Re: O'Barr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!

Gerald L. O'Barr:
>O'Barr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
>
> How I hate doing this, writing something that
>should not be needed.

Then don't write it. It's not needed. What _is_ needed is for you
to spemd the time you waste writing this crap doing something that
will lift you from your state of profound ignorance - like learn
some physics.

>But on this net, what is new?

Not much, for the simple reason thatsimpletons such as yourself
litter the newsgroups by posting the same crap day in and day out.

>The at theory is, for me, the answer to what I have
>always been looking for, and yet no one today seems
>to care about it.

No one will care about it tomorrow or the next day or the
next, etc., either.

>So if I die, all the good in the at theory might be lost.

There's nothing to lose since it never existed.

>However, the at theory is
>so simple, I am also sure that no one will need these
>words if the time ever comes when they might have an
>interest. So I see a waste of time no matter what
>happens. But I must do it, just in case. Please
>forgive me for being so simple.
>
>Introduction.
> In the at theory, the basic difference that exists
>between particles is their mass. There are no other
>qualities around, other than their mass, which infers
>their size, dimensions, shape, etc. They can of
>course have different locations, positions,
>orientations, motions, to include spins, directions
>and magnitudes. And in collisions, differences in
>spalls can exist based upon the mass or size of the
>colliding particles.
> We will discuss these spalls.
>
>Spalls:
> A spall is where particle A hits particle B, and
>they do not bounce, but A is 'absorbed' into (or
>becomes attached to) B, and a portion of B is
>'ejected' opposite of the point where A and B
>initially hit. The ejected mass might be the same
>amount of mass as A, or often slightly more or less.

Of course, you have no explanation for this, which makes your
so-called cure worse than the disease.

