|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
The ISU Dialogues, Part Two -- Numerology
Our cups refilled, we got back to Bogie's Infinite Spongy Universe: CM: "We're taking a brief detour to discuss Bogie's assertion that the proton contains 699,955,457,517 EEPs and the electron contains 381,239,356 EEPs." BH: "Why those magic numbers?" CM: "We'll see in a few moments. I'll quote the relevant passages from post #20:" Quote:
Quote:
CM: "Exactly correct. And that's why this computation is wrong, as so often happens when amateurs finally start putting numbers on their stories. I do offer a way out, though." DB: "How?" CM: "Consider a proton to be made up of M EEPs and an electron to be made up of N EEPs. If the EEPs all have equal mass, and binding energy does not enter in, which I realize is a bit of wishful thinking, then M/N = 1836. Let the proton have radius R and the EEP a radius of r. Then if a proton is put together out of M EEPs with no spaces or overlap (possibly another bit of wishful thinking) then M = (4/3 pi R3)/(4/3 pi r3) = (R/r)3. Now let us imagine trying to put N EEPs on the surface of this proton. The area of a great circle of an EEP would be 4 pi r2, so N of these squeezed together on the surface, again ignoring gaps and overlaps would be N = (4 pi R2)/(4 pi r2) = (R/r)2. So finally 1836 = M/N = (R/r), that is the radius of the proton must be 1836 times the radius of an EEP if the mass of the EEPs on the surface of the proton is to add up to the mass of the electron. CM: "Knowing that the radius of the proton is about 1.3x10-15 m then tells us the radius of an EEP. Of course this is still numerology and there is precious little physical content in it." BH: "Amen!" CM: "After this sidebar, I'd like to get back to discussing post #2." To be continued ...
__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it. The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high. |
|
||||
|
CM's dialog is good and I want to participate by putting in emphasis here and there.
ISUEEP5-13-07 We must always keep the following in mind when talking about the ISU and the EEP. It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space? I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle. It is not practical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be. Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density. Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy. Lets us explore the energy density possibilities that are between those two extremes. Let us take first a “low energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, there is even room to add more EEPs before you begin to get some overlap. And let us define the term overlap to simply mean that there are too many EEPs in a given space to allow them all to fully expand and contract with intruding on each others required allotment of space. In this low energy density environment there is no overlap. Let us take next a perfectly “equalized energy density environment” where all of the EEPs can fully expand and contract in their own space, but if you add one more EEP there will begin to be some overlap. This energy density of space (EDS), with complete freedom for each EEP, and yet with the maximum EEPs allowed without overlap we will call the equalized energy density. This is the perfect EDS for an EEP that likes companionship but wants its own space; the perfectly equalized energy density of space. Not only is this perfect for the comfort loving EEPs, this is the energy density that space seeks to achieve. It is the perfect background. Now don’t take me literally, I am not suggesting that EEPs or space have a mind of their own; I am speaking figuratively. The perfect background is the energy density that allows this perfect relationship between all EEPs and the space that they occupy. Next let us take an energy density of space that has too many EEPs to allow them each to fully expand and contract in their own sufficient space, but that does not cause them all to be locked so that they can never expand at all. They are only compressed to some degree and go on pulsing with only minor inconvenience. Just to define that landscape in the most general parameters, this would be termed a high energy density of space that causes there to be some degree of compression at all times. The term compression means that none of the EEPs can fully expand, and before they can fully contract their space is intruded upon by an adjacent EEP and they can never fully contract without intrusion. They are slightly compressed. Up to this point we have discussed five different energy densities of space: One EEP alone in space, so many EEPs that they can only exist if they are locked in their contracted position, a low energy density environment, the ideal energy density of space, and a moderately high energy density of space. I think the universe, the greater universe in the ISU, has a high energy density on that scale. And I think that the universe has always existed and has always had this high energy density. High energy density forces matter to exist. The proportion of matter to energy density of space is determined by how high the average energy density of the greater universe is. The matter that exists is made up of the excess EEPs over and above the ideal background of perfectly "equalized energy density" described above. Last edited by Bogie; 14-May-2007 at 05:20 PM.. Reason: Phrasing |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the ISU idea, what is the equation relating the acceleration of photons to "gravity"? If photons "can be accelerated by gravity", then your idea requires replacing (or trashing) the theory of Relativity (both Special and General), right? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Certainly not by the mechanism you summarise here! You need to get it published, in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ... and that would be just the first step in your idea becoming mainstream. |
|
|||
|
It seems you've sorta covered gravity, in this thread, and along the way electromagnetism crept in, via your speculations on the charge of an EEP.
