TPOD: Gamma Gamma Hey

[mharratsc]

[url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... 6gamma.htm]Gamma Gamma Hey[/url2]


Stephen- thank you!

I felt deep down that there was a better answer than 'anti-matter' to all this, and you gave it to me!

I hadn't come across any mention yet where anyone from the EU had addressed the whole notion of anti-matter, or positrons for that matter, either. I would be very interested in learning more about EU thoughts regarding positrons and electrons... which should then be called 'negatrons'... and how they equalize to form a neutrino... which should now be called a 'neutron'... which means we have to rename neutrons to 'neutons''?

Anyway, the wandering mess in the paragraph above is due to the title Stephen gave this TPOD, which now has an old Ramone's tune whirling around in my head mucking up linear thought processes.


Mike H.

[allynh]

I'd like to see a discussion about the matter/anti-matter issue as well. This is the quote from the TPOD.

As physicist and Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill wrote: "In the Electric Universe model, there is no antimatter forming antiparticles. An electron and a positron are composed of the same charged sub-particles in different conformations. They come together to form a stable neutrino, emitting most of their orbital energies in the process. They do not annihilate each other. In that sense a neutrino embodies both the electron and the positron. It can have no antiparticle. The bookmakers would be wise not to bet on the Standard Model of particle physics."

I did a search and found the original quote in Thronhill's article:

13 August 2001
Solar neutrino puzzle is solved?
http://www.holoscience.com/news/puzzle.html

I found this other quote from the same article.

If neutrinos do have mass it will tend to confirm the Electric Universe model. In it, neutrinos are not fundamental particles but are comprised of the same charged sub-particles that make up all matter. They are the most collapsed form of matter known. When a positron and an electron "annihilate", the orbital energy in both is radiated as a gamma ray and the sub-particles that comprised them both assume a new stable orbital configuration of very low energy, or mass. Matter cannot be created from a vacuum nor annihilated in this model. The differences between the neutrino "flavours" is merely one of different quantum states and therefore different masses.

What are the "sub-particles" that he's talking about.

We need to know what the basic building blocks of matter are to understand how transmutation/nucleosynthesis occurs. There have been many TPODs and Thunderblog essays that sneer at the standard model of particle physics, and the waste of money for particle accelerators, but I have never seen a clear discussion of what the EU model for particle physics is.

That whole issue needs to be clarified if we are to understand what is going on in the universe: from quasars being ejected from galaxies, that then evolve into galaxies themselves, containing stars and planets made up of all the elements in the periodic table.

We need something more than just ambiguous hand waving, or reusing the same vague quote over and over. There needs to be a clear series of articles building up an understanding of the basic particles and how the elements are formed; from the aether on up through the periodic table.

Just as we have the various EU books describing the Electric Sun, etc..., we need The Electric Elements as well.

I knew that the Growing Earth Theory was missing from the EU stuff, and that the issue of quasars becoming galaxies had not been addressed fully, but until this moment I didn't realize that there was such a glaring chunk missing from the EU puzzle. We've essentially been working on one nearly complete corner of an even larger puzzle. It's only now that I noticed we had no edge pieces on two sides.

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog wonders how such "particles" are going to be discovered or analyzed.

A Google search for "subtrons" might help get a handle on how some EU physicists have described the subatomic. The Great Dog believes all such theories venture away from the pragmatic and into the metaphysical, however.

[allynh]

The Great Dog, that's exactly what I mean. I googled "subtrons" and it has massive numbers of hits, many of them pointing back to EU sites or the Forum: but their is no actual book or series of articles that discuss this fundamental concept from the EU perspective.

You have Arp talking about quasars--in his book, Intrinsic Redshift--being spit out and aging into actual galaxies. He doesn't explain how that happens, but at least he is willing to point out the very real facts.

There is discussion scattered everywhere about transmutation--I've even taken a stab at explaining some of the mechanism--but none of that helps when it is scattered everywhere and we are starting from a false understanding of base matter.

