901

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Should we give people's minds a sex change instead of their bodies?

« on: 29/09/2015 20:03:34 »

Since 2005 I have been looking at studies related to sexual preference. I have concluded from my studies that it is the amygdule that is hard wired to express the preference. There are two amygdule in everyone's brain. Science news had an article where it was discussing the fear reaction difference between men and women. This was the first clue where it was stated that men only use the right amygdule and women only use the left. The second clue was a report on Japanese couples wanting only male offspring. Since it is known the male choses the sex their scientists created a dye for the male sperm. Blue for male sperm and red for female sperm. On average there were 40% male 40% female and 10% had both pink and blue dye. they were separated by centrifuge.

Considering there is suspected to be 10% gay in any population we can surmise the body type being chosen differently than the male and female single sperm. Some have both sides working being the most interesting individuals because they can see both sides of an argument and be in the shoes of the other.

So being hard wired for attraction by the Amygdule has a good potential for the cause of being attracted to one sex or the other.

I have since read the actual experiment done and verification by a persons verbal choice of the sex for which they were attracted.

902

New Theories / Re: Mass and energy. Two different entities?

« on: 29/09/2015 19:21:12 »

Describe the cause of a gravitational field. Mechanically what causes the field to exist in the presence of mass. And what is a mathematical gizmo? What is its shape and size?

903

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 29/09/2015 19:14:04 »

You know a lot of things who are you?

No one. I know nothing but I suspect many things.

A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?

Why not. Its as good as simply mathematical gizmos.

The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?

Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.

The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge

What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.

A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic  like''  coupling  of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal

What is a virtual carrier signal? What are the mechanics?

through the constant conduit of light

Describe the conduit of light.

light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.

We can get to that question after you describe the conduit for light.

to far?

That depends on the substance in your answers. If you cannot show the mechanics of your words we are left with a virtual theory. Follow a process from the beginning to the end. Cause and effect.

You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light

I can not argue either point gravity exists.

Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction ,  we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.

Describe the formation and form of a charge through space. Also describe plasma.

904

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 29/09/2015 17:15:03 »

Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.   

905

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 29/09/2015 16:36:20 »

Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.

906

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 29/09/2015 15:39:38 »

It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.

907

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 29/09/2015 15:00:17 »

[img=PmbPhy]http://Wrong. You're not accepting it because you don't understand it at all. Every single one of your posts proves that you don't understand the subject that you're talking about. There's no evidence at all that you know the subject or ever learned anything about it. You erroneous assertions about protons is proof of that.[/img]

Photons?

Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?

[img=PmbPhy]http://However I've had a change of mind regarding protons. Protons are made of quarks which can emit and absorb gluons which carry energy and momentum.[/img]

Lets physically describe the gluon.  Any takers?

[img=PmbPhy]http://However I checked with a particle physicist I know who informed me that the proton is the lowest energy state of 2 u's and a d quark.  They could absorb energy and go into an excited state.  But in particle physics that's just a new particle, its no longer a proton.[/img]

No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.

[img=PmbPhy]http://You're quite wrong. There is ample evidence that it doesn't. Again, you just don't know it so you don't think it exists. Merely go to the CERN website or the FERMI lab website and ask one of the particle physicists there and they'll explain to you in detail why you're wrong.[/img]

Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.

[img=PmbPhy]http://But you're not basing your assertions on any kind of logic but merely claiming that because of your (quite erroneous) belief that its not been proven that they can't absorb energy then the opposite has to be true. That's a logical fallacy.[/img]

What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?

[img=PmbPhy]http://You've once again reverted to being very arrogant and think you know everything so I see no reason to try to reason with you since you're far too unreasonable.[/img]

I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think.

[img=PmbPhy]http://Goodbye. This is my last post to you since I will NEVER try to explain physics to you again. You just don't have the mind for it and are way too arrogant to learn it.[/img]

Main stream echo?

Not all new theories can remain in the box of terms used or their meaning.

Modified

908

New Theories / Mass and energy. Two different entities?

« on: 29/09/2015 13:40:16 »

Is it possible for mass to be separate from energy?

909

New Theories / Re: The nature of Energy.

« on: 27/09/2015 14:30:14 »

"=" It is constant.