Let's see if you've actually covered electromagnetism, in a semi-classical way ... What, in the ISU/EEP idea, is a photon? How, in the ISU/EEP idea, does electromagnetism 'work'? As in, is it a force? (if so, how does it arise, what are its fundamental characteristics?) If not, what is it? For gravity, what is its speed of propagation, in the ISU/EEP idea? Which of the relevant equivalence principles, at the heart of GR, does the ISU/EEP idea say are wrong (or need re-stating)? Going a bit further, perhaps beyond the scope of this thread, what are the weak and strong (nuclear) forces, in the ISU/EEP idea? In particular, how many EEPs to a neutrino? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Photon mass is a discussion that has to take place. The only place that I mention it is where you picked up the quote from my earlier post. But in the ISU, anything that forms from the energy density of space is denser than the energy density of the space from which it forms. Therefore anything that travels through the energy density of space will follow the energy density fluctuations (low energy density caused by mass). That includes photons. However photons differ in that they don’t exert gravity themselves like other mass that is composed of atoms. It is the electron/proton relationship that is responsible for gravity and the photon does not have that relationship. Therefore mass is accelerated in a gravitational field because mass is both affected by and exerts gravity. A photon is affected by a gravitation field because a gravitational field is a low energy density fluctuation surrounding mass that causes the path of photons to follow it like “curved” space, but photons do not contribute any curvature themselves and so they pass through the gravitational well in a straighter path. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
.That post was to demonstrate that I was not getting and responses and I was pretending that in the abscence of responses my content must be OK. I was kidding. |
|
|||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is an energy density differential caused by the formation of the proton. The formation of the proton occurs as EEPs become synchronized and join together to pulse alternatively. When they become synchronized there is space vacated that causes an energy density differential between the vacated space and the energy density of the surrounding background. That differential still exists when the proton has completed forming and is the reason why EEPs swarm the proton. The swarming results in the formation of an electron which I predict has a one for one relationship between the number of EEPs in the electron and the number of EEPs on the surface of the proton. That energy differential is what holds the electron to the proton. I haven't tried to analyze that in regard to weak and strong (nuclear) forces. I also have not built atoms bigger that hydrogen using the bottom up approach. Quote:
Neutrinos probably form from the collapse of the first hydrogen stars but I have not gotten that far in my bottom up approach. Right now, where I stand in the bottom up approach is at the point that the young new matter is heating up from the proton emissions due to gravity, i.e. the photons that are emitted by atoms perpetuate the low energy density surrounding mass. Gravity is the response of mass to the low energy density surrounding mass. Mass tends to move toward the low energy density path through space. The lowest energy density path is a straigh line between masses. This tends to cause mass to move into the gravitational wells of other mass. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Are you joking now too? I mean, take a look at this Bogie post, from earlier in this thread (my bold): Quote:
In particular, in this phrase, what is the meaning of "electrical charge"? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In particular, how many EEPs go to make up a positron? What happens in (electron-positron) pair production (according to the ISU/EEP idea)? What happens in electron-positron annihilation (in thie ISU/EEP idea)? In the ISU/EEP idea, can photons be emitted by positrons? by protons? |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU You can see I was kidding about declaring it mainstream; the joke being as if just by saying it, that made it so. That is what I was kidding about. Quote:
Quote:
Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential? Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
My description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity takes place in a very low energy environment. Positrons are the product of high energy physics that I have not addressed in my posts.
