Topics Limited to 11 Pages?

WanderingSoul:

Nice article.

Thanx.

I hope rgrunt sees this. I think it's along the same lines he's hypothesizing. At least his "energy density" idea anyway.

rgrunt?

 
Last edited:
Thanks for refering me to the article. It was very interesting. To answer their questions on why quarks have a greater mass then electrons is because there is more energy compressed to a small space which makes up the quark.

This results in a higher energy density to the quarks and a smaller space-time density in the quarks. If my theory is correct one can calculate the difference between the density of a quark and an electron by finding out how far one would have to pry a strong force apart before the strong force would equal an infinite density.


That radius corresponds to the energy density of an electron compressed to a piont. Thus to increase the radius of a strong force gluon is to increase the energy density of the quarks.


This energy density increase of the quarks results in a space-time density within the quarks equal to 1/e^2. Now the energy density of an electron is measured by the density of the gluons that mediate the strongforce between the quarks within the electron.


Since quarks increase in energy density as they are pryed a part the space time density will decrease as the quarks increase and the gravitational forces exerted by an electron will increase as the electron is split apart.


This is because one of the unique properties of strong force is that strong force increases in strength as the strong force is pryed apart. The space-time density within the quarks is much less then the space-time density within the electron itself. This is because the gluon is much less dense energy wise then the quarks themselves.


When one measures the energy mass of an electron one is actually measureing the lattice of energy that surrounds the quarks which is an intertwining of strong force glouns. Since the gloun force is surounds the electrons quark mass like a field and since the space-time density within the eletrons inner quark mass is much less then the space-time density within the strong force gloun that surounds the electron, the strength of the gravitational pull of the electron increases more then likely to infinity as one approaches the center mass of an electron as a result of the decrease in space-time density to zero at the centermass of the electron at which the energy density is infinite.


This means that the outermost energy force field is less massive then the inner parts of the electron as is supported by the 'confusing' experiments.


There are two reasons that an electron does not crush as a result of infinite gravitational force at the center of the electron. First it requires a greater then infinite force to crush a mass to beyond the center mass of the object. And second, Time becomes reversed beyond the center mass of eletron. Thus the mass beyond the centermass of an electron is superluminal and mediated by tachyons.


Thus when a greater then infinite force is applied to crush the electron; once that force travels beyond the center mass of the electron the direction of the work being done by the force reverses. This causes an Greater then infinite force deflecting back through the force as a result of the negative time component causing the electron to assume it's possitive mass form.

sincerely,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Thanks for refering me to the article. It was very interesting. To answer their questions on why quarks have a greater mass then electrons is because there is more energy compressed to a small space which makes up the quark.

This results in a higher energy density to the quarks and a smaller space-time density in the quarks. If my theory is correct one can calculate the difference between the density of a quark and an electron by finding out how far one would have to pry a strong force apart before the strong force would equal an infinite density.

That radius corresponds to the energy density of an electron compressed to a piont. Thus to increase the radius of a strong force gluon is to increase the energy density of the quarks.

This energy density increase of the quarks results in a space-time density within the quarks equal to 1/e^2. Now the energy density of an electron is measured by the density of the gluons that mediate the strongforce between the quarks within the electron.

Since quarks increase in energy density as they are pryed a part the space time density will decrease as the quarks increase and the gravitational forces exerted by an electron will increase as the electron is split apart.

This is because one of the unique properties of strong force is that strong force increases in strength as the strong force is pryed apart. The space-time density within the quarks is much less then the space-time density within the electron itself. This is because the gluon is much less dense energy wise then the quarks themselves.

When one measures the energy mass of an electron one is actually measureing the lattice of energy that surrounds the quarks which is an intertwining of strong force glouns. Since the gloun force is surounds the electrons quark mass like a field and since the space-time density within the eletrons inner quark mass is much less then the space-time density within the strong force gloun that surounds the electron, the strength of the gravitational pull of the electron increases more then likely to infinity as one approaches the center mass of an electron as a result of the decrease in space-time density to zero at the centermass of the electron at which the energy density is infinite.

This means that the outermost energy force field is less massive then the inner parts of the electron as is supported by the 'confusing' experiments.

There are two reasons that an electron does not crush as a result of infinite gravitational force at the center of the electron. First it requires a greater then infinite force to crush a mass to beyond the center mass of the object. And second, Time becomes reversed beyond the center mass of eletron. Thus the mass beyond the centermass of an electron is superluminal and mediated by tachyons.

Thus when a greater then infinite force is applied to crush the electron; once that force travels beyond the center mass of the electron the direction of the work being done by the force reverses. This causes an Greater then infinite force deflecting back through the force as a result of the negative time component causing the electron to assume it's possitive mass form.

sincerely,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 
Last edited:
I would like to examine this "Quantum Vaccum Theory" a bit more, I find that it describes that seemingly present weak electrical force that emitts from Zero Point.

