Theory of Everything

[Little Bang]

The evidence is that we know that stars age into old 'neutron stars and new stars are being created. This should tell you that stars are being recycled continuously.

 

 

 

 

Mike C

 

Given enough time the cores of old stars will merge and form black holes thus taking more and more reuseable matter out of the universe. Would not this state of affairs bring a halt to your SSL?

 

Mike just because the electron and proton are the most studied objects in the universe does not by any logic, mean that we understand them. I don't see how we can explain any beginning or SS of the universe if we can't explain how the electron proton got here in first place.

[Mike C]

Mike, I have a few questions that come from this table of isotopes:

Isotope table (complete) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

1. How does your model (theory) account for the lack of any stable isotopes at mass no. 147 and 151 ? (same as for mass no. 5 and 8).

 

 

 

2. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of protons (Z) is 43 and 61 ?

 

3. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of neutrons (N) is 19, 21, 35, 39, 45, 61, 115, 123 ?

 

Seems to me that any complete model (theory) of nucleon structure for beta stable isotopes from Z = 1 (H) to 92 (Pb) must also show how strong force accounts for these above anomalies, not just the missing stable isotopes at mass no. 5 and 8--is that not correct ?

 

Will get back to you tomorrow. This involves some research.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Given enough time the cores of old stars will merge and form black holes thus taking more and more reuseable matter out of the universe. Would not this state of affairs bring a halt to your SSL?

 

The cores of stars are the neutron stars.

My opinion is that these stars are not stable because the condensed neutrons must have some protons intertwined with the neutrons as deuterons and helium nuclei.

 

Also, colliding objects will cause some fragmentation of these NS's.

 

Proof of decay?

The gamma ray bursters have been determined to be high velocity protons.

These GRB's are prevalent in very high numbers scattered throughout space.

Since our planet is but a very tiny target for these GRBs, then you can realize the tremendously high numbers of these particles would be scattered throughout the universe.

Therefore, my opinion is that these NSs are decaying into ordinary matter again.

 

Mike just because the electron and proton are the most studied objects in the universe does not by any logic, mean that we understand them. I don't see how we can explain any beginning or SS of the universe if we can't explain how the electron proton got here in first place.

 

Well, the Laws of Conservation say that, IMO, matter cannot be created or destroyed, so there was no beginning and there will be no end.

This is a physical universe, not a biological universe.

 

There were predictions that protons start to decay after 10x^(?) years, but there has been no confirmation of this.

 

Mike C

[Little Bang]

Mike, the equation in post #11 hints that if I were to build a frequency generator capable of producing a frequency equal that of a particle with the mass of the electron it would be an electron. How does this fit with your idea?

[peter]

I prefer tp call my SSU as a steady state rather than a static universe.

In this scenereo, the space is flat (static) but the internal galactic clusters and other such objects are all in motion.

 

The evidence is that we know that stars age into old 'neutron stars and new stars are being created. This should tell you that stars are being recycled continuously.

Mike C

I agree with this.

The stars are being recycled continuously, the galaxies and the universe are being recycled continuously, no beginning and no end.

[Little Bang]

Sounds like an opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up.

[Mike C]

Mike, I have a few questions that come from this table of isotopes:

Isotope table (complete) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

1. How does your model (theory) account for the lack of any stable isotopes at mass no. 147 and 151 ? (same as for mass no. 5 and 8).

 

The isotope 147 is not stable but does have a very long half life of 100 billion years and does exist in nature as a natural substance at 15%.

 

The isotope 151 (150.92) is a stable isotope with a natural abundance of 48%

 

2. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of protons (Z) is 43 and 61 ?

 

Yes. These 2 elements do not exist in nature as a natural abundance. Unusual.

Normally, when the neutron ratio to the proton ratio is in excess of 3-2, than these elements will automatically decay.

In the above case, the ratios are 2.3-2. So then this would require additional study for a solution.

 

3. How does it account for no stable isotopes when number of neutrons (N) is 19, 21, 35, 39, 45, 61, 115, 123 ?

 

Seems to me that any complete model (theory) of nucleon structure for beta stable isotopes from Z = 1 (H) to 92 (Pb) must also show how strong force accounts for these above anomalies, not just the missing stable isotopes at mass no. 5 and 8--is that not correct ?

 

Potassium does have one isotope with 21 neutrons but is very scarce in natrural abudance (1%) with a halflife of over a billion years.

 

The others are missing. No explanatuion.

 

But what you say here is that this is further proof that the strong force cannot be described as it is.

The current description of the SF should not have these descrepencies.

Only quantum physics could account for these descrepencies because it involves the 2 forces (electric and magnetic) where their characteristics would create such anomalies.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Mike, the equation in post #11 hints that if I were to build a frequency generator capable of producing a frequency equal that of a particle with the mass of the electron it would be an electron. How does this fit with your idea?

 

The electron by itself moving through space would move in a straight line.

 

It will generate a wave if it is 'interacting' with another charged particle or atom.

Its action is determined by the environment it is in.

 

In the ground state of the HA, it will generate a 'standing wave' of about one angstrom. This is the result of its orbital diameter while circling the proton.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

I agree with this.

The stars are being recycled continuously, the galaxies and the universe are being recycled continuously, no beginning and no end.

 

Thank you Peter.

The SSU is much more definitive with explanations that conform with the Laws of Physics and other physical methods of reasearch.

 

The BBT is just a theory of questions that are unanswered.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Sounds like an opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

The SF and WF are not quantum pyshics.

 

Mike C

[snoopy]

Hi Mike,

 

Quarks definitely exist they explain so much with economy and as jay-qu says they are observed directly in particle collision.

 

Sorry but you completely lost me when you said they dont exist.

 

Peace :eek2:

[Mike C]

Hi Mike,

 

Quarks definitely exist they explain so much with economy and as jay-qu says they are observed directly in particle collision.

 

Sorry but you completely lost me when you said they dont exist.

 

Peace :eek2:

 

These particle collisions are 'man made' and therefore are not natural particles.

The neutron is also not a natural particle because it cannot exist in isolation as an independent particle.

The only way it can exist is when it is coupled with a proton to form a deuteron. Deuterons can exist independantly since it is determined that there are about .015% that do exist as stable nuclei.

 

There are only 'two' real particles in nature and that is the electron and the proton. Both of these particles can exist independantly.

But because they contain opposite charges (forces), they naturally couple to form the hydrogen atom.

 

Nuclear science is 'backward' science that plays no part in nature.

All the energy we see is created by 'fusion' that is safe.

Nuclear reactors are a source of energy but hazardous to the environment. .

 

Mike C

[Jay-qu]

What has 'man-made' got to do with anything? The universe made us, so if we are able to create certain situations in which the conditions of the early universe are mimiced, how is it that the conditions we fabricated are any different from ones that 'naturally occur'?

[Boerseun]

If you take a brick and whack it against another brick, and they shatter, the remaining gravel is not "Man-made", it's the constituent parts of the bricks. It's what the bricks are made of.

 

Same with particle colliders. The remaining "particle-gravel" is not "man-made", it's the constituent parts of atoms. The fact that they very soon recombine into more stable forms doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply indicates that they are unstable, and have to combine into proper atoms in order to be stable. But they are not "Man-Made", or "Unnatural". They are the building blocks of atoms, or "atom gravel", if you will. And their properties underlie the properties of atoms, of which they form a part. So, in order to properly understand atoms, we need to understand what they're made of.

 

You're telling me a car is the basic vehicle in nature. You're telling me that a piston doesn't exist, because it can't exist on its own. Quite plainly, you're wrong.

 

You need to back up your statements, not say "modern physics is wrong because I say so". We've got a particular site rule against that one.

[modest]

You're telling me a car is the basic vehicle in nature. You're telling me that a piston doesn't exist, because it can't exist on its own. Quite plainly, you're wrong.

 

More troubling is how I don't exist because I'm tied to the earth. :confused: ouch

 

-modest

[Mike C]

What has 'man-made' got to do with anything? The universe made us, so if we are able to create certain situations in which the conditions of the early universe are mimiced, how is it that the conditions we fabricated are any different from ones that 'naturally occur'?

 

Because we cannot create matter. We can only destroy it.

 

At one time, I thought 'cold fusion' was a possibility, but after thinking about what goes on in the central regions of stars, I have now come to the conclusion that cold fusion is impossible because of the great pressures required to fuse matter into the heavier elements.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

If you take a brick and whack it against another brick, and they shatter, the remaining gravel is not "Man-made", it's the constituent parts of the bricks. It's what the bricks are made of.

 

Same with particle colliders. The remaining "particle-gravel" is not "man-made", it's the constituent parts of atoms. The fact that they very soon recombine into more stable forms doesn't mean they don't exist, it simply indicates that they are unstable, and have to combine into proper atoms in order to be stable. But they are not "Man-Made", or "Unnatural". They are the building blocks of atoms, or "atom gravel", if you will. And their properties underlie the properties of atoms, of which they form a part. So, in order to properly understand atoms, we need to understand what they're made of.

 

You're telling me a car is the basic vehicle in nature. You're telling me that a piston doesn't exist, because it can't exist on its own. Quite plainly, you're wrong.

 

You need to back up your statements, not say "modern physics is wrong because I say so". We've got a particular site rule against that one.

 

A brick is not a proton. Protons were here before we came on the scene.

 

So because the brick is man made, this is not a proper analogy.

 

My visualization of what happens in the central region of stars is the only way we can deduce what happens there.

 

Mi8ke C