Since I may never be able to publish a paper acknowledging my ideas or theories because of my lack of educational background or scientific status. I've decided to post the rest of my theory as a follow up to my prior posts. This will be my last thread on this board until I acquire the knowledge and credentials to do so or I kick the bucket whichever comes first. And since I'm disabled and have emphysema probably the latter.. In any case if my ideas prove to be correct then it comforts me to know that I posted them here today and before anyone else on the planet. I may not have it worded correctly, and there are still unanswered questions but I believe wholeheartedly that time will show that I am correct or very close to it. If its proven that Baryogenesis does begin in ongoing High Energy Gamma Radiation Events then this is my Quantum theory in relationship.

Cosmic Rays, Photons and the Magnetic Dipole of the Nuetron

Initially I kept asking myself was it the Photon or Cosmic Rays that were providing the energy required to alter the atom. I finally came to the realization.

Its not Photons or Cosmic Rays that provide the energy to change atomic structure, ITS BOTH!. Or perhaps, the combination of the two.

We live a sea of Nuetrinos. Particularly on Earth between two negative charges. The Higgs Field is actually made up of nuetrinos and anti-nuetrinos as hypothesized in my previous discussions. When the High Energy Collisions of Cosmic Rays ( Leftover from the Heavier Element Producing Stars and carrying mostly Protons) collide with particles within Earths magnetic field they split off to either the nuetrino or the anti-nuetrino, providing charge to both sides. And leading to a buildup at both of Earths poles. Pos and Neg. At the same time photons unaffected by the field bombard the same particles and the frequencies or wavelengths interact with the quarks or specifically the magnetic dipole of the Nuetron. This dipole moment allows the electrons previously built up in the nuetrinos aka (Higgs Field) by the Cosmic Rays to gravitate across the field via gravitons to the atom. Basically Feynmans QED. The Muons taus etc , work as some kind of a primary/secondary delta transformer or as a receptor to the photons oscillating frequencies. Still not sure exactly how that works. Perhaps separating the higher evs of the CR from the lower photon evs? It has to do with the loops. I believe it is converting the high energy Cosmic Rays that impact on our side (not the ANTI- virtual side) stepping them down to lower ev energies?

The frequency or wavelength of the bombarding photon determines how much ev is produced and as such how many electrons are allowed into orbit around the nucleus. As for Elements or Mass that were produced prior during Nuclear Star Synthesis, the amount of energy intake by them is dependent on the wavelengths and the absoption rate of the element. The amount of mev being produced now is much less than in Earths past as it is the leftover energy from our stellar creation. Radiation is natural decay between the positive energy of Mass and the surrounding magnetic field. Tighter bound heavier compositions lose energy across the fields at a slower rate. Biological and Chemical elements are what is being created by the lower evs.

There is a separation of energies coming in to the field that seem to recombine I believe it to be the Electrical and Magnetic forces separating in space then recombining within Earths magnetic field.

Thats all I know at this point. But I will add this...

I truly believe that many of the theories that science has relied on have not been entirely accurate. Some may be overturned in this century and some that were discarded in error may be found valid. Hopefully my ideas( if proven correct) will be helpful to the next century and they will get it right. And if Im wrong then at least I tried.

PS Im opening up my diagram to the public which shows a basic diagram of what s being proposed. Its not entirely accurate but it should be self evident.

ev=Electron Volt

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

What are cosmic rays, according to you, in this context?

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Various particles left over from Stellar Nucleosynthesis, or the Sun, primarily Protons. Most likely the secondary Cosmic Ray particles however one of my quandarys was if the primary and secondary particles are somehow separated or stepped down at the quark level. Another idea was that the kinetic energy somehow altered the isospin. Im not a particle physicist so when it gets to that level I may be off somewhat. However the general theory I believe to be sound. I dont really believe its the Cosmic Rays that alter the atom in any way, they only provide Protons and some Electrons to the nuetrino and anti-neutrino. The dipole moment is what pulls them through the field later. They just build up on both of Earths magnetic poles. I guess it would be the virtual particle and the real particle. A mirror image. We (positively charged mass) live between two negative charges,the earths groundstate and the nuetrinos that surround us. The assumption is that the Higgs Field is actually the nuetrino pairs. My diagram should make it a little more clear? Im pretty sure its just the Photon that switches the Nuetrons quarks creating a magnetic momemt to draw the awaiting charges through the field via gravitons. They work together, the Photons unaffected by the field.

