--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"

<PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr."

<dfitzpatrick@highland.net; wrote:

>

> Tony B.

>

> Guess I'm alone on this one:

>

> But I'm betting it was a beta decay big bang as herein described

> http://www.rbduncan.com/page7.html

>

> Scroll about 3/4 of the way down the page or type in beta decay in

> the edit - found on this page menu.

>

> I think the fine structure constant IS CHANGING as has been

recently

> discovered.

>

> This I know is being disputed.

>

> I think the neutron was a stable particle for many hundreds of

> billions of years.

>

> And this was an all neutron universe for that time as well.

>

> When the fine structure constant changed enough, it all came

suddenly

> unglued with one gigantic beta decay.

>

> When half the neutrons were converted into protons and electrons,

it

> stopped because the other half of the neutrons were then safely

> inside of these newly created atoms where they could continue to

> exist.

>

> Pull out a neutron from an atom and they only survive for about

> fifteen minutes.

>

> But back then they were all stable alone,

>

> This beta decay Big Bang would have happened ALL THROUGHOUT the

> universe too.

>

> We know the Big Bang happened ALL THROUGHOUT the universe.

>

> The rest of the present models have a big problem in this respect.

>

>

> Fitz

*Over 4 Decades of Daniel P. Fitzpatricks's Books, Papers and Thoughts*

Over 4 Decades of Fitzpatrick's Books, Papers & Thoughts http://www.amperefitz.com/4.decades.htm

Dear Fitz and all!

Well, he did it. Fitz has absolutely flabbergasted me with this post.

Why, because in his proposition about beta decay, being somehow

linked with the Big Bang, he has actually REDISCOVERED Quantum

Relativity.

Fitz, if you really stand with what you have written above, then I

am well prepared to offer you a full partnership with whatever may

come out of QR.

You know the people who have supported me in this from the

scientific perspective; you, Roy, Mike and Allen from theoretical-

physics and that's about it.

But to your post.

Away from the first statement that the neutron existed in time

before the Big Bang and some finetuning of the Alpha-structure, you

have rediscovered QR.

One of the most beautiful formulations you have posted is that of

the YLEMIC NEUTRONSTARS.

Do you remember?

Well the details are this.

The Neutron's Beta-Decay WAS mapped precisely onto the cosmogenesis.

So you find YLEMIC spacetime vortices, which carry the potentials

for mass to become generated in the Higgs-Restmass-Induction.

That is why Steven Weinberg calls the Higgs Boson the God Particle.

This also fits in well with the Wolford Centre making the mass

appear as a hyperlow-frequency spectrum, quantised in the photon-

mass equivalence of the Planck-Einstein duality hf=mc^2.

Now do a google search for YLEM; its an old no longer used word of

the science vocabulary.

It means the primordial matter or neutronic matter.

But perhaps you knew this.

I have given the derivation a number of times; the gravitational

inward pressure is in equilibrium with the outward thermal pressure.

Rylem=Sqrt[kTRe^3/(Go.Mc^2)] m.

k=Boltzmann's Constant; t=Temperature; Re=ClassicalElectronRadius;

Go=Gravitational Boundary Constant; Mc=prototypical nucleonmass.

Using just subatomic parameters (mapped from the superbrane boundary

conditions, following the Weyl-geodesic defining the timeinstanton),

The Ylemic Radius formulation manifests the quarkian wave-geometry

of the Inner Mesonic Ring as an annular region precisely matching

the recently discovered neutrinomass at Kamiokande, Japan (June 4th,

1998).

This defines the Higgs-Neutrino as a scalar neutrino of precisely

0.052 eV and as the DIFFERENCE between for the annular region for

the mesonic inner ring in the Standard Model.

Those boundarys DEFINE the Tau-neutrino's mass as being centred just

about dead-centre on 3.00 eV.

m(higgs-neutrino)=W.Me.rE.{1/rG-1/rF}/(2Pi.Re)=9.3x10^-38 kg.

W=wormhole-wavelength; Me=effective electronmass; and E,G,F are the

spacetime-markers for the neutronic betadecay under discussion,

which are mapped onto the mesonic inner ring.

The researchers don't call it Higgs-Neutrino yet, they still

speculate on a scalar neutrino predicted by certain GUTs (SU(5,10).

But what happens cosmologically?

Well, it is as you proposed.

The inner limit calculates as 1130.5 seconds (18.8 minutes) and the

outer limit as 1150 seconds (19.2 minutes).