If the EU guys are right and the Standard Particle Physics is wrong, then what is being observed. The Standard guys may be barking up the wrong tree(unavoidable pun), but they are building real machines and recording real events. The EU guys may sneer and laugh at the money "wasted" on particle accelerators, but I have not seen one article or TPOD explaining what those millions of images generated in one collision are actually showing.

Now that I've spotted the Forum threads discussing "subtrons", I'll see what has been discussed, but any description of "subtrons" must match the observed results in those particle collisions. Just as the EU guys have taken various space photos and shown a better description of observed events, they also have to do the same thing with the fundamental particles.

It was this current TPOD that suddenly made clear to me that huge parts of the EU puzzle are missing, and I never noticed it before because the puzzle block we are working on is more or less complete. It was quite a shock to realize that the edge pieces are missing on two sides.


21 May 2002
Antigravity?
http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html

(Perfect example of echoes. This THOTH article is a duplicate of the Holoscience article.)
THOTH | VOL VI, No 4 | June 30, 2002
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVI-04.txt

22 August 2008
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

[mharratsc]

It wasn't so long ago that humanity recorded the most fundamental particles of matter as being protons, neutrons, and electrons... people would've scoffed that you could find something even smaller.

Now they have elements that they call quarks, made 'flavors' for them, and seem to be finding different variants. I personally think that the more energy they put into the act of smashing particles together, the more 'flavors' they will find because they are imparting higher and higher collisional energies into them.

I'd suggested elsewhere, that smashing subatomic matter together to try and 'understand the fundamental components of matter' is much akin to trying to learn anatomy from a train wreck! We need to learn how to observe this stuff in it's natural form, if you ask me. Just don't ask me how that can be done!

I think the idea of particles having a spin element that equates to charge and the building the atomic dipole element is a very elegant idea, and one that fits with the scalar nature of charge in the Universe. I think maybe that all the various 'quarks' that they found are perhaps these very particles but energize enormously by the power of the collisions that they subject them to- and hence why they seem to look so radically different from one another.

I'm probably barking up the wrong tree, I dunno- I never studied particle physics per se. :\

I wonder tho- do you suppose that atoms, or the subatomic elements thereof, may exhibit different characteristics and achieve different states dependent upon the number of photons trapped in the structure? I wonder if that isn't how these things acquire their energy- trapping photons. What if there are little valence shells of photons just as they surmised were there for electrons not so long ago?

Sigh... I'd like to read up on this subject, but there's so much wild conjecture going on in Physics now, I'm almost afraid to waste my time even bothering. :\


Mike H.

[Anaconda]

The problems that exist now for particle physics are the same problems that exist now for conventional astronomy.

The two schools have their "fundamentals" and anybody that questions those basic fundamentals in a fundamental way likely won't graduate from those schools.

At a fundamental level there is no room for debate.

For Plasma Cosmology, we are left with scientists that are old or even dead (in general) because astronomy graduate schools produce a "mono-culture" of thought that has weeded out any rival alternatives.

At an earlier point in history, there was still room for alternative theories in the schools and there were scientists that had truly differing views. At least as produced by the astronomy graduate schools, such is not the case, today.

Us, amateurs, don't have the mathematics, the telescope time, or the standing to make the case.

This leaves Plasma Cosmology in a difficult position as those produced by the "mono-culture" graduate schools are hostile to any ideas that seriously question their basic assumptions and these graduates in turn control the peer-review system of publication.

And just like "mono-culture" agriculture can be dangerous if a disease strikes the crop, "mono-culture" graduate schools are dangerous if their basic assumptions are wrong.

Because there is nobody they will listen to and respect that can tell them they are wrong.

[Brigit Bara]

There is a link to Ralph Sansbury's papers on holoscience.

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/

I do not know if that talks about any particles small enough for this thread, but it does talk about polarization inside electrons and inside atomic nuclei.

And perhaps electrons seeming to gain hundreds of times their mass relates to the discussion--if it doesn't, I am just throwing this in for free and for fun!

http://www.lanl.gov/discover/most_powerful_magnet

[allynh]

There is a link to Ralph Sansbury's papers on holoscience.

http://mysite.verizon.net/r9ns/

Glug! That was a slog through words "describing" rather than pictures illuminating.

