.

What if iron meteors in space are magnetic? This is not to 'iffy' Jupiter has such a great EM field. Magnetisim likes low temperature. Meteors are immersed in very cold space. They would lose their magnetisim being heated by air molecules(friction) Curie effect.

They also would lose their magnetisim by the shock of impact. If iron meteors are perminent magnets we could theorize this would help iron meteors to stick together. The EM force is millions of times stronger than gravity in this type situation.

Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.03.03 05:07. You posted: >Is a meteor a meteor before it enters the atmosphere of a planet?

No, a meteor is the streak of light seen when a small body (called a 'meteoroid') enters the atmosphere from space at very high speed. If the body survives the heat of entry and makes it to the surface, the remaining body is called a 'meteorite'. Clear skies to you.

Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: Hyde Memorial Observatory: ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug. 1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * * ********************************************** David Knisely 20.03.03 11:49. You sent: >What if iron meteors in space are magnetic? Most meteorites are not magnetized.

Again, Iron *meteors* are the flash of light and not the solid body (you still have some work to do on getting your terminology straight). >Jupiter has such a great EM field. It has a fairly strong *magnetic* field.

>They would lose their >magnetisim being heated by air molecules(friction) Curie effect. The Curie temperature for Iron is 1024 Kelvin (751 degrees C., or 1384 degrees F.). Most iron meteoriods only suffer heating from entry on their outermost surfaces, as the interior usually remains fairly cold. This has been demonstrated with a number of falls when the meteorite can sometimes be so cold as to have frost form on it after the heat of the surface has died away. In any case, even if an Iron Meteorite was magnetized, it would not be able to lose that magnetism due to the entry heat, although a strong shock on impact (or complete melting from impact heat) could demagnetize. G=EMC^2 Glazier 20.03.03 11:57.

In message, David Knisely writes >You sent: >>>What if iron meteors in space are magnetic? >>Most meteorites are not magnetized. Again, Iron *meteors* are the flash >of light and not the solid body (you still have some work to do on >getting your terminology straight).

>>>Jupiter has such a great EM field. >>It has a fairly strong *magnetic* field. >>>They would lose their >>magnetisim being heated by air molecules(friction) Curie effect. >>The Curie temperature for Iron is 1024 Kelvin (751 degrees C., or 1384 >degrees F.). Most iron meteoriods only suffer heating from entry on >their outermost surfaces, as the interior usually remains fairly cold. >This has been demonstrated with a number of falls when the meteorite can >sometimes be so cold as to have frost form on it after the heat of the >surface has died away. In any case, even if an Iron Meteorite was >magnetized, it would not be able to lose that magnetism due to the en.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 21.03.03 06:49. 'G=EMC^2 Glazier' wrote. In message news:9136-3E789B86-12@storefull-2355.public.lawson.webtv.net. >>Hi Paine Will look forward to reading it this weekend. Love to read >fresh thoughts....

Bert On the Origin of the Asteroids Okay, where to begin. First of all, Bert, i've done a lot of research, but i could probably do more. There are still two things that i haven't found in my nosing around, and they are. 1) I haven't come across anybody who's already thought of this, so for the good or bad, it seems to be an original thought.

And isn't *that* a wonder! 2) Also haven't found any indication that this may be a bad idea.

And yet there are others here more knowledgable than i who may disagree. It is hoped that they will boldly step forward!

Let's briefly go over some things we already know. Up there in the sky, mostly orbiting the Sun between the planets Mars and Jupiter, are some interesting, small rocky objects. G=EMC^2 Glazier 22.03.03 07:13. Hi Paine Nicely done,and stays well within good science.

Meteorites and asteroids have lots of theories,and these theories we read about are not carved in stone. A gas planet that failed rather than exploded seems to be the core of your theory,and the core left its debris(asteroids) in orbit between Mars,and Jupiter. Maybe Paine that gas planet had to much iron,and its core could not create fusion? Lots of iron meteorites are made of iron and nickel. What also helps your theory is many meteorites have diamonds.

When carbon is subjected to high pressure a diamond is formed,and highest pressure is at the core. Paine I liked the way you got rid of the gas and that would be mostly hydrogen and helium.

I can see clearly how especially Jupiter would pull that gas in. Bert Painius 23.03.03 03:55. What if the kinetic energy of the universe is larger than the gravitational force? That means expansion is in,and the big crunch is out.That is not that 'iffy' any more its the latest thinking.

