IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

'gravity' [was Re: 'gravioty']

KP_PC k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Oct 3 18:32:16 EST 2003


further comments below.

"KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Uknfb.168274$3o3.12218516 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Whoops! Got the 1-bit-'error'-short-shrifting
| 'blues' :-]
|
| Depending on SSW<->UES-harmonics-
| phase conditions, there =can be= an Ob-
| servable =decrease= in 'stability' - decay
| 'event' volume will =increase=.

This's, essentially, what happens in so-called
'nuclear' explosions.

| So I've got to qualify my "'always'" as I used
| it in what's quoted below.
|
| Overall, the plot will reflect the NL-P as I've
| discussed it.

Which, come to think of it, [the NL-P] should also
be directly-readable in 'nuclear'-reactor control-rod-
setting data.

Get it?

It's not 'random'.

It all behaves in rigorous accord with the NL-P be-
cause it all reduces to the one-way flow of energy
from 'order' to dis-'order' that is what's =described=
by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].

[Those who are 'alarmed' that I've discussed in terms
of 'nuclear' stuff should actually be Alarmed that 'nuclear'
arsenels exist but a general understanding of the NL-P
has not existed - 'nuclear' weapons are =not= what they've
been presumed to be - =that= is what's Humanity-wide-
Worthy of =Alarm=.]

Anyway, what I'm doing in this discussion is working to
provide the 'big-picture' in a way that Physicists can
understand - if they want to Test TH.

It matters Greatly with respect to the Survival of
Humanity, which is actually why I'm discussing it. kpc

| The SSW<->UES energy-'containment' UES
| 'pressure' is also calculable via this approach
| [one of a g'zillion ways that it is].
|
| ken [k. p. collins]
|
| "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
|
news:K4nfb.168264$3o3.12216863 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | BTW, this stuff has been in TH for at least 25 years.
| | I've discussed it repeatedly here in b.n and in other
| | online 'places'.
| |
| | It's the way TH handles what's been referred to
| | as "radioactive decay" - Deterministically.
| |
| | I've added an important thing to the discussion
| | below.
| |
| | "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| |
|
news:RNmfb.168255$3o3.12214120 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | |
| | | "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| | |
| |
|
news:XKrcb.152072$0v4.11317282 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | | | [...]
| | | | "KP_PC" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| | | |
| | |
| |
|
news:3xrcb.152062$0v4.11315265 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| | | | | [...]
| | |
| | | "`Other Dimensions? She's in Pursuit'
| | | By DENNIS OVERBYE
| | |
| | | Published: September 30, 2003"
| | |
| | | http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/science/30MARI.html
| | |
| | | It's not necessary to invoke dimensions greater
| | | than three.
| | |
| | | It's in Tapered Harmony that, if it looks like a
| | | quantity of energy is 'going away', it's be-cause
| | | that energy is just 'winking-out' of =observability=
| | | as its ephemerance [freedom to move] increases
| | | beyond a threshold, and the energy 'just' returns to
| | | the UES.
| | |
| | | This's all Testable.
| | |
| | | Iff physical reality is as above, an Observable increase
| | | in the quantity of applied energy that's required to
| | | produce the 'usual' 'particle'-collision dynamics will
| | | occur.
| | |
| | | This's be-cause, when energy returns to the UES,
| | | the UES 'pressure' local to that 'event' augments,
| | | which 'bolsters' all local SSW<->UES harmonics'
| | | energy-'containment' dynamics.
| | |
| | | I'll be surprised if all the data necessary to Verify
| | | this position has not already been collected at
| | | Fermilab and.or CERN.
| | |
| | | The only 'difficulty' is that a continuous stream of data
| | | is Necessary. You can't 'pick-and-choose' as the folks
| | | at Fermilab are doing - or you'll miss the thing that
| | | you want to observe - the 'instantaneous'-but-exceed-
| | | ingly-fleeting augmentation of collision stability [which
| | | will be Observable as an 'instantaneous' event-decrease.
| | |
| | | Get it?
| | |
| | | The dynamics are roughly-analogous to what happens
| | | when one gets into one's car on a cold morning, drives
| | | off without allowing the engine to warm-up, and stomps
| | | the accelerator - the fuel-air mixture often becomes too-
| | | rich, and the engine loses power briefly.
| | |
| | | The diminution of detector events is analogous to this
| | | be-cause the local UES is 'too-rich' :-]
| | |
| | | Should be 'easy' to see in already-recorded data [unless
| | | the continuous stream has been tossed-out - no problem -
| | | record a continuous stream]. All that's required is to crunch
| | | the data looking for fluctuations in the decay-product
| | | 'volume'.
| |
| | "fluctuations" isn't the right term.
| |
| | The Observables will be 'instantaneously'-augmented
| | stability that's 'time'-correlated to energy going back to
| | the UES.
| |
| | Given such 'missing energy', plot it the way you please,
| | the 'fluctuations' in decay-product volume will 'always' plot
| | on your 3-D coordinates in the 'direction' of fleetingly-
| | increased-'stability'. kpc
| |
| | | ken [K. P. Collins]
| |
| |
| |
|
|





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net