--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Bermanseder"
--- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr."
> Tony B.
> Guess I'm alone on this one:
> But I'm betting it was a beta decay big bang as herein described
> 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
> 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
> unglued with one gigantic beta decay.
> When half the neutrons were converted into protons and electrons,
> stopped because the other half of the neutrons were then safely
> inside of these newly created atoms where they could continue to
> 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.
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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
How did the primordial gases coalesce to form the planets and the
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
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:
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
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
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
> --- In TheoryOfEverything@yahoogroups.com, "TONY BERMANSEDER"
> <PACIFICAP@h...> wrote:
--- End forwarded message ---