__________________
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 not a total bar to getting published, except insofar as few people without a physics education understand the subject well enough to advance it.

Getting published need not be like getting a job, in that there are not necessarily strict entry requirements.

If you do want to make a difference, though, in the world of physics, why not just get a good degree in the subject en route to rewriting the rules?

After all, the lack of education that you mention also means that you may well have fundamental misunderstandings that you should iron our first.

Thats true Northernboy but problem is at my age of 50 and in my state of health which is deteriorating to say the least, I doubt I will have time to reach a level of full understanding of mainstream physics. However I do know that the observations that I have noted for many years point to the ideas expressed.

According to what Ive seen so far mainstream science isnt wrong , its just not completely accurate. Hoyle was right, Gamov may have been wrong, and the standard model is very close to the truth, but so is QED. The Higgs field is nuetrinos, the space surrounding us. There is no Higgs Boson because its an anti-nuetrino. Everything has an anti because there is a flip side to every particle. Earth changes its polarity every so often because of the buildup of charges at the poles I mentioned. The strong/weak forces are simply the Magnetic and Electrical forces. Energy is struggling to maintain its composition while magnetic forces are trying to pull it apart. Radiation is the natural decay of energy slowly being pulled off by the magnetic forces. The heavier the element the slower the decay. Nuclear processes are a speeding up of that natural decay. Chemical compounds and biological organisms are created by an electrolysis or photovoltaic processes. Ionization that is orchestrated by the ideas presented.

Now thats a lot of ATM isnt it? And it might take years to examine. But I firmly believe its whats happening. SMBH are created when the pure energies from both collide. Violent collisions that eventually build galaxies. After everything has cooled the energies are nowhere near what they were and that is why life has evolved. When life was able to store energy and overcome the magnetic forces working against it, it existed, and thats where we are now. In a moment.

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

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

I found this on Geomagnetic reversal interesting , magnetic lines were recorded on the ocean floor etc..

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

Can you show us, in appropriate mathematical detail, why you think any of this explains the observed phenomena better than does the mainstream body of theory?

I'm afraid that neutrinos do not couple to mass as the Higgs needs to do, so it is not possible that the Higgs is an anti-neutrino.

Another very important difference is that the Higgs, as its full name implies, is a Boson, with integer spin, whereas the antineutrino is a Fermion, with spin of 1/2. These two types of particles obey fundamentally different statistics, and so cannot be mistaken for one another.

As to your contention that every particle has an antiparticle, this is also incorrect. Some particles are their own antiparticle, such as the Z, or the photon.

Next, you have the details on nuclear decay incorrect. It is simply not true to say that heavier the element, the slower the decay. Tritium has a half-life of around 4,500 days, whereas Protactinuim 234 has a half-life of around 70 seconds.

Unfortunately, without having studied the subject, your work is going to be so peppered through with these basic errors that anything that you try to derive from your current understanding is likely to be worthless.

What I don't understand is, given that you know that your knowledge of the subject is so poor, why are you so convinced that your ideas are correct? Most people with no education in physics will understand that they need to learn. You, though, seem to believe that your intuition trumps actual knowledge.

If your time left on earth is indeed short, it is sad to see you wasting it on such an ill-informed flight of fancy.

I didnt say they coupled to the mass, I said they use the gravitons to transfer the charges (electrons) through the field.

Then its the spin that separates the two sides or mirror image. The anti-nuetrinos just separate the charge as it comes in to one side or the other. A virtual particle only exists for a few seconds because it goes to the other side. Something like that. I said it wasnt perfect and as I stated in the beginning I dont know ALL the answers but I know Im right, or at least pretty darn close..