Quote:
I did say that the electron at rest contains 381,239,356 EEPs. I don’t know if it is possible to have a positron are rest, is it? I’m not sure of how your positrons are created put I think you are talking about producing them in high energy experiments. I haven’t addressed high energy physics in my posts. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
1) your post, which I quoted, intended to make 'gravity as (electrical) current' an analogy (despite what you actually wrote in it)? 2) In the ISU/EEP idea, there is no relationship between photons and electrical charge? 3) introducing calculations of the charge on an EEP, in that post, was not intended to have any relevance to 'gravity as a current' (other than that both involve some kind of 'flow')? 4) Other than 'flow', from some kind of higher (density) region (or state?) to a lower one, in what respect(s) is it legitimate to use the 'gravity as current' analogy? For example, charge carriers (both positive and negative)? generation of gravitational radiation (due to accelerating charges)? existence of a 'gravitomagnetic' force (due to special relativistic 'frames of reference')? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
They are generated naturally, in some radioactive decays, and in relatively modest energy particle collisions (the rest mass of the positron is the same as that of the electron). In this respect, your "description of the formation of the hydrogen atom and the generation of photons as part of the flow of gravity" is equally applicable to positrons (and anti-protons and anti-hydrogen); the energies are the same. Quote:
So, an obvious question, from what you've posted so far: why isn't the universe filled with equal quantities of hydrogen and anti-hydrogen, given what you have written so far in this thread? |
|
||||
|
To Nereid regarding merging ISU threads
I'm not saying we should do this but I want to know if it would be possible to merge the two active ISU threads into one new thread called "Combining the new ISU content threads" and close the two existing threads? I would answer the existing questions in the new thread. If so, then let's discuss the 30 day clock. Could it be reset to 30 days to allow for us to work out wording on the possibilities that the ISU says would impact the mainstream, and to specify what degree of responsible speculation that I can claim in regard to those possibilities? Such a thread would organize and present in one place the central ideas of the ISU and the EEP, give a qualitative narrative that encompasses the ISU/EEP concept, offer my rudimentary quantification of the EEP with comments pointing out the shortcomings of that quantification, and offer the aspects of the EEP that may be testable. Included in that narrative would be an acknowledgement on my part of the lack of concrete content that is needed to determine the merit of the ideas, but also containing a statement that fairly presents to the community the role of individual's ideas like the ISU/EEP in the process of advancing science. Such a statement would highlight that those ideas would be advanced by the scientific community only if the community thinks they have merit. Any such advancement that may occur is a future event and we can't say that it will or it will not occur, but that the scientific community will determine that over time. This would wrap up the ISU to date. I would only propose new threads that advance the quantitative aspects of the bottom up approach related to the EEP. When I have quantitative content to add I might include a minor amount of qualitative wording intended to state what could be called “responsible speculation” for consideration by the scientific community directly related to the new quantitative content. No flowery narratives. |
|
|||
|
Quick reply: the '30-day clock' is relentless ... as I understand it, it's a mindless app which, daily, checks ATM threads and if it finds any >30 days' old, closes them.
