The entropy of systems

Leland
Offline
New Member

20 years 1 week ago #11875 by Leland

Replied by Leland on topic Reply from Leland

WoW! Thank you north for posting this! My own research has been indicating that something like this must be going on and I have used a binary pair model ala earth moon sizes for some time now.
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.

There is only one kind of stuff!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 week ago #11876 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 now can this help you or hinder you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">How could I possibly tell from your post? What interests you about the book?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 week ago #12075 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Leland
 WoW! Thank you north for posting this! My own research has been indicating that something like this must be going on and I have used a binary pair model ala earth moon sizes for some time now.
For me this works best for magnetism expecially but also for all others besides gravity.

There is only one kind of stuff!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

WOW!! yeah me too. i hope you are considering plasmas for they are electromagnetic etc. in case you missed it look at theuniverse.ws. i see plasmas to be, instead of gravity, to be what the nucleus and electrons are revolving around.

enjoy!!

enjoy!!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 week ago #12076 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i don't know but it is an argument that we must consider, otherwise they (mainstream) will use it against your theory. it is part of the quantum theory by Bohr.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Our MRB article "The structure of matter in the Meta Model" does a decent job of explaining basic properties of baryons. What leads you to think there will be any difficulty? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons. by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 week ago #11877 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours? If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.

Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: Not "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

north
Offline
Platinum Member

20 years 1 week ago #11001 by north

Replied by north on topic Reply from

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tvanflandern
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by north
 the electron is not spining around the nucleus of an atom but around the "common center of gravity" and so is the nucleus. at least in mainstream physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Was your book reference possibly referring back to this previous post of yours?

If so, I didn't make the connection. Don't assume I follow all the posts. There isn't enough time for that.
Given Newton's third law, all forces of nature must produce a "center of mass" situation. (Note: Not "center of gravity", which is negligible in atoms according to classical theory.) But the center of mass results simply from action/reaction, not something interesting or profound. No forces emanate from this center of mass, and its location is completely arbitrary. It merely identifies a unique inertial frame for describing dynamics.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... because it makes clear to me on where they are coming from, blackholes,singularities etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">If you consult "Physics has its principles" at metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp or my book "Dark Matter..." or many discussions and articles in the Meta Research Bulletin, you will see reasons why blackholes and singularities cannot exist in nature. Highly collapsed stars become "Mitchell stars", which are quite different things from black holes.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so where do i find your "Meta Model" of baryons.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">MRB 12#4 (2003 December 15). We had a short discussion on this Message Board around the time it appeared. MRB is the only place with up-to-date information about replacement models in astronomy.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">by the way how do look at Cosmic Plasmas in your Meta Model?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So far, there has not been any apparent need for them over and above the way they appear in mainstream astronomy. In what connection do you think they might prove interesting? -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

then you have not read the papers on Cosmic Plamas plain and simple.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.443 seconds