Dwayne D.L.Rabon-
"these concepts of which you base your most fundmental security are all false and have been reprted as false since the comming of their ideas as theorys more than 60 years ago."
By whom? Ill accept arguing by authority here if it makes anything easier? Or are you more than 60 years old?
And like I say, evidence please.
"the simply fact that our solar system travels through the galaxy at a certain speed defines that our solar system has only been associated with a given star fo a given poit of time, in this case alpha centurei for the last 27,000 years. which defines that life on earth relative to our chemistry has only been possible for 27,000 years. it is your arragonce and pride that some how humans and earth life is better and more invincable than it is."
Well, the nearest star to us is the Sun. So your saying Alpha centauri has a masssive effect on us and that the earth etc didnt exist in this state as it is now before we got near alpha centauri? You really think alpha centauri has that effect on us? Why not Barnards star, or Sirius? why does it matter about the closest one so much? I have not said that human life is more invincible than it is, your just assuming that from me attacking your ideas.
"you basic argument against influnce of stars on life atoms and earth chemistry is the argument that the gravity of stars does not effect atomic structure to cause a signifcant change chemically or in the stablity of subatomic particles compsoing the atoms."
Yup. And yours is that they do affect it all catastrophically, which the science that is the basis of the theory of this computer you are using is says isnt really correct. Or not correct enough to notice.
"I have given information that is common to nuclear reactions, man made or other wise, simply the act of the sun to create helium involves the the unifcation of at least three hydrogen atoms, and as many as four called a aplha particle. this basic process seen in the sun and in nuclear reactions is the key point in understanding the development of the atomic structure as a proccess of action that exist."
Why three hydrogen atoms? And yes, I do know nuclear fusion in stars creates elements. your point is that?
"understanding the above as a event, in addtion to the knowledge that the universe is x number of years old, and composed many of hydrogen and helium, some 98% hydrogen, and that hydrogen and helium are the basic forms of atom internal struture, meaning not onle are they emitted in such manner, they are calculated to operate with in the atom in such formation, this defines that atoms are built from hydrogen and helium, or protons and alpha particles."
Whooaa, atoms are built from protons, neutrons and electrons. The mass of a neutron is somewhat similar to that of an electron and a proton added together. Emmited by what? what formation of operation in the atom? Like I say, what are yoru experiments that show that the last 100 years of particle physics, is total bunk?
"in furthure approach to understanding we find that the basic unit of distrubance to the atomic sturture is the event of removal of a electron the uint of stablity for a hydrogen atom, and progresses to helium two electrons, this is called ionzation, which is the fundmental of chemistry and directly relative to subatomic structure. for earth the normal state of ionzation is 3 to 4 postive ion, which results in the distrubance of 4 protons, or 2 alpha particles or 8 proton/neutrons, ionzation beynd this poit demonstrtes the begining of radioactive behavior meaning stripping of electrons from other atoms in the enviroment, and the emmission of xrays, beta particles and gamma, in general this becomes a serious event with the state of 7 postive ion states. which is the distrubance of 7 protons or 4 alpha particles or 16 proton/neutrons, the total distrubance is 16 bodies or 14th of uraniums atomic weight and a 4th of iron. the even of disturbance can be seen to effect the stablity of the atom just by evalution of proportions of particles."
So nearly there, yet so far, you seem to be drawing unwarranted confused conclusions from the standard model of atoms, namely that ionisation directly affects the nucleus and brings on radioactive decay.
"the event of removal of a electron from the orbit of the atom causes a orbital change, which changes as the atom seeks to fill its energy requirments of its sub atomic particles protons and neutrons, a failure to fill this requirement causes increasing instablity over time as the atom disapates energy and can not maintain uniform energy requirements to staifiy the subatomic particles, at which point the atom becomes radioactive and exsperinces transmutaion, or the emmmission of its most unsatble subatoimc particle, which begings to move about the atomic internal structure randomly usally this is a hydrogen atom or proton, in other cases a aphal particle, it is this same disbalnce that is the cause of iostopes and their short life span before transmutaion."
Wow, could it be you have explained radioactivity? Nope, i dont think so. You notice that radioactivity runs on the half life, if its so dependent on ionisation, why the half life of the atoms? Dissipates energy due to instability? Lets see your experimental results then.
"having said that little bit for your information, the event of hydrogen to congreate to build atoms requires given conditions, these condtions inorder to form heavy atomic structure require near zero gravity, cold temptures and hydrogen, here atoms can form, in say for conversation deep space as in the beging of the galaxy more easily as the condtion that would appera in a sun furing the proccess of helium formation exist abundamtly through out space, by this proccess heavy atoms may form. for understanding what has been said the condtions of the sun in its proccess to make a heavier atom are distributed though out space as the rate of presssur and energy have changed, meaing the condtions of the sun has become the background constant making atoms formable from hydrogen, and helium in the congreation proccess to the building structure of a atom.
as hydrogen ionznizes and congreates it form heavy atoms resultong in the formation of planets from the gaseous orgins of the galaxy and cosoms as we know it."