That means galaxies will eventually exhaust all their gas reservoirs for forming new stars,and the old ones will fade away,and die. In the micro realm all particles will decay,as the universe will approach a cold death. Seems the universe only had two choices,a hot inferno,or a big chill. Seems the omega has to be less than one. Bert Bill Sheppard 23.03.03 10:14. Painius asks,.what do you think of my idea that the >asteroids were once destined to be the >core material of a gas giant that never >got a chance to completely form? I dunno, Paine.

But it seems like the dynamics favoring formation of gas giants lay out beyond the orbit of Mars. A gas planet forming in 'among' the rocky planets seems kinda counterintuitive. David Knisely's synopsis seems the most likely, i.e., gravitational perturbations prevented aggregation of a rocky planet where one 'should' have formed. But then there's the esoteric legend of the planet 'Maldek' that got blown up in a nuclear war and became the asteroid belt. That should be good pulp for Danny Min. Oc Pete Davis 23.03.03 11:00. Bill, I think you're pretty much correct there.

Gas giants would have difficulty forming in the inner solar system, as the solar winds would propel a majority of the gas away from the star. Where the gas giants do form, what rocky material that exists would tend to be absorbed by gas giants, propelled towards the inner solar system, or propelled away from the solar system, but it would have trouble staying there. Current theory suggests that systems with gas giants with orbits that approach their host star did not form close to the star, but migrated for one of many possible reasons. It is unlikely these systems have rocky planets anywhere near their stars, as the gas giants would have a tendency to eject them from the system or into the star, or simply collide with them. I suppose with all the different stars out there, a few odd balls have got to exist, that don't follow current theories because of things we haven't considered yet. In fact, from the planets we have detected, it is sta. Painius 24.03.03 03:59.

You posted: >The only thing i cannot yet account for is why the toroidal bands >or belts of asteroids are closer to Mars than to Jupiter. Some of this is a 'selection' effect dut to the pertubations of Jupiter. This happens when the orbital period of an asteroid has a simple fraction of the orbital period of Jupiter (1/4, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 1/2, of 11.86 years), and causes the famous Kirkwood gaps in the belt itself. The 'gap' just outside the Hugarias family probably makes the inner edge seem a bit more sharp and depleted asteroids from the outer segment near the 1/2 period gap.

The mean distance of the belt is again probably a result of resonances in debris orbital paths in the inner solar system, dominated again by perturbations by the larger planets. Clear skies to you. Knisely Prairie Astronomy Club: Hyde Memorial Observatory: ********************************************** * Attend the 10th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 27-Aug.

1st, 2003, Merritt Reservoir * * * ********************************************** G=EMC^2 Glazier 24.03.03 05:55. In message, Frog writes >>Also havent most of the planets that have now been found orbiting >other starts gas giants?, some very close to their star.

>Not most, all, but that's purely a selection effect - giant planets are the easiest to find and these totally unexpected (AFAIK, but I'd be fascinated to hear otherwise) planets close to the star are much easier to find than giants like Jupiter and Saturn, which take years to show an effect. Terrestrial planets have so far only been found in exotic locations - around pulsars. G=EMC^2 Glazier 24.03.03 16:26. 'David Knisely' wrote. In message news:3E7F612F.4884F017@navix.net. >>Hi there. You posted: >>>The only thing i cannot yet account for is why the toroidal bands >>or belts of asteroids are closer to Mars than to Jupiter.

>>Some of this is a 'selection' effect dut to the pertubations of >Jupiter. This happens when the orbital period of an asteroid has a >simple fraction of the orbital period of Jupiter (1/4, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, >1/2, of 11.86 years), and causes the famous Kirkwood gaps in the belt >itself. The 'gap' just outside the Hugarias family probably makes the >inner edge seem a bit more sharp and depleted asteroids from the outer >segment near the 1/2 period gap. The mean distance of the belt is again >probably a result of resonances in debris orbital paths in the inner >solar system, dominated again by perturbations by the larger planets. >Clear skies to you. >-- >David W. Knisely >Prairie Astronomy Club:.

Frog 25.03.03 07:13. Jonathan Silverlight writes: >In message, Frog >writes >>>>>Also havent most of the planets that have now been found orbiting >>other starts gas giants?, some very close to their star.

>>>Not most, all, but that's purely a selection effect - giant planets >are the easiest to find and these totally unexpected (AFAIK, but I'd >be fascinated to hear otherwise) planets close to the star are much >easier to find than giants like Jupiter and Saturn, which take years >to show an effect. Terrestrial planets have so far only been found in >exotic locations - around pulsars.

