# Thread: maximum energy a proton can absorb?

1. Suppose there are three particles in an isolated, contained area. There temperatures are near absolute zero, and the particles have very little momentum.
Two of the particles are protons, and one is an antiproton.
A proton and the antiproton collide and anihilate each othe completely. All of the energy is absorbed by the remaining proton.

Q1 If all the energy were transferred to the remaining proton as heat, what temperature would the remaining proton reach?

Q2 Is there a maximum temperature, a maximum ammount of thermal energy a proton can contain?

Q3 If the answer to Q2 is yes, can you express it in terms of the maximum ammount of proton-antiproton anihilations whos energy can be absorbed by one proton??

2.

3. The only way a proton can gain energy is kinetic energy; i.e. velocity. (Temperature is a description of the statistics of the speeds/energies of collections of particles.) There is no upper limit to the kinetic energy of a proton (as far as I know).

Note that your scenario is pretty artificial. In practice, only half the energy could be transferred to the proton. The two photons created by the annihilation will have to travel in opposite directions (because of conservation of momentum).

4. My mistake. replace scenario with two hydrogen and one antihydrogen atom.

Kinetic energy is a dodge of the pertinent question. Any form of energy you credit to the anihilation of matter and antimatter can be, for purposes of arguement, be converted to terms of heat, temperature.

There need not be any known process of doing this in a lab, it is a valid theoretical question about matter containing energy in the form of heat.

Noone has seemed to define the maximum temperature, as far as i can tell.
CERN's proton vs nucleus collisions 10 trillion °C 3×10−7 nm
(gamma rays)

At what temperature would the H reach if all the energy of one anihilation was converted to heat the H?

5. Originally Posted by Eleven11
My mistake. replace scenario with two hydrogen and one antihydrogen atom.
I'm not sure what that changes. A single atom doesn't have a temperature (as far as I know).

Kinetic energy is a dodge of the pertinent question.
Why?

Any form of energy you credit to the anihilation of matter and antimatter can be, for purposes of arguement, be converted to terms of heat, temperature.
It would be straightforward to calculate the change in temperature of, say, 1g of water (or whatever).

Noone has seemed to define the maximum temperature, as far as i can tell.
I don't know if there is an upper limit to temperature in theory. In practice, there may be as matter will start to change state or dissociate.

At what temperature would the H reach if all the energy of one anihilation was converted to heat the H?
The change in temperature is (I think, off the top of my head) given by energy / (mass of hydrogen gas * specific heat of hydrogen gas).

6. Originally Posted by Eleven11
Suppose there are three particles in an isolated, contained area. There temperatures are near absolute zero, and the particles have very little momentum.
Two of the particles are protons, and one is an antiproton.
A proton and the antiproton collide and anihilate each othe completely. All of the energy is absorbed by the remaining proton.

Q1 If all the energy were transferred to the remaining proton as heat, what temperature would the remaining proton reach?
As Strange pointed out, it could only absorb one of the photons i.e. one proton mass as energy. Then you can use the relation

Then we could just use the energy-mass relation to substitute:

and solve for T.

Originally Posted by Eleven11
Q2 Is there a maximum temperature, a maximum ammount of thermal energy a proton can contain?
Well a proton is really a composite particle made up of two up quarks and one down quark bound via the strong interaction. There probably is no maximum amount but it would also probably decay very quickly/emit the energy away.

7. Are you really just wanting to know how much is the maximum energy a proton can have? There's probably no true maximum for that. However, protons have been measured to have extremely high energies in the past.

The highest recorded so far I think was the "Oh My God Particle". It was a proton traveling at almost the fully speed of light. I think maybe some other similar cases have been recorded as well.

Oh-My-God particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8. Originally Posted by beefpatty
Well a proton is really a composite particle made up of two up quarks and one down quark bound via the strong interaction. There probably is no maximum amount but it would also probably decay very quickly/emit the energy away.
That's a good point. As free quarks cannot exist, providing enough energy would cause the creation of more hadrons. Most of which would be unstable and decay into a variety of other particles. Even more energy and you would have a quark-gluon plasma (for which, I assume, temperature can be defined).

9. Originally Posted by kojax
Are you really just wanting to know how much is the maximum energy a proton can have? There's probably no true maximum for that. However, protons have been measured to have extremely high energies in the past.
Good example. I don't really know (and it may not be known) but I'm pretty sure these extremely high energy particles are not created by the sort of mechanism in the OP, which would be difficult to achieve and rather inefficient. They are more likely to have been accelerated in powerful electromagnetic fields.

