Sorry that my response was unclear to you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Along with the other open questions from everyone else, maybe you could explain exactly what you meant by the quote above?

We already gave you our best support, we told you to stop making up stuff and to go study. You promised you will do it, what changed?

energy + p → n + e+ + νe

I think this works both ways.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Nothing, I was just answering questions. It just seems like everyone wants to shut me up. I feel kind of like a jilted girlfriend thats been used and then discarded..

I plan on continuing my education in math and physics asap, but I know everything I've said isnt Gobbledegook.. It doesnt hurt to keep thinking.

In any case, Im done. I cant prove anything yet so I'll have to leave it at that until I can, or until I'm proven wrong. If I have it wrong I'll be the first to admit it, but I dont think I'm wrong, just non specific... Thanks for your feedback..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

You may not realize it but it is.

coliver...read my post # 120 again.

If I have it wrong I'll be the first to admit it, but I dont think I'm wrong, just non specific

Here's the problem...you don't admit when you've been shown wrong, OR you think that everytime someone, including me, is showing you something, that they must be wrong, and you are still right.

Do you think you are still right about CR's???

but I dont think I'm wrong, just non specific

And, in post #120, and the PM, I told you about the generic 'true statement' and then your 'getting specific' being the "Wrong Part"!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

It is literally unintelligible to competent physicists who are well versed in the subject matter, so yes, it is of course gobbledegook.

As has been pointed out before, what you write has so far ether been wrong, or unintelligible. You have posted virtually nothing which is correct physics, and don't understand even the basics, such as what the elementary particles are, and what they do.

Sadly, coliver, nearly everything you've posted is complete nonsense, utter drivel. It is certainly true that it doesn't hurt to keep thinking, but you have to start first!

Since you seem to like analogies, here's one I've used before: Your postings are like someone whose only medical knowledge comes from watching Grey's Anatomy, bursting into an O.R. full of neurosurgeons, and declaring, "Hey, you guys got it all wrong. Quit stirring up that gooshy stuff on the left hemmysfear." Wouldn't that rightly provoke a strong, negative response? I mean, not even using proper terminology, and not taking the care to spell things right? Why would the neurosurgeons take this person seriously?

You display the typical confidence of an ignorant person. It's easy to believe you're right if you don't know very much. Once you hit the books, you'll discover that the universe of ideas is vastly greater than you've known, and that your own ideas are seriously, painfully "not even wrong" if they're not just out-and-out wrong.

So you can cut and paste a bit of stuff from wikipedia. Stuff that is "mainstream" Thus I point out, once again, that your idea isn't adding anything to science. You just keep saying your idea produces answers that are consistent with what we already observe but you don't provide any maths, or anything else, to your idea so someone else can independently verify its claims or even make predictions from it.

Your understanding of the universe we live in is very flawed thus trying to tell us how the universe "really works" is akin to you telling a surgeon to operate on a patient based on the picture I provided. It won't amount to anything good.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favour...go learn about the science you are trying to overthrow. Feel free to use the Q&A forum when you have questions.

coliver. That's wrong, too. Should be an electron-type antineutrino at the end. You are not the first to suggest neutrino sea/Higg's correlations either.
You need at least a few years of physics courses to speak sensibly about cosmology at the level of the general public readership, and more like seven years to write a paper for a journal. You might get to the level to condense technical work to your local newspaper science column fairly quickly. Good luck. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Thanks pete, at least its on the right track. I didnt know how to write it correctly. Its like being in a foreign country and not speaking the language I guess..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

ok so its the CRs then, I'm just mixing up the nuclear with the photon stuff. CRs do split off by charge when entering Earths magnetic field. Or else the guy on the science channel is lying? If this guy Millikan is correct then cRs are photons, just high energy ones?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Oh for Pete's sake, can you just put the keyboard away until you learn something? You can't even read the quote that you provide? You can't even spend a few milliseconds to read about what CRs consist of?

"This guy Millikan" is dead.

I'm not trying to overthrow anything. Dont be mad, I was only kidding.. You stuck the picture up there...

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

ok, Im off to the library.. Didnt see the Hess part.. I know its high energy radiation left over from stars and corresponds to every element on earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

bye..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

My bold for reference. Did you mean protons? I could have made that kind of mixup by means of sloppy typing, which I do all the time when I try to go too fast, so I proofread in a preview before submitting a reply.

If I am not mistaken, most of what we call cosmic rays are protons moving near the speed of light. They are charged, and they do follow curved paths in magnetic fields.

No Hornblower, that would be an easy out but in all honesty I just made a stupid and totally irrelevant post.. As far as the Protons, yes as I understand it CRs are charged particles or Protons, as well as some Electrons? That are left over from star nucleosynthesis. And my statement was that (The protons are split off from the electrons when they enter the magnetic field) , at least thats what I understood from the Science channel program that I watched. There are two different processes going on that I keep mixing and that is my mistake. As Trinitree pointed out, and as far as the ideas presented here it is the theorized Higgs/neutrino sea and its possible relationship to Beta particles or decay that is the proposed mechanism involved with CRs , and an ionization process occuring with the Photons. I think thats correct.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

This is a surprisingly popular hypothesis in ATM. Sadly it is easily shown to be incorrect. The acceleration due to the force between the Sun and the planets can be shown to be proportional to 1/r², where r is the distance between the Sun and the planet. If the force was due to the interaction between two magnetic dipoles, then not only would the force be proportional to 1/r⁴ instead, but it would depend on the strength of the planetary magnetic dipole (which is not proportional to the planetary mass.)

In essence, your model is a non-starter.

They have all been, I'm afraid. You should do what you promised, and go and learn some physics before you try to educate the rest of us in it.

What about the centrifugal force or pressures that a spinning galaxy would create if it were in an ocean of say neutrinos? In addition to magnetic forces. Wouldnt that alter the equation?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Haha good one Northernboy, ... Actually I intend to, as suggested. I really cant put up much of an argument if I dont know what the mainstream thinking is. I have an experiment in mind that may speed things up a bit, if it is successful. You'll be the first to know...

The ideas I've been presenting arent that far from mainstream ideas anyway, other than the magnetic fields that Im not 100% sure on to begin with. I do believe that galaxies are being created in voids because they are void of matter or planetary influences, and that something other than gravity is at least partially responsible for planetary orbit (which is not mainstream at the moment, but I think soon may be). I also believe that at least one other dimension exists that is timed slightly different than our own, which follows mainstream thinking by some at least? But mainly I believe that light is the key to finding out how it all works. It is the mother of everything including ourselves...

Like you said, I dont get to start off by saying that magnetic fields are responsible for things or that a neutrino sea exists or doesnt. i'll have to take it one step at a time until I can show it without a doubt...

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

This is a "fictional" force that only exists if you try to pretend that a non-inertial reference system is an inertial one. This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Why would it modify the force to exactly cancel the effect of your proposed magnetic interaction, and leave a residual force that was proportional to the planetary masses and also inversely proportional to the square of the distance?

You may as well propose that gravity is due to the motion of space bats.

When I really think about it I should be including the force of gravity as a separate force in my model. Since SR is valid then gravity (spacetime curvature) should be too. See I learned something already.. Gravity is being moved to the valid column. The way I'm visualizing this in my mind is in layers, or perhaps intertwined. The nuetrino sea is displaced as mass moves through it but so is spacetime. A particle can only take up one space at one TIME whether its a particle or an anti-particle. The anti's or neutrinos? would fill in the space as mass was removed from it. If Newtonian physics were valid then perhaps an interaction between the charges of the anti's and neutrinos vs mass might create gravity? I dont know if that would make sense or not? I'm more inclined to go with SR and spacetime curvature.

It should work the same as in any ocean, as far as buoyancy, pressures etc.. Helium rises because it is lighter and less dense. And say the way a ship displaces water would be similiar to to the displacement of the neutrinos.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

I think I know why galaxies are being created in the voids between other galaxies. It seems to be thermonuclear activity? In areas void of matter or gravity the opposing weak force is more easily overcome. Compression occurs and boom GRBs.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

No, you didn't. In relativity, there is no such thing as "force of gravity". You really need to keep your promise and go study.

No, it's Planck-scale nanognomes.

Sheesh.

Planck-scale doesnt exist.. The nanognomes however might be a good call?..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Can anyone explain spin to me? In a simple way that I can understand? No jokes.. I dont really understand what is meant by spin? I know its the angle of rotation but what significance does it have concerning fermions or baryons etc..? And why is one not compatible with another?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

One new thing I've figured out as far as elements is that the frequency of radiation that it was created by and the elements density is directly related to how quickly it bleeds its energy off over its half life. We should be able to create any element with the proper temperature and frequency of EM radiation? We're already creating mini stars with light. The more radioactive the frequency combined with a less compressed density = the faster it bleeds its energy.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

It may not be called a force but relativity does specify that gravity's effects are due to spacetime curvature if Im not mistaken? Am I wrong on this?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009