Elysium

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Do elysions have rest mass? If so would the above mass be a relativistic mass or a rest mass?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I call the elysium consitiuents "elysons" rather than "elysions" by analogy with electricity constituemts being "electrons" rather rthan "electrions".

In the Meta Model, particles at all scales have "rest mass", meaning matter content. Obviously, this could not consist of nucleons in the case of elysons.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I would think that since the experimental system is gravitational the E=m c2 result would be for a graviton rather than an elysion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Gravitons are too tiny and too fast to have such a macroscopic effect as was observed. Moreover, elyson quantum effects should show up long before graviton quantum effects.

Upon rethinking this, I think I erred by using the minimum energy found rather than the minimum speed. Individial elysons would produce a minimum rms speed of a neutron just as a tiny dust particle suspended in air would have a minimum rms speed because of air molecules continually banging into it.

Here is the calculation that now seems to make the most sense. Using the conservation of momentum law, mv = MV, we can apply this to the experiment and adopt v = rms speed of elyson = sqrt(5)/3 c, as needed to make the wave speed in elysium = c. So v = 4x10^10 cm/s. M = mass of neutron = 1.7x10^-24 g. V = minimum rms speed of neutron = 1.7 cm/s from the experiment. So we can solve for the elyson mass, m = 7x10^-35 g. -|Tom|-

The Meta Model presumes that the phenomenon of radioactive decay is an equilibrium mechanism whereby matter sheds energy and mass which has been absorbed in the form of gravitons or graviton momentum.

Would it be correct then to expect that decay which occurs from matter that is within the shadow of a large mass would have a lesser rate than decay from matter that is a long distance from any shading body?

Yes. But these effects are slight in most places because the graviton-blocking efficiency for most bodies is so low.

The excess heat that is observed everywhere must be caused by some unknown process that changes matter from one element to another. It is clear to me the Earth is producing a lot of this kind of energy. If the accounting of energy balances was done correctly it would be clear to anyone that there is an unknown process that causes transmutation of the elements.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Yes. But these effects are slight in most places because the graviton-blocking efficiency for most bodies is so low.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I must accidentally have edited Tom's reply instead of replying to it and part of his response was lost as a result. My apologies for this slip-up.

I think there must exist differences in the abilities of the (isotopes of ?) elements to interact with the graviton medium. If so then maybe these differences could be exploited to understand and control that medium.

For instance, I can appreciate that a given isotope will exist at some energy and mass threshold rendering it more or less stable - more or less prone to shed mass and energy - should it absorb more from the graviton medium. I wonder also though if differing rates of decay for different isotopes might be a measure of differing abilities to absorb graviton mass and energy. Perhaps some conformational difference could cause a nucleotide pairing with just the right properties (proton to neutron distance, or spin resonance?) to absorb a graviton or extract energy from one as, for instance, in the way that bond lengths or electron orbital transitions determine the absorption of energy from elysium. In other words, maybe it is more than simple matter density that determines whether a graviton traversal will be productive.

An analogous question concerns the 'excess heat' phenomenon described for planetary bodys by Van Flandern and the related (?) calorimetric results of Charles Brush discussed by Hathaway and Eng, both in Pushing Gravity. Different planets are shown to have different levels of 'excess heat' with variance over two orders of magnitude on a mass basis (p.113). Brush (p.311) is reported to have identified anomalous heating principally in volcanic basalts from among a variety of materials he tested. Both of these results indicate that ordinary matter shows variability in the way that it responds to graviton flux and/or elysial cooling.

It would be interesting to pursue Brush's line, as calorimetry data is arguably one of the 'best' numbers a laboratory can produce, routinely good to ten significant figures out to five decimal places.

Don

Any ideas how the size of elysons compares to the size of nucleons? With the theoretical calculated mass of elysons, is there a whole number of elysons that can form up to create nucleons? - MV