🚀 go-pugleaf

Is anybody that matters getting this?!?


island wrote:

> Particle theory says that for every fermion type there is another
> fermion type that has exactly the same mass, and therefore no priori
> distinction between matter and anti-matter.


> Dirac's "Sea of Electrons" was dismissed as implausible for this reason,
> but the opposite value of all other charges (quantum numbers), indicates
> that the asymmetry between the two classes of particles is due to the
> fact that the anti-particle has -rho and negative mass, until it becomes
> a real particle.


> Vacuum energy density, (rho), is related to pressure by P=-rho, and so
> vacuum expansion will be affected by pair production, as the negative
> pressure component increases in proportion to the "hole", while the
> gradient between the vacuum and matter becomes more severe via the
> gravitaionally offset increase in vacuum tension.  The expansion of the
> universe will slow down or speed up depending on whether rho-3P is
> positive or negative, but if expansion is proportional to pair
> production, then rho-3P equals is very close to zero rho, because pair
> annihilation attempts to keep up with pair production, as with the
> observed case for antimatter annihilation radiation that NASA's Compton
> Gamma Ray Observatory discovered in the Milky Way Galaxy.  Omega is
> therefore always very near to one.

> The gradient between the vacuum and ordinary matter becomes more severe
> instead when you increase mass-energy while at the same time increasing
> -rho with real particle pair production, and so virtual pair production
> should also increase with the increase in uncertainty, (dE), that comes
> about as a result, and then real pair production increases as well, as
> more virtual particles become available.

> The vacuum expansion rate increases in proportion to the rate of
> increase in -rho.

> If the above described density parameters hold the value for omega at
> around 0.2, then geometrical instability isn't a problem of "flatness",
> and this is at least a more realistically plausible explanation for what
> has previously hinged on a what was thought to be a precarious and
> unlikely balance.  The implication is that tension between matter and
> the vacuum will become so great that we will eventually have another big
> bang, and the next universe will necessarily be flat as consequence of
> the fact that the last one was too, and this carries the constants
> forward through time.

> I don't think that a perfect cosmic singularity of infinite density,
> energy, and absolute zero volume can exist and still produce an
> asymmetric footprint for force decoupling, because it contradicts the
> notion of "idealistically pure symmetry"  that it is inherent
> asymmetries which lead to all more disordered states for the entire
> duration of the rest of the expansion event!  Surely, the imperfections
> which produce the constants must necessarily pre-exist at 10^-43.

> There is no need for an equally awkward inflationary period to explain
> the distance between galaxies on opposite sides of the universe if the
> universe already has volume when tension between matter and the vacuum
> becomes so great that a big bang occurs, and so the asymmetries which
> produce the universal constants are "convolved" inherently forth to a
> higher order of the same inclination toward thermal equilibrium, as the
> process continues to move ever forward in time, in an impossible effort
> to achieve the "pure symmetry" of a perfectly balanced static state,
> which is more nearly achieved each time that the universe "evolves" over
> the described perpetual thermodynamic process.

> Doesn't this also resolve the relationship between quantum forces and
> super gravity?