Ant Sinclair

AS FROM THIS MOMENT I LOCK THIS THREAD! ANY DRAWINGS ON THIS THREAD ARE MY PERSONAL WORKS AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE THEIR USE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! !!!

AS FROM THIS MOMENT I LOCK THIS THREAD! ANY DRAWINGS ON THIS THREAD ARE MY PERSONAL WORKS AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE THEIR USE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! !!!

AS FROM THIS MOMENT I LOCK THIS THREAD! ANY DRAWINGS ON THIS THREAD ARE MY PERSONAL WORKS AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE THEIR USE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! !!!

NO YOU WILL NOT LOCK THIS THREAD TFAL, AS FROM THIS MOMENT I LOCK THIS THREAD! ANY DRAWINGS ON THIS THREAD ARE MY PERSONAL WORKS AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE THEIR USE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! !!!

Looking at how the particles can interact I imagine that the Neutrinos are the main constituent of the structure of the Magnetic Framework and the Gravitons 'Anchor' Electrons/Protons(Matter) to this Neutrino Magnetic Framework. I'm beginning to think that there must be a Higgs-Photon recycling mechanism and Iam currently investigating this mechanism. Members can make posts on this thread as is their right under the forum rules and I'm not being evasive or arrogant when I say that I have a huge workload to get through and the next post I make(after submitting one more drawing on this thread) will most likely be around the 24th of September (The Creator Permitting), and that/those post/posts will be on the H-Bonds/Energy Constants thread/threads.

The largest central circles are the six main particles following in size; H is the Higgs Central Nucleus P is the Protons Central Nucleus E is the Electrons Central Nucleus G is the Gravitons Central Nucleus V is the Neutrinos Central Nucleus Y is the Photons Central Nucleus On the outside of these particle central nuclei are the next largest circles, these are the central nuclei satellite particles. The smallest of the circles, some with a particle symbol, some with a question mark, show how the smaller particles can interact through the particle range. The circle bottom right (the photons high frequency satellite 1e-51kg) should have a question mark below the YHFS (photon high frequency satellite), this particle aswell as others with question marks need tagging.

Attached is the Draft List of Particles for consideration.

How do You believe a conciousness/energy could come from nothing - if You're going down the road of thinking that nothing is a 'thing' or has a value just as something is a thing and has a value, please explain how You get between the two.

I'm not going down that road, You may if You wish Now, Iam just saying that I can't see that time came first!

Is time nothing more than a collection of events, many things happening at the same instant?, then another time(another instant, another collection of events), then another, that are all contributing to a historical sequence of events? Wouldn't an event have had to come first, an event/collection of events was needed for time to realised/started to be measured? What caused the 1st event must have come first surely?

Orions work is professional looking and so I presume maybe wrongly physics/math is His profession. I heed Your message and probably My best route to get the ideas of this thread across is put the full lot down in documents then I won't get held up on certain assumptions that need to be made, the four I asked for earlier and one more concerning something that strange said about there are 17 particles - nearly correct again strange, the fith assumption would have been there are 6 types of particle each with 2 satellites making a total of 18, making a total of 18 × 6.457e79 particles in the Universe.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86147-split-from-energy-constants-were-massive-clouds-of-h-bonds-responsible-for-the-big-bang/?hl=%2Benergy+%2Bconstants quote name="DrP" post="881872" timestamp="1440527155"] Where is the H-Bond thread you talked about? PS - And you can't just expect him to assume the figure you gave are correct - what rot! I know DrP but it's hard sometimes debating with strange, there is the matter of the missing anti-matter - all I'm asking is for some assumptions to be accepted for now, I'm not asking him to get a tatoo on his arm or anything. The values I gave him are reasonable values DrP and he must know this or is out of his depths in this area of physics.

Strange in fear of getting bogged down and not moving forward with this(Quasars and Gravity) You'll have to assume several things, 1) Mass of Universe = 1.08e53kg 2) Number of Particles In Whole Universe = Number of Variations in Particle Types × 6.457e79 3) Mass of Visible Universe = 6e51kg 4) There is a mass equivalent to the visible matter in the Universe that is hidden of 6e51kg Where is it all?, it can only be in one place and that has to be inside of the Universes' Limits. We know some of these limits already but need to know the outer limits and this is 1.363e12LY(99%), if You use a 169GHz example frequency and take 1% of it ie 1.69GHz, then do a Red Shift Calc on these values, You get 99%(if I've calculated correctly) the size of the Universe, add 1% and it's there. Strange You weren't so far off when You said 150 times the size of the visible Universe when in fact it's fairly close to 100 times, meatloaf did say 1 out of 3 ain't bad. So now We have the outer frame work of 1.37e12LY Ps Strange, Iam not the one displaying arrogance, I've felt a few times on threads that I was being rail-roaded into positions, and that's why I had to present these ideas the way I did - maybe slightly dis-gentlemanly but word play is so tedious