I agree, I thought about that and the best answer I came up with was that it doesnt have to do with the magnetic force but rather the elements original creation in Stars long ago. The compression that they went through is what bleeds off and not the energy from the cosmic rays/photons mentioned. Other than biological organisms and chemical processes not much is happening now. The elements are not still be created on earth, they only reflect or absorb fractions of energy.

Its like the energies we recieve now are just the leftover fallout from the processes that made our galaxy in the first place. When I talk about the photon ionization, its taking place a very small voltages mev.

Take a look at Feynmans diagram and then compare it to a Delta wye transformer schematic, the similiarities are striking. A Delta wye transformer steps down primary voltages to a secondary lower voltage. Cosmic Rays are both Primary and Secondary. Mainstream is full of positive and negative charges why is it so hard to believe that electricity and magnetism are not involved? Look at nature. Thunderstorms and Lightning, Electro-Chemical processes, Magnetic Poles. How can it NOT be involved?

My heater malfunctioned a couple of nights ago, the cord just flashed and started emitting a bright white flash and I could hear that loud humm it makes when a transformer is ready to blow. Then it sizzled and fried the cord. Where does that energy come from? A little mini GRB under my desk.. It comes from converting kinetic energy at a dam or drawing off the stored energy from nuclear materials etc.
My point is that energy doesnt die, its just converted into another form right?

__________________
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 the answers is: inside every single star you see at night (and our one, that you see in the day).

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Hornblower, you know I dont have the mathematical ability to do that. I've stated that many times including my initial post. The reason I believe my ideas are right so strongly is not that I think I know everything. And Im not suggesting mainstream throw out everything they know in favor of my ideas.

All Im saying is to take a look at the possibility that wrong turns may have been made and examine the ideas. Their just observations that have taken place and have been noted for many years that actually correllate to many current theories. My grandfather was an inventor, scientist and electrician and wrote a book on the subject of light and electricity in relationship to the atom many years ago. I have just continued his research to examine its truth. Being an electrician and electrical tech myself for many years combined with my perhaps inherited love for science , it has just been a natural journey of discovery for me. What I have found along the way has intrigued me to dig deeper. I've always been an inventor, and a deep thinker. I came up with the idea to track missing children with the GPS long before the companies that are doing so now. I just didnt have the money to patent the idea at the time. Everyone that knows me will tell you I have a wisdom that books dont give you. I cant explain why I know things but I do. If I had the formal education and mathematical ability I'd probably be in the company of so many that I admire... We are only what we are taught, our beliefs are tied to what we have learned. And once an opinion is formed its very hard to dislodge. But I truly believe its the ones who go beyond what they have been taught that change history.

I dont claim to know the secrets of the universe, I can only express my thoughts and hope that they may lead the way. The reason everyones stuck right now is because it cant work in its current form. But from what I see its not far off, their just not looking at the right forces. If its all gobbledegook then my bad, but IF Im right then science can get back on track and put their mistakes behind them...

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

I meant on Earth...

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

And where do you think the elements "on" Earth came from? The stars.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

But they arent being made on Earth at present are they? I was just saying that the elements that are here on earth were formed in stars eons ago or by our star the sun, and that the processes going on now are much lower energy processes facilitated by the CRs and the Photons that are still bombarding Earth. The idea is that the Crs are being separated upon entering Earths magnetic field by charge to either the neutrino or anti-neutrino then pulled back through the field later via gravitons. The Photons wavelengths being unaffected by the magnetic field switches the dipole in the nuetron via QED basically and according to its frequency, certain conditions related to temperature/pressure etc.. The reverse polarity (dipole moment) pulls the built up and awaiting electrons across from the Higgs Field to the atom via gravitons. Something to that effect? A kind of separation upon entering the field and a recombining in nature according to chemical and photovoltaic processes to name a few. We dont see the field because we live in it. It surrounds us, our spacetime as mainstream calls it. Now heres the Quantum stuff, what happens to the Protons from the Crs? They go to the mirror image side. And every so often Earth switches polarity? Dont just look at my errors, look at the process and adjust your thinking to what is thought to be.. The names of Quantum theory is what I find the most confusing. A Fermion is an anti- or negative and a Boson is a positive more or less. Specifically one is on one side of the mirror image (Higgs Field) and the other is on the other side. If you think only in charges it seems quite clear to me anyway? You can hang in the air on a 50,000 volt powerline without injury, but if you have a ladder or a stick touching the ground the current will flow and you'll be fried. Energy follows the path of least resistance. In the dipole moment a connection is made and electrons flow.