10. Originally Posted by Eleven11
Suppose there are three particles in an isolated, contained area. There temperatures are near absolute zero, and the particles have very little momentum.
Two of the particles are protons, and one is an antiproton.
A proton and the antiproton collide and anihilate each othe completely. All of the energy is absorbed by the remaining proton.
That can't happen. It'd be as if a proton absorbed a photon which doesn't happen. You can't change all the kinetic energy of the photon into the kinetic energy of the proton. There are conservation rules which prohibit that from happening. I don't know what they are right now though.

Q1 If all the energy were transferred to the remaining proton as heat, what temperature would the remaining proton reach?

Q2 Is there a maximum temperature, a maximum ammount of thermal energy a proton can contain?

Q3 If the answer to Q2 is yes, can you express it in terms of the maximum ammount of proton-antiproton anihilations whos energy can be absorbed by one proton??[/QUOTE]

11. Originally Posted by PhyMan
That can't happen. It'd be as if a proton absorbed a photon which doesn't happen. You can't change all the kinetic energy of the photon into the kinetic energy of the proton. There are conservation rules which prohibit that from happening. I don't know what they are right now though.
Maybe it helps to think of it this way.

If a moving billiard ball collides with a billiard ball at rest of equal mass, the colliding ball will stop dead and transfer all its kinetic energy to the impacted ball. In this case, think of it as the photon transferring all of its momentum to the proton. Instead of stopping, the photon's frequency would become 0, or equivalently it would have infinite wavelength. Essentially, it's as if it isn't there and is "absorbed" by the proton.

12. Philosophically it is logical that a finite particle cannot contain infinite energy. The should be a limit to temperature of matter...

You hold a ball up, it has potential energy. You drop it, it gains kinetic energy. It hits the groung, energy transforms into heat. Heat is the logical end result of energy releases.

Many scientists believed entropy would transform all energy to heat, evenly dispersed, making the universe cold and dead in the future, until the unpredicted "acceleration of galaxies/dark energy/reverse gravity" came along.

The antiproton, p, pronounced p-bar) is the antiparticle of the proton. Antiprotons are stable, but they are typically short-lived since any collision with a proton will cause both particles to be annihilated in a burst of energy.

Proton/Antiproton Energy [mass] =938 MeV/c2
X2
1876 MeV/c2

It would be straightforward to calculate the change in temperature of, say, 1g of water (or whatever).
You can measure heat in calories (small c). That is what I would use....

Apply the question to an isolated field of Hydrogen and Antihydrogen particles in a 2 to 1 ratio of matter to antimatter. That is if you can believe that a field of particles can have a temperature and store heat.

Assume the burst of energy caused by anihilation described in the first quote is eventually absorbed completely as heat by the remaining matter; not absorbed as acceleration of motion, or spin, or angular momentum, and not used to create other particles, etc.,

What would be the average temperature of the remaining Hydrogen?

If no answer I'll assume you can't, and finish researching it myself.

13. The energy from a proton/anti-proton annihilation can be found with the following Google search: 2 x 938.272 MeV in calories which returns the result: 2 x 938.27200 megaelectron volts = 7.18583848 × 10-11 calories.

So all you need is the mass of the matter you are heating and its specific heat and you can work out the temperature change.

Do you need more help?

Can I ask why you are working this out?

14. I suppose I do need more help...

Referring to Avagadro's number, and shaky memory, Mass = 1/6.023*10^23 grams, for Hydrogen?

It takes approximately one calorie to heat one cubic centimeter[1 gram], of water, one degree K. I can't find the coefficient of heat for Hydrogen......

Why I ask is that in dealing with theories of Antimatter, CP violation is one standard arguement who's statements and methodology I would like to clarify.
According to NASA/Wiki:
At this time, the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics

15. I believe that the universe is half antimatter, as both matter and antimatter are created in pair production, and because of the laws of motion.
I don't believe in CP violation, there is no observational evidence that a massive CP violation occurred or was forced to occur.
The science community believes that any antimatter instantly collides with matter and anihilates. They believe that one galaxy can be antimatter, and on matter. The concept of each galaxy having opposing arms that are matter on one side and antimatter on the other is disturbing. This close proximity is supposed to lead to immediate anihilation.