These are the two threads discussing Sansbury's stuff on the Forum.

Ralph Sansbury's Model
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 84&start=0

Ralph Sansbury's Experiment
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 37&start=0

This is such a fundamental question, and Thornhill talked about this over ten years ago, it's about time that something more be available.

[Jaythree]

The TPOD article contains the following:

"The electromagnetic field beneath a thunderstorm increases (up to 10,000 volts per meter) and stores energy from the surrounding environment like a capacitor. A "wind" of charged particles blows toward the storm. In other words, a current flows into the cloud base. Surrounding air is pulled along with the current flow and creates powerful updrafts that sometimes rise into the stratosphere."

As a glider pilot, I have flown beneath towering cumulus clouds (incipient thunderstorms, just before they become "cells") and experienced climb rates of 1,500 ft/min in updrafts in a 1,400 lb 2-seat glider, right up to cloud base, and have had to use all means to avoid being sucked up into the cloud. Cumulus clouds form at the point where warm, rising humid air has cooled to the dew point, the vapor condensing into droplets, and vast amounts of heat being released in the exothermic process of condensation, thus accelerating the updraft. My questions are: where would voltage potentials of that magnitude come into play and how would they interact with the thermodynamics? The "capacitor" mus be building a charge all the while, prior to the first lightning strike (current flow). How would I detect this in my glider? How could I measure the potential from either the ground beneath the cloud or at the cloud base? Is there a sub-glow current between earth and cloud prior to an ionization path opening?

Thanks,
Don

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog thinks you could carry an e-meter in the cockpit that would provide a continuous update. As you cross the various double layers surrounding the thunderhead, the meter should give you a way to detect the boundaries of the current filaments.

http://www.campbellsci.com/electric-field-sensor

TGD

[Jaythree]

Great Dog, thanks for the reply, but don't these kinds of meters need to be grounded? Not really practical in a cockpit (without about a mile of ground cable trailing behind the aircraft :O ).

Also, given the huge convection systems developed in the thermodynamics of cloud formation, there is a lot of molecular rubbing together in the cloud, which a lot of meteorologists think is the primary factor in negative charge build-up. How does one separate or interface this causality from or with EU theory?

[Brigit Bara]

Thank you for those Sansbury threads. He doesn't go out of his way to reach the nonphysicists. But that is always the danger with writing about science, I suppose--either no one knows what you are talking about, or they think they know what you're talking about. Ha ha.


And you're right, the paper needs some visuals!

allynh wrote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqfrNraW ... re=related

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog found an article from the pack at Scientific American discussing field mill measurements of Earth's electric fields. The device does not need to be grounded. This article illustrates the idea:

Detecting the Earth's Electricity

TGD

[The Great Dog]

That whole issue needs to be clarified if we are to understand what is going on in the universe: from quasars being ejected from galaxies, that then evolve into galaxies themselves, containing stars and planets made up of all the elements in the periodic table.

"These scents of grass and stars at night, certain evenings when the heart relaxes - how shall I negate this world whose power and strength I feel? Yet all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine.

"You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it. You enumerate its laws and in my thirst for knowledge I admit that they are true. You take apart its mechanism and my hope increases. At the final stage you teach me that this wondrous and multi-colored universe can be reduced to the atom and that the atom itself can be reduced to the electron.

"All this is good and I wait for you to continue. But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realize then that you have been reduced to poetry: I shall never know.

"Have I the time to become indignant? You have already changed theories. So, that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis, that lucidity founders in metaphor, that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts? The soft lines of these hills and the gentle hand of evening on this troubled heart teaches me much more.

"I have returned to my beginning.

"I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them I cannot for all that apprehend the world. Were I to trace its entire relief with my finger, I should not know any more. And you give me the choice between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and hypotheses that claim to teach me but are not sure."

--- Albert Camus The Myth of Sisyphus

[mharratsc]

"I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them I cannot for all that apprehend the world. Were I to trace its entire relief with my finger, I should not know any more. And you give me the choice between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and hypotheses that claim to teach me but are not sure."

--- Albert Camus The Myth of Sisyphus

Bravo!


Mike H.