__________________
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.
1. What is "it"?
2. Why can't it work in its current form?
3. Can you describe the current form, in appropriate technical detail?
4. What are the "right forces"?

If you cannot answer these questions, I can only conclude that your ideas don't have much more of a chance than rolling a fistful of dice and getting all ones or all sixes.

Whether its M theory or Quantum Chromodynamics mainstream is still looking for the Higgs Boson or calling the quarks muons taus etc.. instead of what I mentioned earlier. Looking at the charges and the processes, a muon and tau have negative charges, and an isospin, thats whats important. Feynmans diagrams seem to be the closest to what Im suggesting here. Its the voltages and polarities that I think are important. It just seems that everyone is stuck on one quantum theory or another and looking for muliple dimensions or trying to traverse time through worm holes that dont exist, or looking for dark matter that IS our spacetime. I've just noticed a lot of current theories almost get to the truth and then get stuck because it doesnt comply with a theory like the BB or SR. If SR is wrong then that calls Lorentz into question since Einstein based it on his theory etc.. This is just my opinion? Personally I think a major wrong turn was made with Gamov, and Hoyle may also have been right. Hawking himself said he is stuck because of the singularity. Im even a bit concerned about CERN and the LHC. I dont know what those experiments might do to the magnetic field if I am right. The only thing I think they will see is neutrinos like they already did. And the anti-nuetrino IS the virtual particle in my opinion. The strong and weak forces are the electric and the magnetic forces, energy is trying to survive and the fields are trying to tear it apart. ( Not 100% sure on that one but gravity is definitely not as described.) If the base that your working from is not entirely accurate then its a bridge to nowhere. Im not knocking mainstream ideas at all, so I hope its not construed that way. I just personally feel that prior misconceptions may be misleading us and holding back progess?...Am I in trouble now?..

__________________
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 did not, but the Higgs needs to, which is why it cannot be formed of Neutrinos.

I am afraid that after this point you go off into rather meaningless word salad such as the following;

Can you possibly get someone to go over your posts before you make them to avoid this kind of thing, as whatever point you were trying to make, that piece is so badly written as to mak comment on its contents impossible. For example, no-one had been speaking of mirrors, or sides, and neutrinos do not couple to charge, so none of that seems to make any sense.

As to your claim that everything must include magnetism, that is so far just assertion. It is as though you say "Grass is everywhere, yet you tell me that this road is not made of grass at all, how can that be!"

No, the mainstream is not calling quarks muons.

Where did you get this idea?

No, you are just wrong.

Unfortunately, physics is more than just a series of hunches, and many of yours have been disproven long ago.

One feature of new theories is that they must not be contradicted by prior experiments, which I'm afraid many of yours are.

Unfortunately, when presented with an error, you don't seem willing to accept the facts, but instead insist that you are still right. I think that you will have a problem learning with this attitude.

As I've mentioned previously, I've suffered students who thought that they knew everything already, and who were not willing to adjust their view to match reality. Unfortunately, they could never do well, and could never learn the subject.

Not to be disrepectful or hard headed.., but your still misunderstanding what I said.. I said the Higgs isnt directly coupled to the mass. It is connected via the Gravitons (or the positrons?), which carry particles from one side of the field to the other. What I am suggesting is that the Higgs Field is like a two way mirror, one side reality (real particle) (neutrino), the other side virtual or anti (anti-neutrino). When the Cosmic Rays enter the magnetic field, not the Higgs field, they split off to one side of the mirror (Higgs Field) or the other side, separated by charge or spin Im not sure which. But the anti-particles or negatively charged particles are waiting on the virtual side of the mirror. It is well known according to mainstream that Cosmic Rays split off to separate charges , I didnt make that up.. Now

Photons beam down on the atom, on our side of the mirror. The amplitude or wavelengths interact with the nuetrons nucleus, muon, tau etc.. switching the dipole in the nuetron. (the switch) this triggers a positron or something which pulls the required anti- or negative particle through the mirror to the atoms orbit. I think it may have something to do with pair production.