Even when a positron is fired into the nucleus of matter, it takes some time to orbit an electron[negative pion] until their orbits decay and collision,anihilation occurs.

Observations show that half of our galactic core is antimatter, symmetrically located on one side, attached to a galactic arm. The other half is matter connected to another galactic arm.
Using 20 quotes and references from NASA, and many more within the body of the theory, I have described the methodology of a working model of galactic formation, using proven applied sciences, which resolves the matter/antimatter relationship.
My theory can be re-written merely by replacing my statements with like quotes from NASA.

magneticreconnectiongalaxy.com

16. CP violation has been seen in the lab, so choosing not to believe it is a bit odd.

CP violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I tried looking through the links you posted but could find nothing that showed NASA stated "...half of our galactic core is antimatter, symmetrically located on one side, attached to a galactic arm". In fact the links you provided say antisymmetric and don't imply that half of the core is composed of antimatter, just that there's probably a cloud of antimatter.

Could you directly link here where you found that information?

17. CP violation has been seen in the lab,
This is not obsevational evidence of a massive CP violation in the past.

Wikipedia/antimatter:
Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetrical and matches the pattern of X-ray binaries (binary star systems containing black holes or neutron stars), mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron–positron pairs

They can only conjecture that a matter core would be beneath the antimatter.This makes your prediction of quick anihilation more likely. the galactic center should explode, if matter and antimatter are not somehow coexisting or separating to safe distances by magnetic forces...

As I alone have corretly predicted every observation concerning the core, the antimatter, and the production of hydrogen,etc, my estimation of what is beneath the "GIANT CLOUD' of antimatter is one side, one magnetic pole, of an elongated hemisphere,
composed of antimatter. A symmetrical whole core would require the addition of the opposing matter side.

Supermassive black hole theory fails as the average density of galactic cores is less than water.

NASA: ..Associated with no previously known object, it seems to imply that a fountain of antimatter positrons streams from the GC [galactic center].
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970501.html
The nature of the Galaxy's bar which extends across the Galactic center is also actively debated.....Certain authors advocate that the Galaxy features two distinct bars, one nestled within the other.
The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

18. Due to the relatively vast distances between stars outside the galactic nucleus, collisions between stars are thought to be rare.

Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the rare occasions that matter and antimatter collide, they cause those "gamma ray bursts" that are a mystery to standard theory.

19. Originally Posted by kojax
Are you really just wanting to know how much is the maximum energy a proton can have?
There's no limit to how much energy a proton can have. All you have to do is decide how much energy you want it to have and then change to a frame of reference in which it has that amount of enrgy. There is no upper bound on the amount of energy tht any proton can have.

20. Originally Posted by Eleven11
Referring to Avagadro's number, and shaky memory, Mass = 1/6.023*10^23 grams, for Hydrogen?
Mass of one atom, yes. But if you are considering a single atom, then the idea of specific heat capacity doesn't really apply. You would need to calculate the kinetic energy and/or velocity.

Why I ask is that in dealing with theories of Antimatter, CP violation is one standard arguement who's statements and methodology I would like to clarify.
According to NASA/Wiki:
At this time, the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics
You say that CP violation is one standard argument (for the absence of antimatter, I assume). But it isn't. As the NASA quote shows. The observed CP violation is several orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed absence of anti-matter.

21. Originally Posted by Eleven11
I believe that the universe is half antimatter, as both matter and antimatter are created in pair production, and because of the laws of motion.
An insignificant amount of the matter in the universe is created by pair production. And I don't know what the "laws of motion" have to do with it.

The science community believes that any antimatter instantly collides with matter and anihilates.
Not really. The probability of a collision depends on the amount of matter around. It isn't necessarily "instant". We observe (small amounts) of antimatter all over the place. However, the main way we observe it is by the radiation produced.

They believe that one galaxy can be antimatter, and on matter.
I'm not sure many people seriously consider that.

The concept of each galaxy having opposing arms that are matter on one side and antimatter on the other is disturbing. This close proximity is supposed to lead to immediate anihilation.
It wouldn't lead to immediate annihilation. But where the two forms of matter met, there would be continuous annihilation producing very distinctive radiation. If there were large amounts of antimatter in the galaxy we would know.

Observations show that half of our galactic core is antimatter, symmetrically located on one side, attached to a galactic arm. The other half is matter connected to another galactic arm.
Citation needed.

