I agree. Basically I am talking about collapsed matter as the primary trigger for all of the secoondary reactions which Abd is working on figuring out. In quantum mechanics this is effected by the strength of quantum scale gravity and also the hoop effect caused by a void. Once matter collapses it will still obey quantum mechanic and thermodynamic laws. I am going to do some calculations and see what I come up with.
I see a similarity in what Axil is calling ultra high density inverted rydberg matter and what I am talking about. I of course have done a top down approach. The thing I am also concerned with now is does any of this stuff stay around in the environment and not evaporate or decay completely which I think would be very bad for the surroundings, including people. I just put the theory out there last week. I am going to continue developing it. One last thought that I am adding to my theory regarding the big picture: If this anomalous heat effect is basically evaporating matter under relatively normal conditions then basically that tells us that all of the matter in the universe will evaporate over time. And since hawking showed that matter and anti-matter particles pop out of the vacuum and either destroy each other or the anti-matter particle might get sucked into a singularity to aid in its evaporation and leave a particle of matter that escapes into space then the universe might be stuck in sort of an endless do-loop of matter creation and evaporation to and from the quantum field. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > wrote: > ** > CE, I think you need to gather your thoughts in one place, write a > comprehensive paper and flesh out many lacking details to your theory, > instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam here in Vortex, and interject your > theory at every post. > > Your theory as posted in your blog is glaringly incomplete. I read your > theory and I found it a bit lacking. I would like to see some mathematical > support to your suppositions. Mathematical computations as to energy > levels required, creation rates and evaporation rates. If you can come up > with these, it would go a long ways in providing guidance for > experimentation, which I would be willing to do if it is within my > capability. > > Also an explanation with mathematical data as to why a singularity is > formed in a void or crack as you propose instead of fusion occuring. > Saying that "quantum gravity is large, hence it creates a singularity" > ain't gonna cut it. > > I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assuming that you > are serious about developing your theory and not just playing with your > colleages here in Vortex, seeing how many your can loop around for a spin. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* ChemE Stewart <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', '[email protected]');> > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > '[email protected]');> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 PM > *Subject:* [Vo]:Miley, et al - 62M Neutrons within 5 minutes - dangerous? > > They are proposed to range from the largest of 6.6 billion solar masses > down to 23 micrograms, the planck mass, about a grain of sand, but > collapsed. I propose that they are not really "stable" they are always > emitting some form of Ultra Low Momentum Radiation (see I can event my own > terms also!) Whenever they come close enough to external matter or are > fed energy of any kind they instaneously convert that matter to energy and > evaporate it back to their environment, going back to a stable > thermodynamic state. > > Large black holes belch higher levels of radiation when they consume a > star or other matter that comes close enough all I am saying is that their > babies do the same. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3208 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole > > > > > On Friday, August 17, 2012, wrote: > >> In reply to ChemE Stewart's message of Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:53:15 -0400: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> >Feed yor gremlin a steady diet of hydrogen without any powder and you >> will >> >not get neutrons. This thing is ripping atoms apart >> [snip] >> >> How big/heavy does a gremlin have be in order to remain stable, i.e. for >> the >> mass consumption rate to equal the evaporation rate? >> >> (I realize that the mass consumption rate is variable, but please provide >> some >> reasonable limits.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Robin van Spaandonk >> >> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html >> >>