Corresponding temperatures are 209 billion K ands 206 billion K.

Corresponding Ylem-Radii are 24.0 km and 23.9 km.

Now Steven Weinberg has written a famous little book, called "The

First Three Minutes", attempting to describe the cosmogenesis.

He was pretty right, except that the temperatures are on the mark,

but the corresponding 'scale/size' of the universe is not.

This is because the Guth inflation and extended models are right in

terms of the time, but wrong in terms of size also.

Anyway, the Zero-Point-Oscillator is h(W-frequency)/2=k(W-Temp.)/2.

And the ylemic Radius-Maximum can be calculated via Re(Mu/Mc)^[1/3];

where Mu is the Chandrasekhar MassLimit (for White Dwarfs becoming

Neutron Stars). This is so 40.2 km for a temperature of 583.5

billion K and a time of 287.3 seconds or 4.8 minutes.

Now our formulations used Re, which is the proton's diameter and so

we half that again to get Weinberg's times for Rylem=20.1 km and a

temperature of 1167 billion K and 114 seconds or 1.9 minutes.

We double the temperature to 'undo' the Zero-Point-Oscillator for

an ylem radius of 56.5 km and then modulate Rp=Re/2 for the maximum

nuclear compression of 56.5 km to 20.1 km in factor Sqrt(8)=2.828.

This defines the onset of nucleosynthesis and the creation of the

elements.

And of course our earlier ylem radii, compressed in unison become

24km/Sqrt(8)=8.5 km as the observed scale for neutronstars and

magnetars and relating the Schwarzschild Radii Rs=2GM/c^2 for the

Chandrasekhar Mass as Rs=7.4 km in superbrane parameters.

One can use this data to show that the Big Bang scenario is very

much correct in terms of the temperature evolution of the cosmology.

But Fitz' s rediscovery goes further than this.

It also solves another great mystery in physics, that of the

planetesimals.

How did the primordial gases coalesce to form the planets and the

stars?

The molecular forces do bind structures together for gravity to act

upon, but a number of calculations in different fields of chemistry,

geology and physics indicate, that only structures on the scale of

the km would be able to exert enough gravitational force not to be

torn apart by the electromagnetic and related forces acting in the

violent background matrix of the cosmic scenario at ylem time.

How did the km scale become cosmically enabled?

Enter Fitz's rediscovery and recall the neutrino formula from

Kamiokande.

The G and H scalemarkers defined the inner mesonic ring and the E

scalemarker defines the outer leptonic ring's inner boundary.

(The leptonic ring's outer boundary is the Hubble-FriedmannRadius of

the Hubble-Node, which defines the universe as the Spherical

Standing Wave of the Identity:

W(frequency).W(wavelength)=c=(Hubble-Nodal-Constant)(Hubble-Radius)).

So what does E represent?

Temperature is 1.2 billion K; ylem radius=1.8 km; time=1.1 million

seconds (or about 13 days).

Recalling that the ylemic/dineutronic cosmogenesis manifest in the

inflow-outflow potentials of the spacetimequanta defined by the

superbranes's macroquantisation; there will be a wavecentre or

vortex about which this process fluctuates.

Subsequently the planetesimal limit of 1.8 km forms a macroquantised

Wolford-Centre of macroquantisation.

The molecular forces of dispersion are bounded and confined in the

planetesimal Wolford-Centre.

Once the matter agglomerations have 'filled' this Wolford-Centre,

the gravitational forces suffice to continue the evolutionary

journeys for planets and stars.

This is of course similar to a later development for the cosmic

architecture, where it is the Sarkar Constant, derived from the

Einstein Field Equations specifies 236.5 million lightyears as the

architectural limit for gravitational attraction between

suprclusters.

Beyond this limit, the universe must be homogenous for all scales.

This is indeed observed and the Sarkar Constant (defining also the

deceleration parameter and the omega/critical mass ratio), solves

yet another mystery.

Why are the largest structures in the universe of the Sarkar size,

but appearing just 1 billion years into the cosmogenesis?

How could such gigantic structures form so early?

Well, now you now, the Sartkar Constant defines a cosmological

redshift of 7.477 as the limit for such structures and the time is

236.5 million years, correlating with the WMAP data for the 'first

light' from the first stars to permeate the microwave background.

But summarizingly, Fitz's Beta-Decay for the Neutron indeed

describes the Big Bang Scenario for the first 13 days or so of

creation.

Tony B.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"

> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:

> >

--- End forwarded message ---