Using 20 quotes and references from NASA, and many more within the body of the theory, I have described the methodology of a working model of galactic formation, using proven applied sciences, which resolves the matter/antimatter relationship.
Why haven't you submitted this paper to a peer-reviewed journal?

22. Originally Posted by Eleven11
[Wikipedia/antimatter:
Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center. The observations show that the cloud is asymmetrical and matches the pattern of X-ray binaries (binary star systems containing black holes or neutron stars), mostly on one side of the galactic center. While the mechanism is not fully understood, it is likely to involve the production of electron–positron pairs[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#cite_note-13"]
Firstly, it is impossible to tell what you are quoting and what is your own ideas. (I'm going to go with: the bits that make sense are quotes, the rest is your own).

Secondly, this source does not say that "half the galaxy is anti-matter" as you claim.

The source linked to there says, for example:
Originally Posted by NASA
The observed amount of X-rays from Chandra and the non-detection of gamma rays from the Compton data show that the antimatter fraction in the Bullet Cluster is less than three parts per million. Moreover, simulations of the Bullet Cluster merger show that these results rule out any significant amounts of antimatter over scales of about 65 million light years, an estimate of the original separation of the two colliding clusters.
Less than 3 parts per billion is not "half".

As I alone have corretly predicted ...
I can't be bothered to try and make any more sense from your disordered writing but I will say that I looked at your web page and there is no math. Therefore you have not predicted anything.

Supermassive black hole theory fails as the average density of galactic cores is less than water.
I have no idea what the average density of the galactic core has to do with black holes. (Although, I would note that the average density [not that it means anything] of a large black hole may also be less than water.)

23. Originally Posted by Eleven11
On the rare occasions that matter and antimatter collide, they cause those "gamma ray bursts" that are a mystery to standard theory.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT]
Profoundly ignorant. When matter and antimatter annihilate they produce very distinct and well known gamma ray energies. This is based (as you initially appeared to understand) on the masses of the annihilating particles. Gamma ray bursts contain a wide range of energies, most of which is outside the range produced by matter-antimatter annihilation. Also, gamma ray bursts occur in highly collimated beams which could not occur in your proposal.

It is also rather implausible that, if the explanation were as simple as you claim, it would have escaped the notice of some of the brightest people on the planet and require someone with a very limited grasp on basic physics to explain it.

24. Moving to New Hypothesis for now.

25. For decades after the discovery of GRBs, astronomers searched for a counterpart at other wavelengths: i.e., any astronomical object in positional coincidence with a recently observed burst. Astronomers considered many distinct classes of objects, including white dwarfs, pulsars, supernovae, globular clusters, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and BL Lac objects.[15] All such searches were unsuccessful,[nb 1] and in a few cases particularly well-localized bursts (those whose positions were determined with what was then a high degree of accuracy) could be clearly shown to have no bright objects of any nature consistent with the position derived from the detecting satellites. This suggested an origin of either very faint stars or extremely distant galaxies.[16][17] Even the most accurate positions contained numerous faint stars and galaxies, and it was widely agreed that final resolution of the origins of cosmic gamma-ray bursts would require both new satellites and faster communication.

Also, gamma ray bursts occur in highly collimated beams which could not occur in your proposal.
There is nothing that states all gamma ray bursts ae projected towards Earth, obviously we would detect collmated beams which are pointed in the direcrion of Earth.

If you don't accept CP violatuion, how do you explain antimatter abundance and role in the universe?

When matter and antimatter annihilate they produce very distinct and well known gamma ray energies.
They also add great ammounts of heat and motion to the surrounding sysem, which result in radiation of bands other than gamma.

Older literature distinguished between X- and gamma radiation on the basis of wavelength, with radiation shorter than some arbitrary wavelength, such as 10−11 m, defined as gamma rays.[7] However, with artificial sources now able to duplicate any electromagnetic radiation that originates in the nucleus, as well as far higher energies, the wavelengths characteristic of radioactive gamma ray sources vs. other types, now completely overlap. Thus, gamma rays are now usually distinguished by their origin: X-rays are emitted by definition by electrons outside the nucleus, while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus.

Recent observations by the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL satellite may explain the origin of a giant cloud of antimatter surrounding the galactic center.

