THE BIG SUCK THEORY - Electrons and positrons and neutrons
Alexander Abian
att: Todd WHITESEL
There are two basic items SPACE and MASS. I believe that their
existence was and is independent of each other.Indeed,in an atom there
is space. So space did not require an atom and some parts of atom
perhaps are spaceless.
Overall predominant tendency is to maintain the status quo which
of course sometimes is overpowered, but then again the tendency
is to maintain the new status quo.
Spaces is faced with lots of intruders , mass, electrically charged
items, magnetically charged items, etc., etc and in each occasion
space tends to preserve its stage of neutral voidness.
In case of facing electric charges, space tends not to allow
further concentration of electric charges and repels the like
electric charges. Again, to maintain its electric neutrality
spaces allows the joining of two opposite electric charges
in order to annul the presence of electric charges.
In case of facing magnetic poles the space assists in creating
configurations to minimize the number of magnetic poles so
from N---S, S---N where there are 4 magnetic poles
it assists to create the configuration N--SN---S with less
number of free magnetic pole-intruders, or it creates N---S
S---N
to have zero magnetic poles.
In case of matter it tries to tear it apart and dilute by
all kinds of means.
All depends on the cases and amounts of electric or magnetic or
mass items to determine the behavior and evolution of the
scenery.
I tried to communicate the same ideas earlier, when , I was in a
hurry and did not quite explain my views on your comments.
Perhaps the above will clarify further my views.
Of course to each action there is a reaction - BUT NOT NECESSARILY
EQUAL AND OPPOSITE (that statement is again an illusory idealization)
Thus although two massive planets may be both negatively charged
but the force of gravity (which is a reaction to the space's
tendency of separating the planets further apart) may overpower
the space's tendency of not allowing further concentration of
the like electric charges and the planets may perhaps even collide.
Sincerely, A. Abian
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN TIME-MASS EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T = A m^2 in Abian units
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Joshua Hewitt
Right, let's pick some holes...
Alexander Abian wrote:
> There are two basic items SPACE and MASS.
What do you mean basic?
> I believe that their
> existence was and is independent of each other.
Belief is no good. I want proof.
> Indeed,in an atom there
> is space. So space did not require an atom and some parts of atom
> perhaps are spaceless.
These sort of comments seem to indicate that you have no idea of what you are
talking about. For the record, there is no quantum theory of gravity as yet.
> Overall predominant tendency is to maintain the status quo
Define status quo and give examples of where it is maintained.
> which
> of course sometimes is overpowered,
In which cases?
> but then again the tendency
> is to maintain the new status quo.
> Spaces is faced with lots of intruders , mass, electrically charged
> items, magnetically charged items, etc., etc and in each occasion
> space tends to preserve its stage of neutral voidness.
Is this your status quo? Nature abhors a vacuum...
> In case of facing electric charges, space tends not to allow
> further concentration of electric charges and repels the like
> electric charges. Again, to maintain its electric neutrality
> spaces allows the joining of two opposite electric charges
> in order to annul the presence of electric charges.
Eeer... space doesn't do that. Electromagnetism is the culprit here.
> In case of facing magnetic poles the space assists in creating
> configurations to minimize the number of magnetic poles so
> from N---S, S---N where there are 4 magnetic poles
> it assists to create the configuration N--SN---S with less
> number of free magnetic pole-intruders, or it creates N---S
> S---N
> to have zero magnetic poles.
Why does "space" fight charge and magnetism in completely different ways? It
seems easier for space to create magnetic monopoles.
> In case of matter it tries to tear it apart and dilute by
> all kinds of means.
Gravity being an incredibly repulsive force...
> All depends on the cases and amounts of electric or magnetic or
> mass items to determine the behavior and evolution of the
> scenery.
Or spin, colour, flavour... A better word than "scenery" would be "scenario".
Even better; "system".
> I tried to communicate the same ideas earlier, when , I was in a
> hurry and did not quite explain my views on your comments.
We tried to communicate why these ideas are hogwash.
> Perhaps the above will clarify further my views.
Views based not on any observational evidence I've come across.
> Of course to each action there is a reaction - BUT NOT NECESSARILY
> EQUAL AND OPPOSITE (that statement is again an illusory idealization)
In which cases is the reaction not equal and opposite?
> Thus although two massive planets may be both negatively charged
> but the force of gravity (which is a reaction to the space's
> tendency of separating the planets further apart)
But according to you space and mass are unconnected. How then is gravity a
reaction of space's repulsion? Is gravity independant of mass now? Or is gravity
a reaction to charge?
> may overpower
> the space's tendency of not allowing further concentration of
> the like electric charges and the planets may perhaps even collide.
Not all planets are negitively charged... What if we have to oppositely charged
masses? How does space repell them?
--
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
:-) Joshua Hewitt; jhewitt[at]geocities.com :-)
:-) Room 1109A, Astrophysics Group, Blackett Laboratory :-)
:-) Imperial College, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BZ, UK :-)
:-) Telephone: IC [+44 (0)171 59] 47907 / 47693 :-)
:-) http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6253/index.html :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Alexander Abian
In article <351A4A5C...@my.signature>, Joshua Hewitt <nospam>
wrote:
>Right, let's pick some holes...
Abian answers:
Dear Mr. Hewitt:
The tone of your posting is extremely combative and the aim of you
posting is personal attackings, attackings and attackings AND THIS IS
AN EXAMPLE (that you asked me to give) OF A REACTION WHICH IS
IMMEASURABLY GREATER THAN THE ACTION, i.e., your reaction to my proposal
is a flagrant EXAMPLE where " reaction magnitudewisw is not equal to
the action".
I will answer very briefly to your "picking holes" since I have not much
time to point to all the "holes" in your reasoning:
H: >Alexander Abian wrote:
>> There are two basic items SPACE and MASS.
>>What do you mean basic?
A: and what do you mean by "mean"
H: >> I believe that their
>> existence was and is independent of each other.
>Belief is no good. I want proof.
A: In fact apparently you believe that "Belief is no good"
You prove that "Belief is no good" you prove it!
H : >> Overall predominant tendency is to maintain the status quo
>Define status quo and give examples of where it is maintained.
A: You define "Definition"
H: >Eeer... space doesn't do that. Electromagnetism is the culprit here.
A: Electromagnetism is a reaction to the BIG SUCK of the Space.
Sincerely, Alexander Abian
Joshua Hewitt
Alexander Abian wrote:
> The tone of your posting is extremely combative and the aim of you
> posting is personal attackings, attackings and attackings AND THIS IS
> AN EXAMPLE (that you asked me to give) OF A REACTION WHICH IS
> IMMEASURABLY GREATER THAN THE ACTION, i.e., your reaction to my proposal
> is a flagrant EXAMPLE where " reaction magnitudewisw is not equal to
> the action".
Cut the quasi-bullshit. The fact that I'm pissed off with lamers and their
incoherent ill-informed babbling has nothing to do with the laws of physics. In
my last post I did NOT attack you personally. If you can't stand the heat, take
a cold shower.
> I will answer very briefly to your "picking holes" since I have not much
> time to point to all the "holes" in your reasoning:
>
> H: >Alexander Abian wrote:
> >> There are two basic items SPACE and MASS.
> >>What do you mean basic?
>
> A: and what do you mean by "mean"
Now that is childish... I was asking an honest question as to what your basic
principles were and exactly in what way they revolved around space and mass.
> H: >> I believe that their
> >> existence was and is independent of each other.
>
> >Belief is no good. I want proof.
>
> A: In fact apparently you believe that "Belief is no good"
> You prove that "Belief is no good" you prove it!
If you are going to base physics on belief rather than evidence you aren't doing
physics.
> H : >> Overall predominant tendency is to maintain the status quo
> >Define status quo and give examples of where it is maintained.
>
> A: You define "Definition"
Definition: elucidate in clear, concise terms what you mean by a certain phrase,
word or term. As Webster'd dictionary puts it (pay close attention to (2a)):
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'ni-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Middle French definition, from
Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
Date: 14th century
1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman
Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement
of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
<dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and
clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is
beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of
outline or detail <high-definition television> (2) : clarity especially
of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a
jacket with distinct waist definition>.
> H: >Eeer... space doesn't do that. Electromagnetism is the culprit here.
>
> A: Electromagnetism is a reaction to the BIG SUCK of the Space.
Could we have some maths here? Just work out exactly what the BIG SUCK is and
derive electromagnetic equations from it.
Daniel R. Reitman
On 26 Mar 1998 16:37:58 GMT, ab...@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
wrote:
>In article <351A4A5C...@my.signature>, Joshua Hewitt <nospam>
>wrote:
>>Right, let's pick some holes...
>Abian answers:
>Dear Mr. Hewitt:
>The tone of your posting is extremely combative and the aim of you
>posting is personal attackings, attackings and attackings AND THIS IS
>AN EXAMPLE (that you asked me to give) OF A REACTION WHICH IS
>IMMEASURABLY GREATER THAN THE ACTION, i.e., your reaction to my proposal
>is a flagrant EXAMPLE where " reaction magnitudewisw is not equal to
>the action".
Are there any psychologists out there who would hazard a guess at the
cause of this behavior?
>I will answer very briefly to your "picking holes" since I have not much
>time to point to all the "holes" in your reasoning:
>H: >Alexander Abian wrote:
> >> There are two basic items SPACE and MASS.
> >>What do you mean basic?
>A: and what do you mean by "mean"
<Michael Palin>
What do I mean by the word mean? What do I mean by the word word,
what do I mean by what do I mean, what do I mean by do, and what do I
do by mean? What do I do by do by do and what do I mean by waasting
your time like this? Goodnight.
</Michael Palin>
Mr. Hewitt means, what concept does "basic" refer to?
>H: >> I believe that their
> >> existence was and is independent of each other.
> >Belief is no good. I want proof.
>A: In fact apparently you believe that "Belief is no good"
> You prove that "Belief is no good" you prove it!
First he imitates Monty Python. Now he's Simplicio.
Belief is an insufficient premise to develop your argument from. If
your belief does not correspond to what is observed experimentally,
then nothing built on that belief will be likely to explain actual
observations.
>H : >> Overall predominant tendency is to maintain the status quo
> >Define status quo and give examples of where it is maintained.
>A: You define "Definition"
And now he's acting like a Parry program.
A definition is a statement of the meaning of a concept. For example,
if I (or all the others who have used this example before me) define
"grue" to mean that property that before April 1, 2000, a grue object
is observed to be green, and April 1, 2000, and thereafter observed to
be blue, I can then test whether the statement "chlorophyll is grue"
is accurate by observing chlorophyll at relevant times.
>H: >Eeer... space doesn't do that. Electromagnetism is the culprit here.
>A: Electromagnetism is a reaction to the BIG SUCK of the Space.
What is the basis of this argument?
Dan, ad nauseam
Hey, Fred! We've got another one who hasn't heard Fermat's Last
Theorem has been proven!
Alexander Abian
In article <351AC2E9...@my.signature>, Joshua Hewitt <nospam> wrote:
>
>Cut the quasi-bullshit. The fact that I'm pissed off with .............
>................................................ the laws of physics.
Abian answers:
You, Mr Hewitt, you are losing your temper and acting immaturely. If
you can't stand the heath, take a cold shower.
Joshua Hewitt
Alexander Abian wrote:
> Joshua Hewitt wrote:
> >Cut the quasi-bullshit. The fact that I'm pissed off with .............
> >................................................ the laws of physics.
Of course cutting my posts in strategic places completely undermines their
content. In this case one statement was completely reversed, and the rest of the
post (which undermined Abian's ravings in various ways) was omitted and
unanswered.
Adrian Cable
> You, Mr Hewitt, you are losing your temper and acting immaturely. If
> you can't stand the heath, take a cold shower.
The heath? What does this have to do with the heath?
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.