AFAIK, there is no 'manual over-ride'; certainly there are no 'mod tools' (that I know of) which can do anything about it ... so for that, please send Fraser a PM. If you (still) wish this, and the other ISU ATM thread, to be closed, then just ask a mod (via PM) and it shall be done. For myself, I'd like to see an answer to my questions concerning the extent to which the 'gravity as current' analogy was intended to be taken (not far, I guess), and also why positrons (and anti-protons) couldn't be treated in the same way as electrons (and protons), in your 'bottom up' construction ... |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||||
|
Quote:
“Am I wrong to make a comparison between an electrical current and the flow of EEPs that is due to an energy density differential?” Now let’s pause here a moment. Can I assume that you did not want to get into a discussion; otherwise you would have answered that question? Is there something wrong from your perspective about answering a direct question from me that is related to your post? You have done the same thing before and I just don't understand your approach. Quote:
In the post that you refer to I said, “Gravity is the flow of EEPs from the energy density of space, through the atom and out as photons.” This was bottom up content that was not just stuck out there. It was developed in sequential fashion using the bottom up approach, not out of the blue. Then I said, “This is like an electrical current flowing from the energy density of space, through the atom and out of the atom in the form of photons. The atom generates this current”. The use of the word current was continuing the analogy, not a proclamation that gravity was electromagnetism. In the bottom up approach, it is what it is. The bottom up approach is unassuming as to how the logical sequence compares to the mainstream . Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Let me go over it: The expansion of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space (EDS) that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining. The combing of EEPs occurs when they become synchronized. Synchronization is achieved when a fully contracted EEP finds itself adjacent to a fully expanded EEP, a condition that can not occur when EEP overlap is too high. Synchronized EEPs are merged into the same space, one expanding in that space while one contracts from that space, held together by their tiny individual energy density fluctuations as they pulse in alternate phases. Synchronization causes a migration from chaos to order. As more synchronization occurs, the more orderly becomes the use of space by synchronized EEPs. Space is thus freed up or vacated by the jostling that results in synchronized groupings of EEPs. Vacated space causes an energy density differential between that empty space and the EEPs that make up the energy density of the surrounding space. In fact empty space is the ultimate energy density differential and EEPs swarm to fill it even at the lowest ranges of EDS. This means that individual EEPs from the background are squeezing into the vacated space which provides the synchronized grouping of EEPs continual access to unsynchronized EEPs and the synchronized group grows as each niche is filled by a willing EEP pressed in by the “weight” of the swarming EEPs. The proton is the first stable particle that forms from this grouping process. The swarming of the proton continues as it is still surrounded by this zone of vacated space perpetuated as EEPs are taken up into the forming proton. Once the stable proton exists the swarm surrounding it forms an electron, a concentrated cloud of EEPs still attempting to find a niche in the proton but rejected by the proton and captured in the protons vacated space. The rejected EEPs overfill the vacated space and are forced to slough off some of the excess energy back into and against the flow of the swarm. The excess energy builds up until the pressure in the swarm exceeds the “weight” of the swarm and a packet of EEPs is forced from the cloud in a discrete packet of EEPs called a photon. The force of the ejection from the electron causes the proton to travel at the speed of light attesting to the huge potential of the energy differential caused by the tiny zone of vacated space surrounding the proton at the instant that it stabilized. This process of matter formation causes hydrogen to form abundantly and almost simultaneously across the entire expanse making a homogeneous and isotropic environment of hydrogen atoms across the entire expanse. There you have it again. No anti-hydrogen to be found in the early stage of matter formation in the bottom up approach. I did go on the make my first estimates of the size and energy of the EEP after this sequential development in the bottom up process. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
In post #26 of this thread, you wrote (my bold): "Understanding the infinite reach of gravity as a flow of electrical current:" (Note: no "like" in this statement) "This makes gravity an electrical current that has an infinite reach across space that contains energy density in the form of EEPs, i.e. all space." (Note: no "like" in this statement) You concluded the post as follows: "My only way out is for you to embarrass me with the obvious that I have missed in this bottom up process of trying to understand the universe." Your entire presentation, of the ISU/EEP idea, is done with only words - not a number*, equation, any math, etc in sight. Ergo, the only thing what any outsider can use to address your idea is the actual words - whether salad or not - that you wrote. For avoidance of doubt, I freely acknowledge that I may not have understood the words you actually wrote. I have already stated that, perhaps, you had intended to present an ATM idea in which 'gravity as (electrical) current' is merely an analogy. Nonetheless, I would like some clarification. *With the exception of the number of EEPs per electron, and the charge per EEP. |
|
||||||||||
|
Quote:
In the ISU/EEP idea, how does anti-matter contribute to "the energy density of space"? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
E.g. by time, by density, by energy (scale). Quote:
Quote:
How is it that the this first stable particle is not the electron? the positron? the electron neutrino? the photon? the electron anti-neutrino? the muon neutrino? the muon anti-neutrino? the muon? the anti-muon? and so on ... After all, these are all "stable" (apart from the last two). Perhaps the disconnect is "stable": what does this mean, in the ISU/EEP idea? Quote:
Quote:
There is nothing - that I can see - in your word salad that explains why anti-hydrogen should not be as abundant and hydrogen ... Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
I do find I am embarrassed but not becase you have embarrassed me with the obvious that I have missed in this bottom up process of trying to understand the universe, but because I actaully said that to get some response, any response. It was a post that was "way out there", a challenge intended to get someone to acknowledge that I had even made a post. Funny how things come back around. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don’t know why those particles can exist in the high energy environment and not in the low energy environment where I am working. Obviously they can exist at high energy environments and I bet that they are themselves composed of EEPs. This process will take time. Working alone I predict that I will never accomplish anything the I am sure of at the high energy level until I have worked out a few missing details (that is an understatement meant to be humorous).The positron and all anti-particles are products of moderately high, as you say, energy physics. Yes they can appear naturally as products of stars, star collapse, novas, etc. That is part of the ISU nucleosynthesis that I plan to address in the coming years. But those are moderate to high energy circumstances. Let’s say that when you smash a proton at high energy it breaks into semi-stable pieces that form the internal structure of the proton. That internal structure was never separate stable particles before that as far as I know, and the components of that internal structure are not stable in and of themselves when released at high energy, but because the proton formed initially under remote and inconclusive circumstances from which we can only and must conclude were very sound construction techniques, we can say that in low energy environment, far removed from the high energy circumstances that can smash a proton, the proton is almost indestructible and proton decay in such and environment is the rarest of events if they decay at all. But when smashed why wouldn’t there be semi-stable particles that may survive the collision and exist on their own for a finite period of time. Why wouldn’t those surviving particles exhibit relative movement to each other, some spinning one way, others spinning in other ways, a sort of repeatable chaos with similar results each time? If we were able to repeat the high energy experiments and see similar results then we would conclude that there were internal components to the proton that were instrumental in the initial formation of the proton. Only those components don’t exist in the low energy environment and the proton seems indestructible in that same environment. Quote:
Quote:
It is not practical to think of a universe containing one EEP, but if there was just one, would it expand forever as its tiny quantum amount of energy spread thinner and thinner or would it simply expand and contract by itself in empty space? I think it would be the latter. If so would each expansion be fulfilling some finite relationship as to full expansion and each contraction reaching some limit as to its own internal density, a self-contained tiny quantum increment of pulsing energy? I think so, and I think that the full expansion and full contraction would have specific limits and would define the space that one EEP could occupy if allowed to fully expand and contract. If so we could assign a constant to the fully expanded size and a constant to the fully contracted size, and assign a function to the pulsing by using a time factor for each full pulse cycle. I am not there yet. It is just as impractical to think of a universe containing so many EEPs that they could not expand at all. They would be locked in their contracted state and could never have enough space to expand. Even if while in the locked state they had potential to expand they would have no space to expand in. The value of that potential would eventually be derived from the math of the pulsing EEP if it could be quantified, and I think it can be but I am not there yet either. Each of the above two cases is an extreme of energy density. One EEP expanding and contracting may only need a tiny amount of empty space to exist and fully pulse representing the lowest possible energy density, while a universe of fully locked EEPs that could not expand at all would have the highest possible energy density. Both extremes are impossibilities but they mark off the theoretical limits of the energy density of space. Energy density of space is the number of EEPs divided by the volume of space that they occupy. But matter cannot form when the energy density is too high. The expanding energy density starts out too high for matter to from. The expansion of the energy density continues until the ideal energy density for matter formation is achieved. This is the energy density of space (EDS) that allows the individual EEPs to sufficiently express their expansion and contraction. Sufficient pulsing results in an energy environment that favors EEP combining. I can’t quantify that density but I think I will be able to eventually. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Bogie; 18-May-2007 at 03:42 AM.. |
|
|||
|
Bogie, neither the positron nor the anti-proton decays ... in terms of your definitions, they are as stable as the proton (or electron, or photon).