NASA: ..Associated with no previously known object, it seems to imply that a fountain of antimatter positrons streams from the GC [galactic center].
Of the six existing galaxy theories, none of them, and you, did not predict this. I predicted it before the observation.
Until you come up with an explanation for these NASA observations,you shouldn't act so freaking smug. You have not, could not predict any recent observation of the universe, so you must sit back and urinate on people that have ideas. My methodology is logical, linear, and uses only proven science, and matches all observations. There is even a PHOTO by NASA OF THE CENTRE OF OUR GALAXY. IT IS AS I DESCRIBED, DOING WHAT IT IS I SAID IT SHOULD DO.
NASA: ..Associated with no previously known object, it seems to imply that a fountain of antimatter positrons streams from the GC [galactic center].

26. Originally Posted by Eleven11
For decades after the discovery of GRBs, astronomers searched for a counterpart at other wavelengths: i.e., any astronomical object in positional coincidence with a recently observed burst. Astronomers considered many distinct classes of objects, including white dwarfs, pulsars, supernovae, globular clusters, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and BL Lac objects.[15] All such searches were unsuccessful,[nb 1] and in a few cases particularly well-localized bursts (those whose positions were determined with what was then a high degree of accuracy) could be clearly shown to have no bright objects of any nature consistent with the position derived from the detecting satellites. This suggested an origin of either very faint stars or extremely distant galaxies.[16][17] Even the most accurate positions contained numerous faint stars and galaxies, and it was widely agreed that final resolution of the origins of cosmic gamma-ray bursts would require both new satellites and faster communication.[18]
First, when you're doing a cut and paste directly from wikipedia, put it in quotes and attribute it.

Second, you snippet does nothing to support your contention that GRB are matter-antimatter annhilations.

27. From the same wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst

Most observed GRBs are believed to consist of a narrow beam of intense radiation released during a supernova as a rapidly rotating, high-mass star collapses to form a neutron star, quark star, or black hole. A subclass of GRBs (the "short" bursts) appear to originate from a different process. This may be the merger of binaryneutron stars. The cause of the precursor burst observed in some of these short events may be due to the development of a resonance between the crust and core of such stars as a result of the massive tidal forces experienced in the seconds leading up to their collision, causing the entire crust of the star to shatter.[3]

28. Gamma ray bursts contain a wide range of energies, most of which is outside the range produced by matter-antimatter annihilation.
When two stars collides, a wide range of energies are radiated. If they are matter and antimatter, they will emit much gamma ray energy, x-ray energy, and as the inferior object is eliminated, the energy levels out. This is typical of 1b supernovae.

Do you have a better explanation of type 1b, and the difference between other supernovae?

29. Second, you snippet does nothing to support your contention that GRB are matter-antimatter annhilations.
GRB's are a science mystery, Snippet shows that every other possibility of explaining GRB's has been unsuccessful.
The quote seemed to rule out every explanation except mine.............................................. .................................

First, when you're doing a cut and paste directly from wikipedia, put it in quotes and attribute it.
Sorry, I have a littlel trouble with the editor. I type terribly. I am also busy, and am trying to research and answer several people in a unevenly matched discussion.

30. Originally Posted by Eleven11
Gamma ray bursts contain a wide range of energies, most of which is outside the range produced by matter-antimatter annihilation.
When two stars collides, a wide range of energies are radiated. If they are matter and antimatter, they will emit much gamma ray energy, x-ray energy, and as the inferior object is eliminated, the energy levels out. This is typical of 1b supernovae.

Do you have a better explanation of type 1b, and the difference between other supernovae?
I'm not as astrophysicist, and neither are you. Antimatter is not found in any significant amounts in the universe, so attributing supernovae to antimatter collisions has no basis.

You also seem to have a mistaken idea about how stars 'collide'.

31. Originally Posted by Eleven11
Second, you snippet does nothing to support your contention that GRB are matter-antimatter annhilations.
GRB's are a science mystery, Snippet shows that every other possibility of explaining M/A ahihilations has been unsuccessful.
The quote seemed to rule out every explanation except mine.............................................. .................................
Feel free to ignore the rest of the article. That's known as quote mining, and is a favorite tactic of cranks. Furthermore, your snippet is historical, not current.

32. From AlexG quote:
Most observed GRBs are believed to .to form .....,....., or ..... A subclass of GRBs .. appear to ..... This may be .....The cause of the precursor burst ... may be due....

Proven? Not as stated....
When you took a test in school, you filled in all the blanks. Better to guess and posssibly get lucky and be right than to leave an answer blank.
That is what science is doing now. we don't have all the answers yet, so we are making our best guess....
Remember every generation has fools that believe we have all the answers. in 1900 there was a movement to shut down all science research, it was thought we knew everything there was to know about science.
This generation has the same kind of people. progress requires change, against the mainstream.
Nehls Bohr was rejected. When he submitted a paper to "The Journal' they said his model of the atom [electrons orbiting a nucleus of protons and neutrons], sounded like science fiction.