So your now discarding the entirety of modern physics? Wow. Have you got an experiment designed to create heavier atomic strcutures in orbit around earth or wherever further afield you need to go? And your still rather garbled, its hard to say whether you think heavy atom formation can go on with the sun present or not, but saying it goes on in low G and temp etc is just nuts. Remember, the standard model postulates a big bang roundabout 12 billion years ago, that formed hydrogen as a major part of teh universe, which then got together and formed suns etc and through a process of fusion in stellar temps and pressures and gravities, creating all the heavier atoms around us now.
"genrally speaking this means that uranium was one of the last atoms to form in the formation of planets and suns or that region of the galaxy, the heavier the atom the younger it is, therefore exspaining its present existance."
See, you like to get standard conclusions, just by a rather personal way of getting there.
"the event of super nova in our local region of stars or even spartic dirtubnace in stars effects the atomic stablity of atoms on earth and in our region, causing radioactive reactions such as beta and gamma emmissions, a super nova would with out doubt cause proton emmssions "
nope. But we may well get showered with radiation and heavier elements taht had been cooked up in the star.
"the effect of that gravity matrix can be effected by solar emmission, changes in background constant that effect the overal condtion of the atom in that space, meaning that on earth a x ray is needed to penitrate the atome and cause a distrubance but in another region of our local gravity matrix red light or a green light wave may produce the same disturbance."
Yah think so? Against all the evidence for the same behaviour of atoms in far off older stars, teh observations of jupiter and our nearby stars, the apparent cohrence of atoms behaviour clsoer/ further away from the sun, etc etc.
"on earth it will take 400 years. the present motion of the magentic poles and there proxicimty to the axis give a time fram at the magentic pole current motion as 10 to 40 years, before collaspe of the magenmtic poles, it is stated as little as ten years as the suns pole reversal may provoke the earths magntic poles to prematureally reverse."
So you say, as you deny the evidence of far older magnetic reversals and greter tiems between them. YOu are denying the evidence for a rock and iron and nickel mantle and core etc then, despite that being able to explain teh facts rather well. What information do you have that nobody else has? Why has the hydrogen in the centre of the earth been trapped there and surrounded by all this heavier elements? Are you saying this has all been formed by hydrogen condensing into ehavier elements 27,000 years ago?
AS for prematurely reversed magentic poles, stated where???
"these concepts of which you base your most fundmental security are all false and have been reprted as false since the comming of their ideas as theorys more than 60 years ago."
By whom? Ill accept arguing by authority here if it makes anything easier? Or are you more than 60 years old?
And like I say, evidence please.
"the simply fact that our solar system travels through the galaxy at a certain speed defines that our solar system has only been associated with a given star fo a given poit of time, in this case alpha centurei for the last 27,000 years. which defines that life on earth relative to our chemistry has only been possible for 27,000 years. it is your arragonce and pride that some how humans and earth life is better and more invincable than it is."
Well, the nearest star to us is the Sun. So your saying Alpha centauri has a masssive effect on us and that the earth etc didnt exist in this state as it is now before we got near alpha centauri? You really think alpha centauri has that effect on us? Why not Barnards star, or Sirius? why does it matter about the closest one so much? I have not said that human life is more invincible than it is, your just assuming that from me attacking your ideas.
"you basic argument against influnce of stars on life atoms and earth chemistry is the argument that the gravity of stars does not effect atomic structure to cause a signifcant change chemically or in the stablity of subatomic particles compsoing the atoms."
Yup. And yours is that they do affect it all catastrophically, which the science that is the basis of the theory of this computer you are using is says isnt really correct. Or not correct enough to notice.
"I have given information that is common to nuclear reactions, man made or other wise, simply the act of the sun to create helium involves the the unifcation of at least three hydrogen atoms, and as many as four called a aplha particle. this basic process seen in the sun and in nuclear reactions is the key point in understanding the development of the atomic structure as a proccess of action that exist."
Why three hydrogen atoms? And yes, I do know nuclear fusion in stars creates elements. your point is that?
"understanding the above as a event, in addtion to the knowledge that the universe is x number of years old, and composed many of hydrogen and helium, some 98% hydrogen, and that hydrogen and helium are the basic forms of atom internal struture, meaning not onle are they emitted in such manner, they are calculated to operate with in the atom in such formation, this defines that atoms are built from hydrogen and helium, or protons and alpha particles."
Whooaa, atoms are built from protons, neutrons and electrons. The mass of a neutron is somewhat similar to that of an electron and a proton added together. Emmited by what? what formation of operation in the atom? Like I say, what are yoru experiments that show that the last 100 years of particle physics, is total bunk?
