With your PhD, please find 95% of the universe and report back to me. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]>wrote:
> Chem, please give some references and sources for your entropic particle > definition. > Thanks, > Giovanni > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Where did you find this definition of an entropic particle? Can you show >> me the forces? >> By the way I have a PhD in Astrophysics. >> Thanks, >> Giovanni >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:16 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> It is a ball of entropy known as a micro black hole. They make up 95% >>> of the universe. I think you should stick to music with a name like that >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Chem, >>>> I think you should stick to chemistry. I don't want to be impolite but >>>> which nonsense is this? >>>> What is an entropic particle? LOL >>>> Common. >>>> Giovanni >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:05 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> According to my Research & Theory: >>>>> >>>>> 1) The Earth has an entropic dark matter core and creates its own >>>>> iron and nickel. Geologists are way over their head trying to explain it >>>>> away as a bar magnet. >>>>> 2) The Earth's entropic core creates its own magnetic fields thru >>>>> annihilation and charged orbital dark matter and other particles >>>>> 3) The Earth's entropic core battery gets recharged as the sun spits >>>>> entropic particles at us triggering our weather and seismic events out >>>>> here >>>>> on the crust. Many of the large particles coalesce with the Earth's >>>>> entropic core and also cool the Earth down >>>>> 4) We are just part of the colorful 5% crust. >>>>> 5) If you look at that Chandra X-Ray Matrix, the Earth is one of the >>>>> intersecting/nodal points connected to the Sun which is a larger nodal >>>>> point. >>>>> 6) The sun is about to get a millennial supply of orbital dark matter >>>>> from those two great comets coming . I just pray no nuclei break off and >>>>> come our way. Should be a good show either way. >>>>> >>>>> Stewart >>>>> darkmattersalot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There are many problems with this theory. >>>>>> One even if all these ideas would hold they could be applied only to >>>>>> later stages of the universe life because iron and nickel are created by >>>>>> massive stars and then released into space when they died as supernovae. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also consider that iron and heavy materials are very rare exactly >>>>>> because only very massive stars can produce these materials. >>>>>> Furthermore what you call natural magnetism is not something that >>>>>> occurs so naturally for dust in space. >>>>>> On earth natural magnetized material become magnetized because of the >>>>>> Earth magnetic field. Look up how magnetic rocks get magnetized in wiki: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_magnetism#Thermoremanent_magnetization_.28TRM.29 >>>>>> >>>>>> You need a huge dynamo magnet like the one at the core of the earth >>>>>> to magnetize small things like rocks. >>>>>> >>>>>> The dynamo magnet is created by plasma that rotates at the center of >>>>>> the Earth and creates by induction a magnetic field. The fact that there >>>>>> is >>>>>> iron at the core helps to make the magnetic field stronger and helps to >>>>>> carry the electrical current of the plasma but it is not the source per >>>>>> se >>>>>> of the magnetic field of the earth. The sun doesn't have iron at the core >>>>>> and it has a very strong magnetic field. >>>>>> >>>>>> The iron ended up at the core of the Earth because it is heavier >>>>>> than silica and the other lighter elements that make the earth crust. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gravity is the dominant force at astronomical scales because it acts >>>>>> on everything not special materials (like in the case for magnetism). >>>>>> Yes, >>>>>> it is weak but when you are dealing with huge quantity of stuff that >>>>>> dominates all the other forces in particular because electrostatic >>>>>> charges >>>>>> tend to neutralize themselves coming in pairs and magnetic forces are >>>>>> produced by moving charges and decay rapidly. >>>>>> >>>>>> And so on... >>>>>> The theory makes not much sense in physical terms. Sorry. >>>>>> Giovanni >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Roberson >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The vortex-l group of individuals have a great deal of knowledge and >>>>>>> open minds that I enjoy prodding on occasions. This morning an unusual >>>>>>> concept came into my mind which resulted in a hypothesis that I would >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> to put forth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suppose that the universe is organized by the influence of >>>>>>> magnetic attractions between materials such as iron and nickel that can >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> permanently magnetized instead of gravity, at least in the formative >>>>>>> years. >>>>>>> We all know that gravitation is by far the weakest force within the >>>>>>> universe so why should we assume that such a modest effect would >>>>>>> dominate? >>>>>>> My hypothesis is that this concept is entirely backwards and that the >>>>>>> basic structures are formed by magnetic influences. After the magnetic >>>>>>> effects have completed their portion of the task the gravitational >>>>>>> influence completes the puzzle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Picture a region in open space that has a large collection of dust >>>>>>> and gases. It is certain that many specs of iron or nickel laden dust >>>>>>> exist within this region and that many of these posses natural magnetic >>>>>>> fields. The attraction due to the magnetic field would dominate the net >>>>>>> attraction between these particles by an extremely large margin. As >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> progresses the magnetized portions would strongly attract and then >>>>>>> collect >>>>>>> together into larger magnetic units. This should occur far faster than >>>>>>> gravitational collection due to the enormous difference in forces. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, masses such as the earth's core come together quickly and >>>>>>> consist of large concentrations of iron and nickel and any other >>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>> materials. The same would occur in the early formations that eventually >>>>>>> become other planets and stars. When the collection of magnetic >>>>>>> materials >>>>>>> is mostly completed, then it would be natural for the less magnetic >>>>>>> matter >>>>>>> to be gravitationally concentrated toward these large metallic centers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my model, it seems likely that pebbles held together >>>>>>> magnetically should withstand much more pounding in collisions than >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> merely confined by gravity. This difference in cohesive strength should >>>>>>> further tend to result in large magnetic bundles at the expense of those >>>>>>> formed of other materials. With this in mind, it seems likely that all >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> planets that form in a region of space that contains the metals that >>>>>>> can be >>>>>>> magnetized will grow an iron like core first and quickly until these >>>>>>> materials have been swept clean of the region. This process is then >>>>>>> followed by the gravitational attraction of the metal cores to the >>>>>>> gasses >>>>>>> and other materials. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The same type of influence should be exhibited throughout the >>>>>>> universe at large. Some of the formations have appearances that seem >>>>>>> unusual if gravitation is the prime force at work. Gravity does not >>>>>>> generate shapes with spatial directivity to the degree that magnetic >>>>>>> attraction does. Gravity only pulls items towards each other in a >>>>>>> straight >>>>>>> line. Magnetic materials generally have a dipole field or a complex >>>>>>> field >>>>>>> that is composed of the addition of many such dipoles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we consider that my hypothesis results in the collection of the >>>>>>> magnetic materials rapidly and dominantly throughout space, then each of >>>>>>> these would tend to influence others of their kind in the near vicinity. >>>>>>> This should dominate the early formation of matter that eventually >>>>>>> leads >>>>>>> to galaxies, etc. I suppose that it is a good thing that the magnetic >>>>>>> fields of iron masses falls off rapidly with distance due to the dipole >>>>>>> nature or the universe might be dominated by truly enormous collections >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> magnetic core objects. The shorter range of these dipoles compared to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> monopole of gravity allow what we observe today. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it possible that the enormous black holes at the centers of >>>>>>> galaxies began in this magnetic manner? It would not be difficult to >>>>>>> imagine that most of the iron and other magnetic materials would be >>>>>>> swept >>>>>>> together first and fast if present within a nearly created dust cloud. >>>>>>> Once a core has been established, it should easily dominate the >>>>>>> remainder >>>>>>> of the cloud and attract the gasses by its quickly formed gravitational >>>>>>> field that reaches far into space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another idea to consider is that the strong magnetic field at the >>>>>>> core of the black hole reaches out far enough to impart directivity to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> motion of materials moving in the direction towards its center. Any >>>>>>> smaller magnetic masses would be pushed or pulled by the mother field of >>>>>>> the hole into directions that tend to follow its field pattern. The >>>>>>> smaller magnetic components would then impart some of this force upon >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> gases and other materials by direct coupling among them. As the total >>>>>>> combination of materials approach the hole, the kinetic energy imparted >>>>>>> upon the mass send it past the north or south polar region into orbit. >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> is premature to attempt to define the structure of a black hole under >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> influence of magnetic effects until a more complete picture emerges. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can visualize the wild and amazing behavior that would be >>>>>>> imparted upon a gas with magnetic particles immersed within as it >>>>>>> approaches a large magnetic black hole. Once the gas is turned into a >>>>>>> plasma by the heat and forces applied, it would possess a tremendous >>>>>>> electric current induced within by the motion through the hole's >>>>>>> magnetic >>>>>>> field. Great forces could occur that may result in the beams that are >>>>>>> seen >>>>>>> emitted by the galactic center black holes. Perhaps someone could >>>>>>> allow a >>>>>>> super computer the chance to predict this behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The hypothesis is supported by the known core of the earth. this >>>>>>> is known to be composed of iron and nickel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meteorites are composed of various materials. The metallic ones >>>>>>> have a large concentrations of magnetic matter within that may have >>>>>>> collected together rapidly at the formation of the parent body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The shape of the clouds associated with the enormous explosions of >>>>>>> super nova tend to be non symmetrical on many occasions with patterns >>>>>>> associated with dipole or quadrapole fields. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do other vortex members see support of reasons to believe that >>>>>>> this hypothesis is not workable? I am seeking inputs from our esteemed >>>>>>> members that might help to put this puzzle together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