I even heard from Dr. Michio Kaku<http://mkaku.org> the other night, on the radio, he spoke of this, and mentioned that it is a "Misnomer" to say that it is "Nothing" in the space between electrons & atoms, that in fact "Something" is actualy there! (electrons from the quantum vaccum of space.) again we must first get by this, and try to understand it more, as in relation to what is happening here, and how we can use this to our advantage, and then perhaps we will better understand the plausability factors for free energy, overunity, anti-gravity, Time~Travel, and the abundunt power of space needed for propulsion & power to make these things work.

*Zero Point Energy out of the Quantum Vaccum of Space. Hmmm??? I wonder what makes it all tic?
 
 would like to examine this "Quantum Vaccum Theory" a bit more, I find that it describes that seemingly present weak electrical force that emitts from Zero Point.

I even heard from Dr. Michio Kaku the other night, on the radio, he spoke of this, and mentioned that it is a "Misnomer" to say that it is "Nothing" in the space between electrons &amp; atoms, that in fact "Something" is actualy there! (electrons from the quantum vaccum of space.) again we must first get by this, and try to understand it more, as in relation to what is happening here, and how we can use this to our advantage, and then perhaps we will better understand the plausability factors for free energy, overunity, anti-gravity, Time~Travel, and the abundunt power of space needed for propulsion &amp; power to make these things work.

*Zero Point Energy out of the Quantum Vaccum of Space. Hmmm??? I wonder what makes it all tic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rgrunt: (or should I say Mr. Schasteen)

Very interesting.

Your depictions of Quantum Particle Thoery are indeed formidible. You are proving to be someone who has descriptive abilities beyond what you have been given credit thus far it seems. (It appears you are a person who "holds back" a bit to see what develops in the exchange of dialog. I like that.)

I follow you on the hypothesis you offer except for one thing, but it is merely a matter of semantic definition I'm sure.

Could you elaborate on the term "space-time density". I know I questioned what you meant by "energy density" earlier, but now I do see what YOU mean by that. Your explanation was informative.

Also, when you say:

"This results in a higher energy density to the quarks and a smaller space-time density in the quarks. If my theory is correct one can calculate the difference between the density of a quark and an electron by finding out how far one would have to pry a strong force apart before the strong force would equal an infinite density."

I assume you mean counteract the strong force by prying the quarks apart, but why would not the strong force at some measurable distance reach a "breaking point" if you will, thru the action of this "prying", rather than approach an infinite density?

Would we not instead have a condition of "Free-quarks" available to establish the existence of other protons or neutrons say, providing other free quarks can be found in a similar state? Since it only takes three quarks to constitute a proton or neutron, (depending on quark color combination of course), this should be easy to do. No?

And thanks for the discourse.
 
rgrunt: (or should I say Mr. Schasteen)

Very interesting.

Your depictions of Quantum Particle Thoery are indeed formidible. You are proving to be someone who has descriptive abilities beyond what you have been given credit thus far it seems. (It appears you are a person who "holds back" a bit to see what develops in the exchange of dialog. I like that.)

I follow you on the hypothesis you offer except for one thing, but it is merely a matter of semantic definition I'm sure.

Could you elaborate on the term "space-time density". I know I questioned what you meant by "energy density" earlier, but now I do see what YOU mean by that. Your explanation was informative.

Also, when you say:

"This results in a higher energy density to the quarks and a smaller space-time density in the quarks. If my theory is correct one can calculate the difference between the density of a quark and an electron by finding out how far one would have to pry a strong force apart before the strong force would equal an infinite density."

I assume you mean counteract the strong force by prying the quarks apart, but why would not the strong force at some measurable distance reach a "breaking point" if you will, thru the action of this "prying", rather than approach an infinite density?

Would we not instead have a condition of "Free-quarks" available to establish the existence of other protons or neutrons say, providing other free quarks can be found in a similar state? Since it only takes three quarks to constitute a proton or neutron, (depending on quark color combination of course), this should be easy to do. No?

And thanks for the discourse.

 
Last edited:
electrons aren't made of quarks. they're leptons, and only hadrons like protons or neutrons are made of quarks.
 
electrons aren't made of quarks. they're leptons, and only hadrons like protons or neutrons are made of quarks.

 
Dear Bob,

Thankyou for the knowlege. Is the electron composed or held together by strong force glouns? In other words, are electrons made up of strong force? Are electrons known to be single entities not made up of any smaller partcles(accept glouns if composed of strong force)? If the electron is not made up of any strong forces then is electrons made up of weak force? I based my ussumption that electrons were composed and bound by quarks bound togetherby strong force glouns but based on you last transmission I am assuming that electrons are made up of strong force glouns(since electrons are known to be indivisible). Is my ussumption about the electron's composition correct?

Deviper,

When I speak of space-time density I am assuming that energy occupying space is the same as space being occupied by energy and also space occupying energy. I assume that space-time is a tangable substance. I see space asa quantized closed entity. I allow that space can be open but for the most part it is as closed system. By doubling the volume of space in a given region the density of space in that region will be squared( I think) just like if one were to double the volume of energy in a given region the density of that energy would be squared(I think) No I believe that they woud be cubed for we are measuring energy per unit volume and not per unit square....
To double the volume of space time in a given region is to double the volume to which the energy in that region is occupying. Thus by doubling the volume of space the same volume of energy occupying a greater volume of space results in a decrease in the energies density. Now this can be reversed to say that if one doubles the volume of energy in a given space the space in that region of space will decrease in density as a result of less area of space occupying the same region of energy. Since the density of energy is uniform the density of space relative to the density of energy will also be uniform. Thus the space decreases density uniformly as energy increases density uniformly within the closed region.