A quick search at google for 'new planet discoveries' retunred some interesting reads, aparantly they have found Jupiter and Saturn sized planets, One I read, sorry I didnt get the direct link but you should be able to find it easily enough, times a bit short here so I'll have to look it up again myself later, but they have found Jupiter sized planet at roughly the same distance from its star as our Jupiter. >>-- >Greetings from Airstrip One! >>Mail to jsilverlight AT is welcome. >Or visit Jonathan's Space Place http: Painius 25.03.03 10:46. You posted: >Something i've read that seems odd to me. First, i read that while >Ceres is by far the largest asteroid, ALL the other asteroids put >together barely come to twice the mass of Ceres. I've also read >that ALL of the over 3,000 asteroids thus far charted have spins >ranging from 2 to 24 hours.

>>It could just be my ignorance, but i find it mysterious that none of >these asteroids, not even the smallest, are in synchronous rotation >with the Sun. >Well, the thing that creates synchronous rotation is the differential or 'tidal' effects of gravitation. This is where the gravitational pull on one side of a body from *another* massive body is greater on the near side of the object than it is on the far side. For larger bodies like our Earth-moon system or the tides the sun generates on the Earth, the effect is significant, but for small ones like asteroids, the *difference* in distance between the near side of the asteroid and the sun and the f.

G=EMC^2 Glazier 25.03.03 14:21. What if Uranius,Neptune,and Pluto were made up from billions of comets?

What if Pluto could be a comet that just needs a more elliptical orbit(coming in closer to the sun). What if its the solar energy from the sun that gets comets to decay(melt away) What if comets gain water molecules(mass) as they go through space that must have water molecules immersed in it(like a snow ball going down hill) What if the Oort belt is made of billions of ice globes,and that is where our solar system got its comets from? Well one thing comets prove,and that they can fall through space tail first.

That the sun's gravity can change their direction and whip them back into space (sling shot) Bert PS I find this thought interesting the Oort belt is between us and our nearest star,and that means Alpha Centuri must have comets as well. Bert Painius 29.03.03 04:16. This is xposted to s.a and s.a.a hopefully to get some input from George et al.) SO!

Is my 'Gas Giant Protoplanet Between Mars and Jupiter' hypothesis DEAD? I'm just enough of an egomaniac to try again to keep it alive. And for all Gentle Readers out there, i have an asteroid named after me! (As if i need yet another reason to give me a big head.) When an asteroid is discovered it is given only a number that corresponds to its sequence of discovery.

And then, when its orbit has been plotted, the asteroid is given a name. So from the beginning of the list we have. (1) Ceres (2) Pallas (3) Juno (4) Vesta and so on, and so on. This was the order of discovery, which is somewhat of a surprise because Vesta is the *only* asteroid that can be seen without the aid of a telescope. And while Ceres is much larger than Vesta, Juno is quite a bit smaller.

It may interest you to know that Albert and Isaac have asteroids with their names! (719) Albert and (2001) Einstein, and (5020) Asimov Anyway, 'm. G=EMC^2 Glazier 29.03.03 05:18.

Hi Paine Seems we have meteors,and asteroids older than the solar system. That has to mean they were formed some where else. Since the Oort belt has billions and billions of solid objects that are ringing our solar system some 2.5 light years out. Never liked the theory that the material to make planets came out of the same hydrogen swirling disk that created the sun.That to me is very 'iffy' I like a theory that had all the material to make the planets came towards the sun in one direction(angle) and spun(was spinning) in unison in that direction. This would explain what we observe at this time. About 22 billion years ago the neutron was created an that was the building block that gravity used to evolve the universe,and it is still doing it. In my minds eye we have to completely separate the hydrogen and helium in the first 300,000 years after the big bang.

The next 500,000 years fusion of hydrogen created helium. 5 billion years would go by before the iron age kicked in.(the.

David Knisely 29.03.03 11:32. You posted: >And yet there is one more teeny tiny thing that may or may not >be puzzling. It stems from a study of the way scientists believe >our Solar System formed, and it hinges upon the so-called >'Angular Momentum Problem.' Astronomers are perplexed as >to how the Sun, a star with fully 99.9% of the total mass in the >Solar System, has only less than 1% of the total angular >momentum. Well, its a bit of a puzzle, but like many odd things in Astronomy, there may be explanations as to why this occurred. One method involves a sort of magnetic 'coupling' between the material in the original cloud and the sun itself, which sort of 'drained' the sun of some of its angular momentum. Its interesting to note that the rotation rate of main sequence stars is high for high-mass stars, but drops off to a very slow rate for the lower-mass stars (later than spectral class of F5) like our sun.

Some have explained this by invoking the same loss of central angular momen. Painius 29.03.03 15:28. 'David Knisely' wrote.

In message news:3E85F4D5.AF20A86C@navix.net. >>Hi there. You posted: >>>>And yet there is one more teeny tiny thing that may or may not >>be puzzling. It stems from a study of the way scientists believe >>our Solar System formed, and it hinges upon the so-called >>'Angular Momentum Problem.' Astronomers are perplexed as >>to how the Sun, a star with fully 99.9% of the total mass in the >>Solar System, has only less than 1% of the total angular >>momentum. >>Well, its a bit of a puzzle, but like many odd things in Astronomy, >there may be explanations as to why this occurred. One method involves >a sort of magnetic 'coupling' between the material in the original cloud >and the sun itself, which sort of 'drained' the sun of some of its >angular momentum.

Its interesting to note that the rotation rate of >main sequence stars is high for high-mass stars, but drops off to a very >slow rate for the lower-mass stars. G=EMC^2 Glazier 30.03.03 05:16. What if the big bang theory,and the constant universe theory can be combined? Well even when Einstien was told that GR could be made to predict the BB he did not like it.

His thinking was what ever is was always the way it is. We have to remember in Einstien's time the Milky Way was the universe. A static universe 100 years ago made good sense to astronomers,for it looked the same every time and direction they looked at the heavens. Astronomers wanted a beginning for the universe. Astronomers even went with crazy thinking that there was no space or time before the BB (showing their ego.) It would be very easy to put these to theories together,and their combining would create a much better theory.(taking the best ideas from both) Einstien took the best ideas he read about,and combined them to make his SR theory(yes /) Bert John den Haan 30.03.03 16:48.

Hello G=EMC^2 Glazier!! You wrote: >Hi Paine Seems we have meteors,and asteroids older than the solar >system.

You must mean 'meteorites' or 'meteoroids'. Many people tend to mix these things up.

A meteor is merely the 'shooting star' you see when a meteoroid burns up in the atmosphere. Meteorites are the leftovers that hit the earth when it fails to burn up completely' Sorry, had to get rid of that:-) Clear Skies! - John -- John den Haan Mercurius public observatory Dordrecht, Netherlands *SPAMBLOCK* Remove the 'stopspam.' From my e-mail address David Knisely 30.03.03 21:51.

You posted: >You mentioned the solar wind. I don't know why it is composed >of mostly protons? The solar wind is composed mostly of protons *and* electrons, with a small population of other atomic nuclear species. >How did the atoms lose their electrons? Solar energy is the reason, partly in the form of ultraviolet light and X-rays, as well as the high temperatures in the corona which can completely ionize the gas which then streams away from the sun. >I never read that their are free electrons going through space. Once again, you failed to read the right books.

For a simple one, try 'THE AURORA: Sun-Earth Interaction', by Neil Bone (c. 1991, Ellis Horwood Limited).

>Seems >free electrons in space would create problems for a metal spaceship >going through space. It can occasionally affect surface charge on satellites during severe geomagnetic storms (can potentially cause damage to electronics), but otherwise, they don't have a huge affect since the densit. Longshotjohn7 31.03.03 00:15.

Hi BV Man will find organic molecules patterns in my iron meteorite,and on Mars, Comets etc. For there is water every where. Its phases of liquid solid and gas depends on the temperature,and the compression force of gravity. Bad conditions for water on Mars and Venus. Inside their interiors(who knows) We don't know what is inside our earth's interior for sure under 10 miles under are feet.

After 10 miles down man creates his theories(ideas) The bad part is people read theories like they are carved in stone. To sell a book an astronomer only has to say Mars had rivers of running water(once upon a time) Bert G=EMC^2 Glazier 02.04.03 06:59.

'Music lovers are at high risk of being inspired by this exploration of the connections between music and physics.' -- Wall Street Journal More than fifty years ago, John Coltrane drew the twelve musical notes in a circle and connected them by straight lines, forming a five-pointed star. Inspired by Einstein, Coltrane put physics and geometry at the core of his music. Physicist and jazz musician Stephon Alexander follows suit, using jazz to answer physics' most vexing questions about the past and future of the universe.

Following the great minds that first drew the links between music and physics-a list including Pythagoras, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and Rakim- The Jazz of Physics reveals that the ancient poetic idea of the Music of the Spheres,' taken seriously, clarifies confounding issues in physics. The Jazz of Physics will fascinate and inspire anyone interested in the mysteries of our universe, music, and life itself.