|
New Hydrogen Nucleus Structure |
|
|
|
|
GE Physics
|
|
Written by Michael Netzer
|
|
Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51 PM |
|
Based on Neal Adams' Prime Matter Positron-to-Proton Theory
The New Hydrogen Nucleus Structure is a geometric model which demonstrates a count calculation of the layered Prime Matter particles bound by the force of a core positron, to form a proton. As an electron is attracted to the new proton, a new Hydrogen atom is born.
In his elegant theory for emergence of new atomic matter in the universe, Neal Adams states that new protons effectively emerge in the cores of celestial bodies through layered accumulation of 918 Prime Matter particles around a positron, in a process commencing with Pair Production. A Prime Matter particle is the combined electron and positron fields which are theorized to neutralize each other upon converging in the Positronium state, thus rendering themselves undetectable and are assumed to annihilate. Each Prime Matter particle carries an electron weight of two (2), one positron and one electron. The accumulated electron weight of the predicted 918 Prime Matter particles in the model is therefore 1836, same as the electron weight of a proton.
A verifiable calculation of the number of particles in a geometrically sound model is considered crucial to the veracity of Positron-to-Proton Theory. |
|
Last Updated ( Oct 19, 2009 at 07:38 PM )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Expanding Earth Theory... the Physics Side |
|
|
|
|
GE Physics
|
|
Written by Neal Adams
|
|
Feb 09, 2007 at 06:45 AM |
|
Physics and expanding (growing earth/growing universe) theory. When this "expanding earth" theory was first presented 40 years ago by Professor of Geology, Samuel Carey and others, the major objection was how could the increased mass that this growth required be accounted for. This and "The Theory of Subduction" caused science to turn it's back on expanding... or "growing" earth.
It was not enough that the continents fit together. Or that dinosaurs in a lighter gravity grew to 4 times the size of modern animals on average, or that the atmosphere was less dense, and mountain's prolific growth is a modern series of events which did not exist for the most part in the ages of dinosaurs.
The proposers of this theory needed to explain where the mass that made this newer bigger earth came from. Why consider the ramifications if the theory was wrong? |
|
Last Updated ( Oct 13, 2009 at 01:30 AM )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
On the Construct of Matter |
|
|
|
|
GE Physics
|
|
Written by Dr. Vedat Shehu
|
|
Jul 27, 2006 at 08:04 PM |
|
In science, as in every activity, it is worth the proverbial saying "to take this case with a grain of salt" and to carefully use scientific achievements functionally with our premises of the EE. Afterwards, we probably must ponder that our forum is not in unison for why and how the Earth's radius is enlarged. For example, we all negate the interpretation of convection and subduction as is expressed in the Pangea theory, but these processes and phenomena have their great role in the embryonic phase of core creation, and gradually, with the Growing process and crust thickening, their role in order to circulate the crust failed and, was progressively less important and finally was totally eliminated forever, at least for last Eon.
|
|
Last Updated ( Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33 AM )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Pressure Freezing and Elemental Strength |
|
|
|
|
GE Physics
|
|
Written by Robert Therriault Jr.
|
|
Oct 16, 2006 at 12:00 AM |
|
At what point does a material undergo pressure freezing? What is the definition of pressure freezing?
I presume it would be the application of a huge force (enough to overcome the repulsive forces of the atoms themselves to some small degree) since we know that there is a "HUGE" amount of space between atoms, even solids compared with their size. Applying this force, which compacts them beyond their normal means of cohesion. This would seem to have two effects:
1 - The heat conductivity would go up.
2 - The material is stiffened against further compression. |
|
Last Updated ( Oct 16, 2006 at 05:11 AM )
|
|
Read more...
|
|
GE Physics
|
|
Written by Madeline McDowell
|
|
Jul 29, 2006 at 03:35 PM |
|
Here I go out on a limb again. Although I basically agree with the moderate and reasonable stance on accretion, I would suggest that Earth growth could also be called Earth manufacture, and material deposition isn't all that comes from space. I think there is a source of energy that drives the mechanism of growth/manufacture and also a source of substance or catalyst for its production. Both must come together in the core to produce the growth. |
|
Last Updated ( Jul 29, 2006 at 03:42 PM )
|
|
Read more...
|
|