"in furthure approach to understanding we find that the basic unit of distrubance to the atomic sturture is the event of removal of a electron the uint of stablity for a hydrogen atom, and progresses to helium two electrons, this is called ionzation, which is the fundmental of chemistry and directly relative to subatomic structure. for earth the normal state of ionzation is 3 to 4 postive ion, which results in the distrubance of 4 protons, or 2 alpha particles or 8 proton/neutrons, ionzation beynd this poit demonstrtes the begining of radioactive behavior meaning stripping of electrons from other atoms in the enviroment, and the emmission of xrays, beta particles and gamma, in general this becomes a serious event with the state of 7 postive ion states. which is the distrubance of 7 protons or 4 alpha particles or 16 proton/neutrons, the total distrubance is 16 bodies or 14th of uraniums atomic weight and a 4th of iron. the even of disturbance can be seen to effect the stablity of the atom just by evalution of proportions of particles."
So nearly there, yet so far, you seem to be drawing unwarranted confused conclusions from the standard model of atoms, namely that ionisation directly affects the nucleus and brings on radioactive decay.
"the event of removal of a electron from the orbit of the atom causes a orbital change, which changes as the atom seeks to fill its energy requirments of its sub atomic particles protons and neutrons, a failure to fill this requirement causes increasing instablity over time as the atom disapates energy and can not maintain uniform energy requirements to staifiy the subatomic particles, at which point the atom becomes radioactive and exsperinces transmutaion, or the emmmission of its most unsatble subatoimc particle, which begings to move about the atomic internal structure randomly usally this is a hydrogen atom or proton, in other cases a aphal particle, it is this same disbalnce that is the cause of iostopes and their short life span before transmutaion."
Wow, could it be you have explained radioactivity? Nope, i dont think so. You notice that radioactivity runs on the half life, if its so dependent on ionisation, why the half life of the atoms? Dissipates energy due to instability? Lets see your experimental results then.
"having said that little bit for your information, the event of hydrogen to congreate to build atoms requires given conditions, these condtions inorder to form heavy atomic structure require near zero gravity, cold temptures and hydrogen, here atoms can form, in say for conversation deep space as in the beging of the galaxy more easily as the condtion that would appera in a sun furing the proccess of helium formation exist abundamtly through out space, by this proccess heavy atoms may form. for understanding what has been said the condtions of the sun in its proccess to make a heavier atom are distributed though out space as the rate of presssur and energy have changed, meaing the condtions of the sun has become the background constant making atoms formable from hydrogen, and helium in the congreation proccess to the building structure of a atom.
as hydrogen ionznizes and congreates it form heavy atoms resultong in the formation of planets from the gaseous orgins of the galaxy and cosoms as we know it."
So your now discarding the entirety of modern physics? Wow. Have you got an experiment designed to create heavier atomic strcutures in orbit around earth or wherever further afield you need to go? And your still rather garbled, its hard to say whether you think heavy atom formation can go on with the sun present or not, but saying it goes on in low G and temp etc is just nuts. Remember, the standard model postulates a big bang roundabout 12 billion years ago, that formed hydrogen as a major part of teh universe, which then got together and formed suns etc and through a process of fusion in stellar temps and pressures and gravities, creating all the heavier atoms around us now.
"genrally speaking this means that uranium was one of the last atoms to form in the formation of planets and suns or that region of the galaxy, the heavier the atom the younger it is, therefore exspaining its present existance."
See, you like to get standard conclusions, just by a rather personal way of getting there.
"the event of super nova in our local region of stars or even spartic dirtubnace in stars effects the atomic stablity of atoms on earth and in our region, causing radioactive reactions such as beta and gamma emmissions, a super nova would with out doubt cause proton emmssions "
nope. But we may well get showered with radiation and heavier elements taht had been cooked up in the star.
"the effect of that gravity matrix can be effected by solar emmission, changes in background constant that effect the overal condtion of the atom in that space, meaning that on earth a x ray is needed to penitrate the atome and cause a distrubance but in another region of our local gravity matrix red light or a green light wave may produce the same disturbance."
Yah think so? Against all the evidence for the same behaviour of atoms in far off older stars, teh observations of jupiter and our nearby stars, the apparent cohrence of atoms behaviour clsoer/ further away from the sun, etc etc.
"on earth it will take 400 years. the present motion of the magentic poles and there proxicimty to the axis give a time fram at the magentic pole current motion as 10 to 40 years, before collaspe of the magenmtic poles, it is stated as little as ten years as the suns pole reversal may provoke the earths magntic poles to prematureally reverse."
So you say, as you deny the evidence of far older magnetic reversals and greter tiems between them. YOu are denying the evidence for a rock and iron and nickel mantle and core etc then, despite that being able to explain teh facts rather well. What information do you have that nobody else has? Why has the hydrogen in the centre of the earth been trapped there and surrounded by all this heavier elements? Are you saying this has all been formed by hydrogen condensing into ehavier elements 27,000 years ago?
AS for prematurely reversed magentic poles, stated where???