I have to go I will right more later.

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Dear Bob,

Thankyou for the knowlege. Is the electron composed or held together by strong force glouns? In other words, are electrons made up of strong force? Are electrons known to be single entities not made up of any smaller partcles(accept glouns if composed of strong force)? If the electron is not made up of any strong forces then is electrons made up of weak force? I based my ussumption that electrons were composed and bound by quarks bound togetherby strong force glouns but based on you last transmission I am assuming that electrons are made up of strong force glouns(since electrons are known to be indivisible). Is my ussumption about the electron's composition correct?

Deviper,

When I speak of space-time density I am assuming that energy occupying space is the same as space being occupied by energy and also space occupying energy. I assume that space-time is a tangable substance. I see space asa quantized closed entity. I allow that space can be open but for the most part it is as closed system. By doubling the volume of space in a given region the density of space in that region will be squared( I think) just like if one were to double the volume of energy in a given region the density of that energy would be squared(I think) No I believe that they woud be cubed for we are measuring energy per unit volume and not per unit square....

To double the volume of space time in a given region is to double the volume to which the energy in that region is occupying. Thus by doubling the volume of space the same volume of energy occupying a greater volume of space results in a decrease in the energies density. Now this can be reversed to say that if one doubles the volume of energy in a given space the space in that region of space will decrease in density as a result of less area of space occupying the same region of energy. Since the density of energy is uniform the density of space relative to the density of energy will also be uniform. Thus the space decreases density uniformly as energy increases density uniformly within the closed region.

I have to go I will right more later.

Edwin G. Schasteen

 
Last edited:
Pamela,

you have met TT0 in the person?

have you seen the time machine?


im not paranoid(not too paranoid) but i think it was a terrible idea for TT0(if his story is true) to have told us anything about it.


question for TT_0 on the event of his return,

what affects the probability when traversing through time?

and have you heard of the Time Vector Field Chronicles?


FastWalker2
 
Pamela,

you have met TT0 in the person?

have you seen the time machine?

im not paranoid(not too paranoid) but i think it was a terrible idea for TT0(if his story is true) to have told us anything about it.

question for TT_0 on the event of his return,

what affects the probability when traversing through time?

and have you heard of the Time Vector Field Chronicles?

FastWalker2

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fast,
I am still not 100% Positive he really is a time traveler. Iam still skeptical.. and he knows this and accepts this... but...

One thing I think he is hoping to convey on the message board is the philosophical concept that once man is able to travel in time, there is no more absolute truth.

sincerely,
pamela
 
Fast,

I am still not 100% Positive he really is a time traveler. Iam still skeptical.. and he knows this and accepts this... but...

One thing I think he is hoping to convey on the message board is the philosophical concept that once man is able to travel in time, there is no more absolute truth.

sincerely,

pamela

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob:

"electrons aren't made of quarks. they're leptons, and only hadrons like protons or neutrons are made of quarks."

Yes of course. My response to rgrunt is along the lines of his speculation that "prying apart quarks" could result in the strong force approaching an infinite density, which frankly I can't see. Hence my counter speculation of free quarks available to form new hadrons like protons etc.

As rgrunt has discovered about me, I'm happy to speculate to the limits of human knowledge as long as we don't base speculation on the assumption of anything that has already proven to NOT be so.

rgrunt:

Again, thank you for the clarification of what YOU mean by "space-time density". It's easier to follow someone else's speculations about something when you understand what THEY mean by something.

Semantics!.....:-)
 
Bob:

"electrons aren't made of quarks. they're leptons, and only hadrons like protons or neutrons are made of quarks."

Yes of course. My response to rgrunt is along the lines of his speculation that "prying apart quarks" could result in the strong force approaching an infinite density, which frankly I can't see. Hence my counter speculation of free quarks available to form new hadrons like protons etc.

As rgrunt has discovered about me, I'm happy to speculate to the limits of human knowledge as long as we don't base speculation on the assumption of anything that has already proven to NOT be so.

rgrunt:

Again, thank you for the clarification of what YOU mean by "space-time density". It's easier to follow someone else's speculations about something when you understand what THEY mean by something.

Semantics!.....:-)

 
Last edited:
Pamela:

Please allow youe skepticism to bring you all the way to the simple conclusion that TT_0 is in fact NOT a time traveler.

I do not say this as a detriment to his words, (since I'm already on record as considering him to be a creative and intelligent person who has a lot to say philosophically), but merely that his declarations on being a time traveler are based on quantum theories that have already been clearly proven to NOT be so.

In other words, he CAN'T be.

But I still like him anyway.

Let him play out his fantasy. It's a good vehicle for his philosophical musings which are right on in many cases.

(See post above to Bob.)

Peace.
 
Back
Top