33. Does 1111 get crackpot points for comparing himself to Bohr?

BTW, Bohr's model of the atom was wrong.

Now, next should be the 'prove me wrong' chant.

34. Feel free to ignore the rest of the article.
If there is something relavent that I didn't mention,sir, feel free to mention it here.

That's known as quote mining, and is a favorite tactic of cranks.
I tried to give reavent information. if I came up ,short, you are free to question me. To poison my well, calll me an infidel, is a logical fallacy. In debate, a good judge would dismiss you as a grandstander.

Furthermore, your snippet is historical, not current.
If a fact is old, it is "dismissed as old news", if new, it "hasn't stood the test of time". It's another illogical ploy to discredit your opponent based on some self-imposed meaningless time frame.

You are a good Sophist, I will give you that.

35. And you are a true crank.

36. This is supposed to be a science forum. People make threads, post questions. Other posters attempt to answer them.

No one has attempted to answer any of my questions. No one has an alternate explanation for the Integral observations of antimatter. No one predicted, or can explain why antimatter is created at our galactic core, and is streaming outward.

In the absence of better explanations, minds should be a little more open here. Or is this what you call open? Is this the extent of your ability to entertain a scientific idea?

Signature of other poster:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
I can't be moved to any end without meaningful feedback. There is none here. To disagree is great, but some science is supposed to be attached, which is not.
If I need to learn, none of you are going to teach me......

37. Niels Henrik David Bohr (Danish: [ˈnels ˈboɐ̯ˀ]; 7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962)....developed the Bohr model of the atom with the atomic nucleus at the centre and electrons in orbit around it,0 ec75.jpg

if you believe that model is wrong, I won't waste my energy arguing the point...

Nehls Bohr was given as an example of how correct new ideas are more often rejected than accepted.There are many others.
It was relevant; to accuse me of comparing myself to Bohr is just more grandstanding bull.
Logical fallacy: poison my well. Like in a debate the first speaker ends with "don't believe anything the next speaker says"...
We can also play the credibilty game....
It was suggested that if my theory were correct, some other person would of figured it out before now..
Why?
Most innovations, inventions, art, comes from mavericks who make their own rules.
When so many countries were throwing money at the "TOP SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS" to create an airplane, it was not believed by many that two high school drop-outs solved all three problems associated with controlled flight.
College drop-outs created the PC and the mouse.
People who study science in college for 8 years either teach or get a job in some r & d department making foot powder or more absorb able tampons.

Or get their own web site and pretend to know everything by bullying and insulting posters.

I have linux server. For \$175 per year I can have my own science forum.

"Crackpot" is clear name calling. Logical fallacy of poisoning my well.
I wouldn't want to win an argument by out-insulting someone, I prefer out thinking them.

38. Eleven11: Your feeler for answers to how gamma ray bursts arise mentioned "when two stars collide," which happens to match my own theoretic model relating to gamma ray bursts, so I'll venture a few comments on how my theory goes. -My cosmic model there is based on a concept of universal etheric energic resonances. -In the case where one star "tires" (its internal energy wears down), its resonances with comparable cosmic energic influences (other stars in its cosmic neighborhood) means that the outside resonance with a "stronger" neighboring star is comparatively greater than the weakening star's internal energic resonance. Thus the two stars (the weak one and a stronger one) reach a point where they are attracted to each other and collide. (This goes against standard theory where a tired star is viewed as collapsing internally). A collision of two stars would be an unimaginable (by our usual standards) forceful event, and could totally erase all the atomic signatures of the two star systems. In my model, the chaotic flux that would result would extend to the etheric level of energy unit scale. Thus, you would have electronic, protonic, and neutronic ether-scale energy units fluxing chaotically. Electrical resonance presumably could not operate in such a chaotic flux situation, and size-based resonance would determine the kinds of cosmic systems that would obtain, such that neutronic units would resonate size-wise, like-to-like, into a neutron star, which would leave the flux area by resonating with neutronic attractors in space farther away. Likewise, electronic energy units would resonate like to like and leave as gamma rays and other cosmic rays. Protonic units would also resonate like to like into a new star, or Nova.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement