[SOLVED] Negative Mass Solutions [Archive]

island

Aug7-04, 05:07 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>E=mc^2\n\nand...\n\nE^2=m^2*c^4\n\n.... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative mass\nand negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both\npositive and negative mass-energy solutions.\n\nI\'d like to assert that the negative energy solutions more practically\napply to GR using Einstein\'s own original abandoned version of the\ncosmological constant.\n\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html\n\nIf, as with Einstein\'s model, the negative pressure component reflects\n-rho and gravitational curvature, then negative mass-energy would\nnecessarily be expressed via negative density, as well.\n\nIn order to make a real massive particle from this energy, you must\ncondense enough of it over a finite region of space to achieve positve\nmass, density and curvature.\n\nIn Einsteins static model, if you condense vaccum energy, then you\nnecessarily increase negative energy and pressure, as well, by way of\nrarefaction, so the vaccum necessarily expands during pair production.\n\nDirac\'s Cosmological Model had a decreasing cosmological constant, but\n\'Dirac\'s Sea of Electrons\' did not have negative relative density, or\nhis hole theory would not result in a decreasing cosmological constant,\nsince an increase in mass energy will necessarily be offset by the\nincrease in negative energy and pressure.\n\nDirac successfully unified SR and QM by way of the Dirac Equation, but\nit could not be unified with GR, and it projects the absurd idea of\n"tachyons", in terms of negative mass particles.\n\n<TILT>\n\nThat\'s got to be the wrong background, because tachyons won\'t *appear*\nanywhere if the vacuum has -rho, per the above.\n\nSomebody dropped the ball when they leaped to conclude that an expanding\nuniverse will necessarily run-away.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>E=mc^2

and...

E^2=m^2*c^4

.... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative mass
and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both
positive and negative mass-energy solutions.

I'd like to assert that the negative energy solutions more practically
apply to GR using Einstein's own original abandoned version of the
cosmological constant.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

If, as with Einstein's model, the negative pressure component reflects
-\rho and gravitational curvature, then negative mass-energy would
necessarily be expressed via negative density, as well.

In order to make a real massive particle from this energy, you must
condense enough of it over a finite region of space to achieve positve
mass, density and curvature.

In Einsteins static model, if you condense vaccum energy, then you
necessarily increase negative energy and pressure, as well, by way of
rarefaction, so the vaccum necessarily expands during pair production.

Dirac's Cosmological Model had a decreasing cosmological constant, but
'Dirac's Sea of Electrons' did not have negative relative density, or
his hole theory would not result in a decreasing cosmological constant,
since an increase in mass energy will necessarily be offset by the
increase in negative energy and pressure.

Dirac successfully unified SR and QM by way of the Dirac Equation, but
it could not be unified with GR, and it projects the absurd idea of
"tachyons", in terms of negative mass particles.

<TILT>

That's got to be the wrong background, because tachyons won't *appear*
anywhere if the vacuum has -\rho, per the above.

Somebody dropped the ball when they leaped to conclude that an expanding
universe will necessarily run-away.

Franz Heymann

Aug12-04, 08:29 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n"island" <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote in message\nnews:41140335.53A39691@earthlink.net...\n > E=mc^2\n>\n> and...\n>\n> E^2=m^2*c^4\n>\n> ... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative\nmass\n> and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for\nboth\n> positive and negative mass-energy solutions.\n>\n> I\'d like to assert that the negative energy solutions more\npractically\n> apply to GR using Einstein\'s own original abandoned version of the\n> cosmological constant.\n\nRest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very\nsimple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.\nTo wit, the abortion of an expression which you quote arises from the\nfact that the magnitude^2 of the momentum four-vector is given by\n\nm^2c^2 = p^2 - E^2 / c^2\n\nIn the special case of a body at rest, p = 0, leading to\n\nm^2 = E^2 / c^4\n\nWhich is where you came in.\n\n[snip]\n\nFranz\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"island" <island_in_the_stream@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41140335.53A39691@earthlink.net...
> E=mc^2
>
> and...
>
> E^2=m^2*c^4
>
> ... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative
mass
> and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for
both
> positive and negative mass-energy solutions.
>
> I'd like to assert that the negative energy solutions more
practically
> apply to GR using Einstein's own original abandoned version of the
> cosmological constant.

Rest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very
simple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.
To wit, the abortion of an expression which you quote arises from the
fact that the magnitude^2 of the momentum four-vector is given by

m^{2c}^2 = p^2 - E^2 / c^2

In the special case of a body at rest, p = 0, leading to

m^2 = E^2 / c^4

Which is where you came in.

[snip]

Franz

island5@earthlink.net

Dec22-04, 06:01 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Wow I just found this "reply" from Franz, who was buisily trying to be\nUnlcle Al:\n\nFranz Heymann Aug 12, 6:29 am show options\n\nNewsgroups: sci.physics.research\nFrom: "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heym...@btopenworld.com> - Find\nmessages by this author\nDate: 12 Aug 2004 09:29:53 -0400\nLocal: Thurs, Aug 12 2004 6:29 am\nSubject: Re: Negative Mass Solutions\nReply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show\noriginal | Report Abuse\n\n> "island" <island_in_the_str...@earthlink.net> island@sundial.net...\nwrote:\n\n> > E=mc^2\n\n> > and...\n\n> > E^2=m^2*c^4\n\n> > ... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative mass\n> > and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both\n> > positive and negative mass-energy solutions.\n\n> > I\'d like to assert that the negative energy solutions more practically\n> > apply to GR using Einstein\'s own original abandoned version of the\n> > cosmological constant.\n\n> Rest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very\n> simple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.\n> <snip>\n\nWrong model, but nice try.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Wow I just found this "reply" from Franz, who was buisily trying to be
Unlcle Al:

Franz Heymann Aug 12, 6:29 am show options

Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
From: "Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heym...@btopenworld.com> - Find
messages by this author
Date: 12 Aug 2004 09:29:53 -0400
Local: Thurs, Aug 12 2004 6:29 am
Subject: Re: Negative Mass Solutions
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

> "island" <island_in_the_str...@earthlink.net> island@sundial.net...
wrote:

> > E=mc^2

> > and...

> > E^2=m^2*c^4

> > ... are only different if there is a physical meaning to negative mass
> > and negative energy values, where the second equation allows for both
> > positive and negative mass-energy solutions.

> > I'd like to assert that the negative energy solutions more practically
> > apply to GR using Einstein's own original abandoned version of the
> > cosmological constant.

> Rest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very
> simple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.
> <snip>

Wrong model, but nice try.

Frank Hellmann (Certhas -at- gmail -dot- com)

Dec23-04, 05:44 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Franz Heymann wrote:\n\n> Rest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very\n> simple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.\n\nDepending on your choice of sign all spacelike vectors in Minkowski\nspace or all timelike vectors in Minkowski space have negative norm.\nfrank\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Franz Heymann wrote:

> Rest content. There are no negative energy solutions, foir the very
> simple reason that the magnitude of a vector is a positive quantity.

Depending on your choice of sign all spacelike vectors in Minkowski
space or all timelike vectors in Minkowski space have negative norm.
frank

island5@earthlink.net

Dec24-04, 06:49 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Frank Hellmann wrote:\n\n> Depending on your choice of sign all spacelike vectors in Minkowski\n> space or all timelike vectors in Minkowski space have negative norm.\n\nVacuum particle potential has negative density, pressure, and\ntherefore, mass, in Einstein\'s referenced static cosmological model.\nThis causes a negative gravitational acceleration that gets\ncounterbalanced by the postive gravitational effect of ordinary matter.\n\nThe presumed flaw in this Einstein model was that it is unstable...\n"like a pencil balanced on its point"... because it was assumed that\nthe energy density of the vacuum would remain constant as the vacuum\ngrew in size, which would cause the matter energy density goes down\nproportioanally, creating a net negative gravitational acceleration,\nwhich would case the unviers to run-away in the direction of expansion.\n\nBut if you condense enough of Einstein\'s negative density energy over a\nfinite region of space, then you will achieve positive mass, density\nand gravitaional curvature.\n\nUsing the example on Ned Wright\'s website, which I\'d linked in my\noriginal post:\n\nquote:\n"This term, (cosmological constant), acts like a vacuum energy density,\nan idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle\nphysics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used\nin the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the\ninflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang\nproposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the\ninflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a\nnegative pressure because:\n\nThe vacuum energy density must be constant because there is nothing for\nit to depend on.\n\nIf a piston capping a cylinder of vacuum is pulled out, producing more\nvacuum, the vacuum within the cylinder then has more energy which must\nhave been supplied by a force pulling on the piston.\n\nIf the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it\nmust have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to\npush the piston out.\n\nThe magnitude of the negative pressure needed for energy conservation\nis easily found to be P=-u=-rho*c^2 where P is the pressure, u is the\nvacuum energy density, and rho is the equivalent mass density using\nE=m*c^2."\n/quote\n\n~\n\nThe vacuum also trys to pull the piston into the cylinder if you rarefy\nthe vacuum from inside by compressing some of the remaining vapor\npressure down into a finite region of space, and if there are no\ncylinder walls, then the vacuum will expand as a result of the increase\nin negative pressure that results from the condensation and rarefaction\nof vacuum energy.\n\nIn Einstein\'s model, the increase in negative pressure gets offset by\nthe increase in mass-energy that you get when you condense enough\nvacuum energy to achieve positive density, pressure, and therefore,\ngravitational curvature, so the vacuum won\'t run-away and actually\nexpands naturally from particle creation.\n\nThe concept of negative mass arises by analogy with electric charges,\nwhere the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle,\n\nE2=m^2c^4+p^2^c2\n\n....derives that a particle with a certain positive energy but no\nmomentum could have a positive or negative mass. Dirac interpreted\nthese negative mass states as anti-particles that were hid away in the\nDirac Sea, but if you apply this to Einstein\'s model, then it becomes\napparent that conventional "antiparticles" can\'t exist until enough\nvacuum energy gets condensed over a finite region of space to achieve\npositive rho and mass.\n\nThis would explain why experimentally produced antimatter has positive\nmass, and it also explains the "apparent" matter/antimatter asymmetry.\n\n.... among other things...\n\nAlso, I made a mistake:\n\n"i" wrote:\n> I\'d like to assert that the negative energy solutions more\npractically\n> apply to GR using Einstein\'s own original abandoned version of the\n> cosmological constant.\n\n\nI\'d really like to assert that the negative energy solutions more\npractically apply to quantum theory using Einstein\'t own original\nversion of the cosmological constant.\nwww.anthropic-principle.ORG\nEverything you fear...\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Frank Hellmann wrote:

> Depending on your choice of sign all spacelike vectors in Minkowski
> space or all timelike vectors in Minkowski space have negative norm.

Vacuum particle potential has negative density, pressure, and
therefore, mass, in Einstein's referenced static cosmological model.
This causes a negative gravitational acceleration that gets
counterbalanced by the postive gravitational effect of ordinary matter.

The presumed flaw in this Einstein model was that it is unstable...
"like a pencil balanced on its point"... because it was assumed that
the energy density of the vacuum would remain constant as the vacuum
grew in size, which would cause the matter energy density goes down
proportioanally, creating a net negative gravitational acceleration,
which would case the unviers to run-away in the direction of expansion.

But if you condense enough of Einstein's negative density energy over a
finite region of space, then you will achieve positive mass, density
and gravitaional curvature.

Using the example on Ned Wright's website, which I'd linked in my
original post:

quote:
"This term, (cosmological constant), acts like a vacuum energy density,
an idea which has become quite fashionable in high energy particle
physics models since a vacuum energy density of a specific kind is used
in the Higgs mechanism for spontaneous symmetry breaking. Indeed, the
inflationary scenario for the first picosecond after the Big Bang
proposes that a fairly large vacuum energy density existed during the
inflationary epoch. The vacuum energy density must be associated with a
negative pressure because:

The vacuum energy density must be constant because there is nothing for
it to depend on.

If a piston capping a cylinder of vacuum is pulled out, producing more
vacuum, the vacuum within the cylinder then has more energy which must
have been supplied by a force pulling on the piston.

If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it
must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to
push the piston out.

The magnitude of the negative pressure needed for energy conservation
is easily found to be P=-u=-\rho*c^2 where P is the pressure, u is the
vacuum energy density, and \rho is the equivalent mass density using
E=m*c^2."
/quote

~

The vacuum also trys to pull the piston into the cylinder if you rarefy
the vacuum from inside by compressing some of the remaining vapor
pressure down into a finite region of space, and if there are no
cylinder walls, then the vacuum will expand as a result of the increase
in negative pressure that results from the condensation and rarefaction
of vacuum energy.

In Einstein's model, the increase in negative pressure gets offset by
the increase in mass-energy that you get when you condense enough
vacuum energy to achieve positive density, pressure, and therefore,
gravitational curvature, so the vacuum won't run-away and actually
expands naturally from particle creation.

The concept of negative mass arises by analogy with electric charges,
where the formula for the energy of a relativistic particle,

E2=m^{2c}^4+p^2^{c2}

....derives that a particle with a certain positive energy but no
momentum could have a positive or negative mass. Dirac interpreted
these negative mass states as anti-particles that were hid away in the
Dirac Sea, but if you apply this to Einstein's model, then it becomes
apparent that conventional "antiparticles" can't exist until enough
vacuum energy gets condensed over a finite region of space to achieve
positive \rho and mass.

This would explain why experimentally produced antimatter has positive
mass, and it also explains the "apparent" matter/antimatter asymmetry.

.... among other things...

Also, I made a mistake:

"i" wrote:
> I'd like to assert that the negative energy solutions more
practically
> apply to GR using Einstein's own original abandoned version of the
> cosmological constant.

I'd really like to assert that the negative energy solutions more
practically apply to quantum theory using Einstein't own original
version of the cosmological constant.
www.anthropic-principle.ORG
Everything you fear...

island5@earthlink.net

Dec25-04, 12:38 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>this dish is classically\nmade with crawfish).\n\nStuffed infant heads, stuffed crawfish heads, stuffed crab or lobster shells;\nmake patties if shell or head is not available\n(such as with packaged crawfish, crab, or headless baby).\nFlour\noil\nonions\nbell peppers\ngarlic salt, pepper, etc.\n3 cups chicken stock\n2 sticks butter\n3 tablespoons oil\n\nFirst stuff the heads, or make the patties (see index)\nthen fry or bake.\nSet aside to drain on paper towels.\nMake a roux with butter, oil and flour,\nbrown vegetables in the roux, then add chicken stock and\nallow to simmer for 20 minutes.\nAdd the patties or stuffed heads, and some loose crawfish,\nlobster, long piglet, or what have you.\nCook on low for 15 minutes, then allow it to set for at least\n15 minutes more.\nServe over steamed rice; this dish is very impressive!\n\n\n\nStuffed Cabbage Rolls\n\nBabies really can be found under a cabbage leaf -\nor one can arrange for ground beef to be found there instead.\n\n8 large cabbage leaves\n1 lb. lean ground newborn human filets, or ground chuck\nOnions\npeppers\ncelery\ngarlic\nsoy sauce\nsalt pepper, etc\nOlive oil\nbreadcrumbs\nTomato Gravy (see index)\n\nBoil the cabbage leaves for 2 minutes to soften.\nIn skillet, brown the meat in a little olive oil,\nthen add onions, peppers, and celery (all chopped finely)\nand season well.\nPlace in a large bowl and cool.\nAdd seasoned breadcrumbs and a little of the tomato gravy,\nenough to make the mixture pliable.\nDivide the stuffing among the cabbage leaves then roll.\nPl\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>this dish is classically
made with crawfish).

Stuffed infant heads, stuffed crawfish heads, stuffed crab or lobster shells;
make patties if shell or head is not available
(such as with packaged crawfish, crab, or headless baby).
Flour
oil
onions
bell peppers
garlic salt, pepper, etc.
3 cups chicken stock
2 sticks butter
3 tablespoons oil

First stuff the heads, or make the patties (see index)
then fry or bake.
Set aside to drain on paper towels.
Make a roux with butter, oil and flour,
brown vegetables in the roux, then add chicken stock and
allow to simmer for 20 minutes.
Add the patties or stuffed heads, and some loose crawfish,
lobster, long piglet, or what have you.
Cook on low for 15 minutes, then allow it to set for at least
15 minutes more.
Serve over steamed rice; this dish is very impressive!

Stuffed Cabbage Rolls

Babies really can be found under a cabbage leaf -
or one can arrange for ground beef to be found there instead.

8 large cabbage leaves
1 lb. lean ground newborn human filets, or ground chuck
Onions
peppers
celery
garlic
soy sauce
salt pepper, etc
Olive oil
breadcrumbs
Tomato Gravy (see index)

Boil the cabbage leaves for 2 minutes to soften.
In skillet, brown the meat in a little olive oil,
then add onions, peppers, and celery (all chopped finely)
and season well.
Place in a large bowl and cool.
Add seasoned breadcrumbs and a little of the tomato gravy,
enough to make the mixture pliable.
Divide the stuffing among the cabbage leaves then roll.
Pl

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Dec25-04, 02:06 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>1 egg beaten\n\nMake the stuffing:\nMarinate the flesh in a mixture of soy and teriyaki sauces\nthen stir fry in hot oil for till brown - about 1 minute, remove.\nStir-fry the vegetables.\nPut the meat back into the wok and adjust the seasoning.\nDe-glaze with sherry, cooking off the alcohol.\nAdd broth (optional) cook a few more minutes.\nAdd the cornstarch, cook a few minutes till thick,\nthen place the stuffing into a colander and cool;\n2 hours\nWrap the rolls:\nPlace 3 tablespoons of stuffing in the wrap, roll tightly -\ncorner nearest you first, fold 2 side corners in,\nwrap till remaining corner is left.\nBrush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for\na few minutes.\nFry the rolls:\n325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps.\nDeep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.\n\n\n\nLemon Neonate\n\nTurkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a\nwell-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into\ncutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,\nalthough similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly\ndifferent depending upon what he or she has consumed during its\n10 to 14 months of life...\n\n4 well chosen cutlets (from the breasts of 2 healthy neonates)\n2 large lem\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>1 egg beaten

Make the stuffing:
Marinate the flesh in a mixture of soy and teriyaki sauces
then stir fry in hot oil for till brown - about 1 minute, remove.
Stir-fry the vegetables.
Put the meat back into the wok and adjust the seasoning.
De-glaze with sherry, cooking off the alcohol.
Add broth (optional) cook a few more minutes.
Add the cornstarch, cook a few minutes till thick,
then place the stuffing into a colander and cool;
2 hours
Wrap the rolls:
Place 3 tablespoons of stuffing in the wrap, roll tightly -
corner nearest you first, fold 2 side corners in,
wrap till remaining corner is left.
Brush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for
a few minutes.
Fry the rolls:
325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps.
Deep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.

Lemon Neonate

Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a
well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into
cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,
although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly
different depending upon what he or she has consumed during its
10 to 14 months of life...

4 well chosen cutlets (from the breasts of 2 healthy neonates)
2 large lem

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Dec25-04, 02:45 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture.\nDredge thoroughly in flour.\nFry at 375° until crispy golden brown.\nRemove and place on paper towels.\n\n\n\nHoliday Youngster\n\nOne can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented,\nit violates no religious taboos against swine.\n\n1 large toddler or small child, cleaned and de-headed\nKentucky Bourbon Sauce (see index)\n1 large can pineapple slices\nWhole cloves\n\nPlace him (or ham) or her in a large glass baking dish, buttocks up.\nTie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like\nhe?s crawling.\nGlaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves.\nBake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°.\n\n\n\nCajun Babies\n\nJust like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive!\nYou don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.\n\n6 live babies\n1 lb. smoked sausage\n4 lemons\nwhole garlic\n2 lb. new potatoes\n4 ears corn\n1 box salt\ncrab boil\n\nBring 3 gallons of water to a boil.\nAdd sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.\nDrop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.\nCorn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.\nPut the live babies into the boiling water and cover.\nBoil till meat comes off easily with a fork.\n\n\n\nOven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs\n\nBeef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,\nand that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!\nAn excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood\nyet succulent source of protein.\n\n2 human baby rib racks\n3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)\nSalt\nblack pepper\nwhite pepper\npaprika\n\nRemove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,\nthen stripping off.\nSeason generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.\nPlace 1 q\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>the fetuses in the egg-mustard mixture.
Dredge thoroughly in flour.
Fry at 375° until crispy golden brown.
Remove and place on paper towels.

Holiday Youngster

One can easily adapt this recipe to ham, though as presented,
it violates no religious taboos against swine.

1 large toddler or small child, cleaned and de-headed
Kentucky Bourbon Sauce (see index)
1 large can pineapple slices
Whole cloves

Place him (or ham) or her in a large glass baking dish, buttocks up.
Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like
he?s crawling.
Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves.
Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°.

Cajun Babies

Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive!
You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands.

6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage
4 lemons
whole garlic
2 lb. new potatoes
4 ears corn
1 box salt
crab boil

Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork.

Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs

Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,
and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!
An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 q

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply

Dec25-04, 03:25 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <1103831142.224982.237410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,\nisland5@earthlink.net writes:\n\n> The presumed flaw in this Einstein model was that it is unstable...\n> "like a pencil balanced on its point"... because it was assumed that\n> the energy density of the vacuum would remain constant as the vacuum\n> grew in size, which would cause the matter energy density goes down\n> proportioanally, creating a net negative gravitational acceleration,\n> which would case the unviers to run-away in the direction of expansion.\n\nMathematically, it is an "unstable fixed point". Einstein\'s original\ncosmological model was static, with the repulsion due to the\ncosmological constant exactly balancing the attraction due to\ngravitation. Strictly speaking, this doesn\'t matter, since the model\ncorresponds to the entire universe, hence there is no way to perturb it\nfrom outside, causing it to run away. However, if it is seen as just an\napproximation to the real universe, then the instability is a problem.\n\nMany people have said that Einstein should have noticed this and thrown\nout the model for that reason. However, I think it is interesting to\nnote that the Einstein-de Sitter model, which for a long time was the\n"standard cosmological model", suffers from exactly the same type of\ninstability, yet this was never used as an argument against it.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1103831142.224982.237410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
island5@earthlink.net writes:

> The presumed flaw in this Einstein model was that it is unstable...
> "like a pencil balanced on its point"... because it was assumed that
> the energy density of the vacuum would remain constant as the vacuum
> grew in size, which would cause the matter energy density goes down
> proportioanally, creating a net negative gravitational acceleration,
> which would case the unviers to run-away in the direction of expansion.