> (Note: In the at theory, one often considers the
>'exchange of mass' in a spall to be the mass
>difference between the initial mass A, from the
>ejected mass. Thus, if the ejected mass was equal to
>mass A, the exchange of mass would be said to be
>zero, even though the total mass ejected or spalled
>was actually A. Pleased do not become confused over
>this. And the sign of the exchange of mass is often
>reversed to reflect the change in particle B, rather
>than for A.)
> Because of the spall process, all particles are
>forced to share the same matter, and thus all
>particles are the same in terms of the matter out of
>which they are composed. This is important in our
>physics and shows up everywhere (like E = mc^2
>applies no matter which particle is involved, etc.)
> Because of spalls, the nothingness of the ether is
>clearly present. Because particles spall, then they
>have no effect upon each other, to the extent that
>the basic mass is spalled. The only finite reaction
>forces are seen in the mass that is exchanged. This
>is all that is felt or observed. But to the first
>order, if the differences in the mass exchanged is a
>plus and then an equal minus, these effects are
>somewhat counter balanced, and there remains only
>second order effects even of these effects. So the
>nothingness of the ether is really small, being only
>a second order effect only of the exchange of mass
>involved, never involving the total mass of the
>actual particles.
> There really is a slight ether drag, but it is
>much less than even QM effects. QM effects are first
>order effects of only the mass being exchanged, while
>drag is a second order effect of the exchange mass.
>The only real first order effect is the E = mC^2
>function. Ether drag is most of the time perfectly
>balanced by translational effects, so that sub-atomic
>spins and photons, and all other moving particles,
>show their constant values of velocity and spin over
>time.
>
> In the at theory, everything revolves around
>spalls. The spall process provides (requires) the
>potential of the production of new species each time
>a spall occurs. Therefore, attention must be given
>to this problem. All that can really be said is that
>there seems to be a ton of variables that could be
>present to affect the type (size) of spalls being
>produced. The spalls could include a standing wave
>situation, where the distance between the generation
>of stress and the surface upon which that stress is
>relieved could decide the area upon which the stress
>is confined at that point or distance, and thus the
>size of the spall produced would be affected.
> But whether it is due to initial stress waves, or
>to overlapping stress waves, or to reflections of
>stress waves, or combining of initial with
>reflections, or the roughness of the surfaces, or the
>actual shape of the surfaces, or the actual dynamics
>of the interactions, or things that are not even
>apparent (such as pre existing weak spots within the
>particle due to previous hits and combining of
>particles, etc.), the following must be understood:
> Whatever the results are, they would be expected
>to follow some kind of a pattern. This is at least a
>pattern in the over-all statistics. There might be
>many inconsistencies or exceptions from time to time,
>but the overall results should be expected to fit
>some kind of pattern. And the pattern should be
>expected to be different for different sizes of
>particles being hit. And this assumption of having
>some kind of a pattern, and a difference in pattern
>between different ranges of sizes, is all that is
>needed in order to obtain equal and opposite force
>fields.
>
>Equal and opposite force fields:
> The equal and opposite conditions exist due to
>some of these factors: The pattern that might be
>found for all the different sizes that exist, will
>eventually determine the background. Over time, the
>background will be the remains of all the spalls that
>had been produced.
> Therefore, if we did find a reality where there
>were only two stable types of bodies existing, of
>equal numbers (at least interacting with an equal
>number of background particles), and these two
>stable types of bodies were each producing a fixed
>pattern of spalls, then the background would
>eventually be found to exist with a perfect average
>of their two patterns. And once the background
>matches with the perfect average of these two
>particles, then each of these two stable particles
>will themselves be producing equal and opposite
>fields around themselves, with the average being the
>background, and what they are each producing being
>able to be added together to exactly produce or match
>the then existing background.
> I am not sure if anyone is following this. There
>is no reason to even care, I guess. But these equal
>and opposite force fields that are seen in our
>reality cannot be prevented in the at theory, if
>sufficient time is presented to have all these acts
>come to a full equilibrium. Now if one artificially
>chose a set of spalls that instantly results in an
>equilibrium situation, then such equal and opposite
>forces are automatically obtained. This is what I do
>when I put together a computer program, I make sure
>that the spalls being produced not only make each
>particle stable in their over-all mass over time, but
>that the spalls produced are equal and opposite to
>the spalls being produced by the other type of
>particle. When this is done, then I can expect equal
>and opposite force fields.
> What must be understood, is that even though what
>I do might seem to be very artificial, over time,
>what I am doing would happen eventually, and cannot
>be prevented. I am not cheating by doing it
>instantly, rather than waiting for it to happen
>naturally.
>
>QM effects:
> Now because spalls do have some statisticalness,
>then our reality, as seen in QM, can easily be seen.
>We obviously have uncertainty in all the interactions
>seen, even in the very mass of each particle, in
>their motions, etc. And we most certainly could have
>some particles become unstable, and totally disappear
>by being spalled to death, or we could have particles
>accidentally pop into existence, or one particle
>become more than one, or one grow into another.
>Such acts in the at theory would not be impossible to
>consider, etc. There would be some boundaries, or
>limits, to many of these acts, but in some cases, we
>could expect such things.
>
>
>Types of fields:
> The types of fields that one might create
>mathematically can of course be many. But
>physically, the choices also seem to be many more
>than what we have assumed. In the at theory, the
>most basic field is this: One set of particles repel
>all other particles. Another set of particles
>attract all other particles. This makes for a most
>interesting world, in that a set of these two
>different types of particles can translate. This
>translation does not violate any conservation law.
>They are obtaining their strange motion out of the
>background around them. But such a condition could
>be used to provide us the spin we find in our sub-
>atomic particles on our level of existence, and they
>could be used to explain photons, that seem to always
>have to be moving.
> But the at theory can produce many such fields.
>It can produce gravity fields (which is really a
>duplication of the above field where particles can
>attract all other particles.) And different
>duplications can be applied together at different
>strengths and for different particles as might be
>desired, simple by assigning different patterns of
>spalls being produced by different particles.
>
> We can do anything in the at theory, as long as
>the total effects are held to the following two
>results: 1) the average mass of the spalls from each
>stable particle must be equal to the average mass of
>the particles which are colliding with it, and 2) the
>total types and mix of species being produced by all
>particles is equal to the existing mix of species
>that exist. When this is being achieved, then we
>have both stable particles in a stable universe, and
>equal and opposite forces, what ever they might be.
>At least so far, this has been my experience up to
>here.
>
>Conclusions:
> Now this is the end to this Book (1) of Knowledge.
>The at theory is very flexible, but at the same time,
>it does have some very strong control over what
>actually can be done. It will be found to be useful,
>and as I have counted the number of correlations, it
>is statistically impossible for it not to be correct.
>Such a number of correlations can not be accidental.
>And I find it to be a mystery as to why no one seems
>able to understand or appreciate it. Of course, I
>find it a mystery as to how any sane person can
>believe in a physically impossible 4-D spacetime
>continuum! It is an insane world that we live in,
>where the obvious is not believed, but the mysterious
>is. We are a very strange society. But I guess that
>is also part of the fun.
>
>Thanks for reading.
>Gerald. <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>
>+ remove 3 dots for e-mail.
>
.

Relevant Pages

  • OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... between particles is their mass. ... We will discuss these spalls. ... pattern in the over-all statistics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Ultimate Reality is both simple and complicated!
    ... The Vision of our reality! ... distributed within space as particles, ... different than just mass. ... Spalls will be the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr (globarr) Book of Knowledge!
    ... > between particles is their mass. ... > We will discuss these spalls. ... > pattern in the over-all statistics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • The at Theory.
    ... The Ether Theory. ... elements, mass and space. ... These particles have a near infinite variance in ... have an average of 800 mass units. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is light a wave or a particle?
    ... "I have used the word "Virtual" to distinguish invisible particles, ... Depends on if you talk about rest mass or relativistic mass. ... Photons are massless in the sense that they have no *rest* mass. ... >>electromagnetic wave. ...
    (sci.physics)