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon (or another neutral boson).

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


Dirac had a similiar theory, but couldnt account for the other side of the mirror?

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

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

Again, you are misunderstanding, or more accurately perhaps taking me literally. I didnt say mainstream was calling quarks muons. What I meant to express was that rather than focusing on the names of the sub atomic particles, it may be more efficient to pay more attention to their function.

I apologize for my word salad but I generally write what I think is happening, but often have to adjust according to the feedback I receive. As I noted its not perfect, I know I may have a few things mixed up, but I feel pretty strongly that there is some element of truth in the proposal.

My ideas have NOT been disproven, quite the contrary, anyone who read my last thread knows that valid arguments were raised concerning Spacetime and Baryogenesis, though it still remains to be seen if they will be accepted by mainstream.

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

I know that that's what you said. I was pointing out why it was wrong.

That's how it works here, someone presents an ATM theory, and others point out the error with it.

I gave you several explanations of why your suppositions are incorrect, so your simply restating them is not really going to move things forwards.

I'm afraid that you are pretty much in line with most other ATM proponents, though, in that you have thrown together a few thoughts that a basic understanding of the subject would show you are wrong, and you are now determined to defend them in spite of their obvious flaws.

Sadly, you are also refusing to deal with other valid responses to your posts.

It's be a really refreshing change if instead of following the path that implies that you don't want to learn, you honestly dealt with the real objections which I have posted, and then we can maybe get somewhere.

To whit, the Higgs DOES couple directly to mass, and positrons do not feature in the mechanism at all.

I'm actually quite insulted that you'd point me to an article on pair production, as though a doctor of particle physics would not understand this.

You then conflate amplitude and wavelength.

So far, you are doing a very good impression of either a crank, or a troll. I'm assuming that this is just because your English is not very good (I'm not sure what your first language is), but are you perhaps willing to rein in the irrelevancies, and stick to one point?

That's quite a strange claim. Do you genuinely believe that we concenrate on the names of the particles rather than their properties?

I can tell you now that that is simply not the case, and I have no idea why you would think that it was.

Do you think in Formula 1 that engineers concentrate more on the name of a rear wing, or on its function?

Do you think that in cooking a chef will concentrate more on the name of an egg, or on its properties?

If you think the latter in those cases, why do you think otherwise in particle physics?

As to your claim that your ideas have not been disproven, I think that that depends on whom you ask. If you are willing to stick to one point at a time, I am pretty sure that I could explain to you why you are going wrong. If, though, you wish to keep changing the subject, redefining words, and obfuscating, then you will be wasting my time and yours.

So, what's it to be, would you like us to go over one or two of your idea in detail, or do you prefer to keep doing as you have been? It's quite up to you, and I'm here to help, if you want it.

I would appreciate any help I can get , especially from someone who does this day in and day out. I would love to hear whats wrong with it? Other than my terrible english..

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

Im all ears Dr. please excuse my ignorance. I speak in laymans terms since thats the only way I know. I have no idea who is a professor or who isnt by the avatars. I just note what I see in nature. I may be ALL wrong, I dont know. I just feel as though part of what Im saying at least is worth investigation. It makes perfect sense to me though I may have some of the particles confused. I'm not a particle physicist , as I stated many times. Of course I would appreciate some guidance.

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

Im not sure if my mechanism is correct. I also think it might have something to do with Nitrogen in our atmosphere interacting with the field I mentioned in the presence of the radioactive CR frequencies or wavelengths? Would that make more sense?

OR What if the space in the atom is NOT empty? I know that our space is not empty, perhaps the atom isnt either? I need someone to take my crazy ideas and make sense of them...

If the atom were filled with say nuetrinos? My original idea was that there were 3 electron beams corresponding to the color charges. There are so many ideas, its hard to know which is accurate. Do any of these ideas make sense?According to what mainstream does know?

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

OK, let's start with the Higgs. In the standard model, we have a Lagrangian (L, which equals the kinetic energy minus the potential energy of the system) which tells us how everything interacts, and, in order to make this work, we need a term in there that we call the Higgs.

Going from the Lagrangian to equations of motion can be tricky, but one of the useful tools is Feynman diagrams, with which you are probably familiar. Rather than just being nice pictures of interactions, they are actually used to calculate things such as how likely an electron and a positron are to bounce off each other if they are collided in an experiment. We can therefore test the standard model against experiment, and can see that, so far, it fits very well. It only fits well, though, if this Higgs exists, and only if the Higgs has some very certain properties.

One of these properties is called spin, which refers to how the expression for the particle varies under certain gauge transformations. We have two classes of particles with respect to spin, which are fermions and bosons. Fermions have spin 1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc, and bosons have spin 0,1,2, and so on.

Fermions and bosons obey fundamentally different statistics. For example, you cannot have two fermions in the same quantum state, whereas bosons can all pile into one state if they are cooled enough. It is this tendency of fermions to be unable to be squeezed together which stops neutron stars collapsing (what happens when they get to big for fermi pressure to support them is another story, for another day).

So, anyway, the Higgs has to be a boson to work. Make it to be a fermion, such as a neutrino, and it cannot do what we need it to do.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Thats helpful. In looking at the Boson, I came across the Probability Amplitude. I thought this might be a good place to look? I still dont really understand the spin that well. If Im correct they are rotating at various angles? Would it be possible for kinetic energy to alter a particles spin?

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

coliver, do you know why the Higgs field was introduced and how it fits into electroweak? Why do you believe that neutrinos can fulfil this role?

From what I gather and correct me if Im terribly wrong. The Higgs Field is a condensate (or ether) that fills the space around us. The Higgs Boson is an unseen particle that gives mass to particles or virtual particles? by interacting somehow?. I get a little lost in the mechanisms.

The reason that I feel that the Higgs field is nuetrinos and anti-nuetrinos is that I have very good reason to believe that Baryonic matter, Ghost Galaxies etc.. are being created in LGRBs as discussed in my previous thread. The discussion proposed that gravity was not holding the ghost galaxies in their related orbit but that nuetrinos and anti-nuetrinos were the ether. That spacetime was like an ocean that we displace as we (mass) move through it. Basically that we are like fish in water, we dont see it but its there. So Im supposing that would be mainstreams HIggs field?

My thinking has been that its not the Boson that gives mass to a particle, but instead the particle itself takes on mass by interacting with this field (call it Higgs?) and drawing through protons or electrons from the anti-side, thus creating more mass. The virtual particle would be seen only for an instant because it would move the other direction, to the anti-side creating anti-matter. The Cosmic Rays are separated to one side or the other upon entry to Earths magnetic field, but there is a bridge between them. The photons are unaffected by the field since they carry no mass, they are the frequency carrier ,corresponding to their wavelength. The missing absorption lines are basically every element that they are emiitting or have emiited. The photon itself cannot create mass but onmly signals the quarks color charges. This would switch the dipole mechanism in the nuetron and pull through a related number of electrons or protons, to say make a hydrogen atom a carbon atom? It also fits with Diracs ideas of a mirror image? only one other dimension, not eleven or whatever M theory proposes. If Im correct its a kind of recycling that goes back and forth from matter to anti-matter?

Another perhaps interesting observation that I had was the birth of a child inside an amniotic fluid. The membrane surrounds the fluid and the cells grow within it. Its this kind of electrolysis within a fluid that bears similiarities?

I also think that supercavitation should work equally as well in space as it does in water. Density seems to be at the heart of everything in the universe, from the elements to the planets. If a Dwarf Galaxy is truly a full on Galaxy but just less dense, then the heavier elements are just a matter of time? I believe our space is just less dense than H20 but equally displaceable.

http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue10/Physics_10.htm

Iron is the equilibrium because thats as hot as the thermodynamics got during its original creation in stars. The Suns magnetic field is what holds the planets in orbit, not gravity according to the theory.?

If someone could put a pencil to it, I know Im on the right track. I dont mean that to be bold, I just have a strong feeling its very close to correct?

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