Both particles exist "in low energy conditions" ... as do the electron anti-neutrino, the electron neutrino, the muon anti-neutrino, the muon neutrino, the tau neutrino, the tau anti-neutrino, the photon, ... As far as I can tell, from what you have written, there is nothing to prevent any of these (non-electron, non-proton) particles forming ... in particular, there is nothing in "[t]he sequence [you] related" which seems to preclude any of these other particles being "the first particle". What did I miss? What compelling reason (other than that you haven't looked at positrons and anti-protons yet) is there, in the ISU/EEP idea, for "the first particle" to not be the anti-proton? |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Yet, in the ISU/EEP idea, "high energy physics [is] not available during [the] initial matter formation period". Wrt the timeline of any Big Bang theory (a.k.a. LCDM cosmology), when was this "initial matter formation period"? From your bottom-up analysis, when did neutrinos (and anti-neutrinos) form? How were they able to form without "high energy physics"? Quote:
What about neutrinos? anti-neutrinos? What is "the proper level"? What does "almost", in "almost simultaneously", mean? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Or perhaps you mean that they are produced here on Earth in cloud chambers, but wait, don’t you need a cosmic ray or an accelerator. Oh oh, aren’t those pesky cosmic rays from outer space. What could their source be …? Maybe stars? Well maybe if the star collapses or explodes or collides with another star or … but wait, aren’t those high energy events? Well yeah, maybe that is why bogie keeps mentioning it. Quote:
If it was the proton then my bottom up has formed a proton. If it was an anti-proton then my bottom up has formed an anti-proton. I can’t tell them apart if there exists only one of the two types can I? But which ever type they are, the other type is now where to be found until high energy physics occur. I call them protons because in your lingo, the anti-proton is the product of high energy physics and so wouldn’t it be odd if I thought that they we anti-protons? The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU I did mention this in post #12: Protons consist of smaller particles and there is no proton constituent that is stable enough to exist by itself in nature until you get to the unifying particle itself. Any proton constituents that might be extracted under high energy from the proton are themselves composed of unifying particles. The possible configurations of unstable groupings of EEPs that might never-the-less always appear in high energy experiments does not mean that they appear naturally in a low energy environment. The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU The link above is to a post that gives my version of the proton formation. That post and the one before it really answer a lot of questions, and I’m sure they raise a lot of questions. Take a look. The infinite reach of gravity in the ISU This post got into some detail that explains more of my thinking. All in all, the proton has to be the first bottom up particle any way I think it, even after you have encouraged me to look at many alternative possibilities. The answer always seems to point to the proton first, then the electron, then the photons, then the hydrogen stars and then the high energy particles; then thermalization and the CMBR, then heavier slower burning stars from the “dust” of the dead hydrogen stars, then galactic structure. I know this is not the BBT nucleosynthesis and that is why I refer to it as ISU nucleosynthesis. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ATM gravity and EU Sun | upriver | Against the Mainstream | 41 | 14-April-2007 11:09 PM |
| Is the Earth growing? | EvilEye | Against the Mainstream | 158 | 30-March-2007 09:39 AM |
| Grasping Gravity? | dgavin | Against the Mainstream | 34 | 04-August-2005 04:39 PM |
| WHAT IS GRAVITY? | Rolf Guthmann | Against the Mainstream | 0 | 29-July-2005 03:21 PM |
| Dark Matter & Quantum Gravity | Lunatik | Against the Mainstream | 39 | 03-March-2004 06:17 PM |