Mathematically, it is an "unstable fixed point". Einstein's original
cosmological model was static, with the repulsion due to the
cosmological constant exactly balancing the attraction due to
gravitation. Strictly speaking, this doesn't matter, since the model
corresponds to the entire universe, hence there is no way to perturb it
from outside, causing it to run away. However, if it is seen as just an
approximation to the real universe, then the instability is a problem.

Many people have said that Einstein should have noticed this and thrown
out the model for that reason. However, I think it is interesting to
note that the Einstein-de Sitter model, which for a long time was the
"standard cosmological model", suffers from exactly the same type of
instability, yet this was never used as an argument against it.

island5@earthlink.net

Dec26-04, 02:47 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Phillip Helbig wrote:\n\n> Mathematically, it is an "unstable fixed point". Einstein\'s original\n> cosmological model was static, with the repulsion due to the\n> cosmological constant exactly balancing the attraction due to\n> gravitation. Strictly speaking, this doesn\'t matter, since the model\n> corresponds to the entire universe, hence there is no way to perturb it\n> from outside, causing it to run away. However, if it is seen as just an\n> approximation to the real universe, then the instability is a problem.\n\n> Many people have said that Einstein should have noticed this and thrown\n> out the model for that reason. However, I think it is interesting to\n> note that the Einstein-de Sitter model, which for a long time was the\n\n> "standard cosmological model", suffers from exactly the same type of\n> instability, yet this was never used as an argument against it.\n\nI remember you saying something about that in the past, and I read\neverything that I could find about it after that, thanks to you,\nbecause you mentioned something about the anthropic principle at the\ntime, as I recall.\n\nThis is relevant, because Dirac\'s flawed cosmological model also makes\nsense in context with the mechanism that I described, which holds the\nuniverse flat and balanced, except without instability. Dirac\'s large\nnumbers hypothesis was flawed for the same reason that his cosmological\nmodel was flawed, but that\'s where Robert Dicke pulled the Anthropic\nPrinciple from, while noting that humans can only exist in this\nuniverse when Dirac\'s large numbers hypothesis is true.\n\nIt only stands to good reason that an accurate representation of\nDirac\'s model would shed new light on the hypothesis and the Anthropic\nPrinciple, and it only follows that it does not make sense that one\ncould even begin to formulate a complete anthropic principle until this\nhad been done, because it places unfair weight on the significance of\nincomplete physics.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Phillip Helbig wrote:

> Mathematically, it is an "unstable fixed point". Einstein's original
> cosmological model was static, with the repulsion due to the
> cosmological constant exactly balancing the attraction due to
> gravitation. Strictly speaking, this doesn't matter, since the model
> corresponds to the entire universe, hence there is no way to perturb it
> from outside, causing it to run away. However, if it is seen as just an
> approximation to the real universe, then the instability is a problem.

> Many people have said that Einstein should have noticed this and thrown
> out the model for that reason. However, I think it is interesting to
> note that the Einstein-de Sitter model, which for a long time was the

> "standard cosmological model", suffers from exactly the same type of
> instability, yet this was never used as an argument against it.

I remember you saying something about that in the past, and I read
everything that I could find about it after that, thanks to you,
because you mentioned something about the anthropic principle at the
time, as I recall.

This is relevant, because Dirac's flawed cosmological model also makes
sense in context with the mechanism that I described, which holds the
universe flat and balanced, except without instability. Dirac's large
numbers hypothesis was flawed for the same reason that his cosmological
model was flawed, but that's where Robert Dicke pulled the Anthropic
Principle from, while noting that humans can only exist in this
universe when Dirac's large numbers hypothesis is true.

It only stands to good reason that an accurate representation of
Dirac's model would shed new light on the hypothesis and the Anthropic
Principle, and it only follows that it does not make sense that one
could even begin to formulate a complete anthropic principle until this
had been done, because it places unfair weight on the significance of
incomplete physics.