" Please show us how you got this number. And how you have confirmed it is correct" - I will when the time is right and this will be in the H-Bonds thread "Also, the number of protons in the observable universe must be changing as the universe expands and our observable horizon increases" - I'm not saying the 6e51 isn't variable 'in Our observations' " How do you know how large the whole universe is? No one else does" - Others have put this value in the ball-park of around 1e53kg, Iam just quoting it precisely "Please show me what I should be looking at" - I will on H-Bonds "OK. You say that you invented a "tuned" value. How did you "tune" it? Or is it just a guess? And then you invented a factor of 18" - It wasn't guessed or invented I plainly saw a ratio, the fine tuning was done to this ratio for a reason as will be shown in H-Bonds "Can you explain why it is absurd? I think it is absurd to try and be 0.1% accurate about a number which can only be estimate to a factor of 10 at best" - Because of the energy in the electrons "That is the anti-matter mystery. Why is there so little of it" - It can't be seen because something is hiding it, because it's hidden doesn't mean it doesn't exist "Are you going to correct the Wikipedia page, then?" - No somebody will do it for Me

"It's impossible to calculate the number of protons in the Universe" - No it isn't, I've done it and it's 6.457e79 "The reason there is such a wide range is because there is no way of getting an accurate value" - Yes there is and it is 6.457e79 "Do you really mean the mass of the whole universe? That is currently thought to be at least150 times the size of the observable universe" - Yes the mass of the whole Universe is 1.08e53kg "I can't see any reason why the observable universe should be an integer fraction of the entire universe" - Open Your eyes and I mean that constructively "How do you get from 18 to 6.457e79? (And how do you get such an implausibly precise number?)" - Please read the statements in the thread "The electron mass adds less that 0.1% which is hundreds of times smaller than the errors in the estimate for the number of protons, so I think you can ignore it" - Coming from someone with such high rep points seems absurd to Me - Yes to Get My Head Around Gravity all has to be accounted for "No. There is a minute amount of antimatter in the universe, pretty much zero. Any antimatter that is created will almost immediately be annihilated" - So why the Great Anti-Matter Mystery? "Dark matter and dark energy are currently thought to make up about 95% of the universe. But I wouldn't say dark energy was "mass". Dark matter make up about 84% of the mass of the universe" - This is wrong, it is 88.98%

I again disagree with the two sentiments strange in Your last post, the Eddington number is crucial and even more crucial an accurate Eddington number, because with an accurate value, true values can be worked out and also patterns can be seen forming. I've seen a range of candidates ranging from e78s to e82s and initially used a 'Tuned' 6.67e79, but as this culminated in the Universes total mass/visible Universal mass ratio being 18.6 - I thought this needs to be a whole number as sytems are wholes so I used 18 to back-engineer the Eddington Number, this turned out to be 6.457e79(approx). So now We have a place to start with how much, we can begin to evaluate the where is it, and in what form. Universe total mass = 6.457e79 × Proton and Electron mass = 6.457e79 × 1.6726e-27 + 6.457e79 × 9.1094e-31 = 1.08e53kg Now if We divide 1.08e53kg by 18 We get 6e51kg, the mass estimated to be the visible matter, but NASA puts this percentage at 4.6% of the Universes total mass, using the 'Tuned' Eddington number the masses add up ie the 6e51 but the percentage is 5.55%? While thinking on this I think it should be thought on also, that is there an 'anti-matter' equivalent mass for the visible Universe?, and if so another 5.55%, consuming a total of 11.11% of the Universes total mass, leaving 88.89% to be accounted for in dark matter and dark energy, if I've being doing the maths right?

swansont didn't Paul Dirac say that for every particle there has to be an anti-particle - is this not accepted today, or is Eddingtons number the total number of protons/anti-protons in the Universe with similar numbers of electrons and positrons to equal them?

Thanks for Your reply Sensei that was a nice link to a nice experiment demonstrating time dilation, I've often been in awe of how experimental physicists devise methods to test theory, quite a few times in optical experiments!Sensei are decays constant or do they modulate in intensity?

If say You put two of Your atomic clocks side by side, both identical set-ups, and You recorded their 'sound'(atomic-vibration), would both sets of caesium perform in tempo?

Will Iam wanting to get My Head Around Gravity swansont, and was thinking that in order for Me to do this I would need to know all the mass/energy values in the universe and where it is 'hanging' out and in what form, So I thought the Eddington number might be a sound place to start.Does this number still stand and is it thought that there are equal numbers of electrons and also positrons for each one of the 10e80 number of protons?

I posted the same thread earlier in inorganic chemistry and then thought probably this forum would fit it better. Maybe a moderator could delete the other thread? Is it correct that OH + H2O > H2O + OH with the exchange of an ion? If it is correct, is it known today, which ion swaps? If water and hydroxide masers(seen in the early stages of star-formation), with high densities and fast velocities(60km/s +) are 'swirling' around each other, could they be exchanging ions, and would it be correct to think it would be a considerable amount of energy in this ion exchange, if it is happening?

Thanks for Your post Studiot, in the early days on the coal fired power stations I was often fault finding on electronic boards before We got into the throw away and replace with new culture, We used Dymac Turbovisory sytems to measure eccentricity etc on the 300Tonne shafts spinning at 3000rpm, the master boards would fail now and again and the first part of the circuit I would test was the Master Clock. Iam now in the process of searching for research into the OPs questions to try and shine Light on this matter.

I realise You will know of the Eddington Number, I believe it's a ten to the eighty number, is it correct if I remeber correctly that He suggested that for every proton there is an electron, and possibly a positron, does this still hold today?

Thanks for Your reply Klaynos, I have looked for material on the questions I have asked above, could You please link Me to such studies?

Thanks for Your reply swansont, I appreciate there have been countless studies on the different decays, but has any body 'timed' say two, different type of decays to an accurate device like the atomic clocks to see if they somehow have a common 'beat', even if their decay times are different? If there have been could You kindly link to the study/studies?