 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / February 2007The Wilson Theory of Space.
This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single electron. We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel like charges and attract unlike ones. Its strength tapers off with distance according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what makes a 'field'. Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further away from the electron. Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker? ...or is there a point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented. In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that it can be no longer be reduced in strength? Can a point be reached where the field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all? ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED? Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'? In space there are gravitational 'fields', electric fields, magnetic fields and possibly a few that we know nothing about.. No matter where we go in the universe, we will presumeably see distant stars and fall freely under the influence of some gravitational system....so EM is reaching us regularly. ....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM and gravity become literally 'full of holes'? My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta' whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially destroying them. Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist. It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that make up space. Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's equations have no relevance in a nort-hole. Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it. The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here) As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume. Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in most of intergalactic space. What makes space carrying field quanta different from that which is completely devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered. It is reasonable to assume that space that contains a fields > This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what > makes a 'field'. The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED. Ken Seto >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field >and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED. So you claim that an electron that is at rest in your aether has no charge? It doesn't eliminate the question,"how can Seto's theory work when there is NO aether?" >Ken Seto > >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > So you claim that an electron that is at rest in your aether has no charge? the fundmental particle (the S-Particle) that makes up the electron is never at rest. Therefore the ether surrounding the electron is alway distorted. > It doesn't eliminate the question,"how can Seto's theory work when there is NO > aether?" If there is no ether then my theory is refuted. But there is ether and the following proposed experiments will reveal the magnitude and direction of absolute motion. [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate > The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric > field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the > electron in the ether. This model elinimate the question what makes a field > and resolves the infinity problems exist in QED. > > Ken Seto What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto? In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:09:11 GMT <HvuCh.303967$aJ.222662@attbi_s21>: >> The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric >> field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto? And for that matter, why is the charge of an electron always constant? Surely not all electrons have the same aboslute motion, especially since *we* have changing absolute motion (on the order of about 2 * 10^-4 c) depending on the time of year.  Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley > <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > *we* have changing absolute motion (on the order of about 2 * 10^-4 c) > depending on the time of year. This shows me that you know nothing about absolute motion. Absolute motion of an object is not the observed relative motion of the object wrt the sun. In my theory, an electron is an S-Particle (the only fundamental particle exists) orbiting around an E-String in the counterclockwise direction. This orbiting motion of the S-Particle creates the distortion in the surrounding E-Strings and this distortion in the surrounding E-Strings is the observed electric field of the electron. Read more about this in the paper entitled "Unification of Physics" in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken Seto > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message >>> What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto? >> And for that matter, why is the charge of an electron always constant? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ken Seto Yeah, Ghost, what were you thinking? The following is a clearer translation of what Seto is teaching us in more of a lay language. Hitherto Seto has laid down the definitions of such words as are less known and explained the sense in which Seto would have them to be understood in the following discourse. Seto does not define time, space, place, and motion, as being well known to all. Only Seto must observe that the common people conceive those quantities under no other notions but from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise certain prejudices, for the removing of which it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent, mathematical and common. 1. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called "duration"; relative, apparent, and common time is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time, such as an hour, a day, a month, a year. 2. Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces, which our senses determine by its position to bodies and which is commonly taken for immovable space; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aerial, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space are the same in figure and magnitude, but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so, absolutely understood, it will be continually changed. 3. Place is a part of space which a body takes up and is, according to the space, either absolute or relative. Seto says, a part of space; not the situation nor the external surface of the body. For the places of equal solids are always equal; but their surfaces, by reason of their dissimilar figures, are often unequal. Positions properly have no quantity; nor are they so much the places themselves as the properties of places. The motion of the whole is the same with the sum of the motions of the parts; that is, the translation of the whole, out of its place, is the same thing with the sum of the translations of the parts out of their places; and therefore the place of the whole is the same as the sum of the places of the parts, and for that reason it is internal and in the whole body. 4. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another, and relative motion the translation from one relative place into another. Thus in a ship under sail the relative place of a body is that part of the ship which the body possesses, or that part of the cavity which the body fills and which therefore moves together with the ship, and relative rest is the continuance of the body in the same part of the ship or of its cavity. But real, absolute rest is the continuance of the body in the same part of that immovable space in which the ship itself, its cavity, and all that it contains is moved. Wherefore, if the earth is really at rest, the body, which relatively rests in the ship, will really and absolutely move with the same velocity which the ship has on the earth. But if the earth also moves, the true and absolute motion of the body will arise, partly from the true motion of the earth in immovable space, partly from the relative motion of the ship on the earth; and if the body moves also relatively in the ship, its true motion will arise, partly from the true motion of the earth in immovable space and partly from the relative motions as well of the ship on the earth as of the body in the ship; and from these relative motions will arise the relative motion of the body on the earth. As if that part of the earth where the ship is was truly moved toward the east with a velocity of 10,010 parts, while the ship itself, with a fresh gale and full sails, is carried toward the west with a velocity expressed by 10 of those parts, but a sailor walks in the ship toward the east with 1 part of the said velocity; then the sailor will be moved truly in immovable space toward the east, with a velocity of 10,001 parts, and relatively on the earth toward the west, with a velocity of 9 of those parts. So says Seto. > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > So says Seto. ROTFLOL....the runt wormy is in a state of panic and thus rambling incoherently. >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > ROTFLOL....the runt wormy is in a state of panic and thus rambling > incoherently. So says Seto. > > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > ROTFLOL....the runt wormy is in a state of panic and thus rambling > incoherently Nice work: :>) Demonstrates that Seto has never read anything other than what he sees on this newsgroup. Oh, and "A Brief History of Time." I didn't really expect that he would recognize it. PD >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >ROTFLOL....the runt wormy is in a state of panic and thus rambling >incoherently. Wormy is a heap of bullshit... You're not much better Seto.. "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto@woh.rr.com> wrote on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 08:45:22 -0500 <45dc4bbb$0$24734$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: >> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley >> <swormley1@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > This shows me that you know nothing about absolute motion. Absolute motion > of an object is not the observed relative motion of the object wrt the sun. Of course not. However, any absolute motion is going to be modulated thereby. What is the absolute motion of the bouncing ball in a child's toy (a bounce-paddle) as he travels in a car? > In my theory, an electron is an S-Particle (the only fundamental particle > exists) orbiting around an E-String in the counterclockwise direction. This [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > following website: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm OK. How fast does it orbit? What effects does that orbit do to neighboring particles? > Ken Seto Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993: char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > In sci.physics, kenseto > <kenseto@woh.rr.com> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > OK. How fast does it orbit? What effects does that orbit do to > neighboring particles? That's not a relevant question. The orbit of the S-Particle of the electron is the fastest absolute motion in the E-Matrix. It gives rise to one unit of negative charge. The orbit of the S-Particle of the up quark is 2/3 as fastest as that of the electron in the clockwise direction. That's why an up quark has 2/3 positive charge. Read the paper before you ask anymore stupid question. > In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley > <sworml...@mchsi.com> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com try ampage and voltage. On Feb 19, 10:06 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > And for that matter, why is the charge of an electron always constant? > Surely not all electrons have the same aboslute motion, especially since > *we* have changing absolute motion (on the order of about 2 * 10^-4 c) > depending on the time of year. The charge or any other "fundamental constant" is never constant, which is why all constants need to come with uncertainties to show off their variances (deviances from a law, look it up). The fine structure constant blows up, along with charge, and the twoth thèrmodunamic law goes out the window. Sith 2002, all of the fundamental constants hav drifted yonder a sigma, elèctric and gravital and inertial, accordunt to the PDG. -Aut There are no laws! > -Aut > There are no laws! In a way you are right Aut, except when it is absolute. The beauty of creating laws is the functionality that goes along with them. if there were no laws governing the way 1 & 0 are regulated through a pc matrix, then there can be no functionality. > > -Aut > > There are no laws! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there were no laws governing the way 1 & 0 are regulated through a pc > matrix, then there can be no functionality. therefore, all laws are environmental conditions. > > > -Aut > > > There are no laws! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > therefore, all laws are environmental conditions. parameters rather than constants rules rather than laws > > > > -Aut > > > > There are no laws! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > parameters rather than constants > rules rather than laws even better > > The charge of an electron does not reside within the electron. The electric > > field is the distortion in the ether created by the absolute motion of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What specific infinity problems in QED are you referring to Seto? The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations and these problems were eliminated by the dubious mathematical trick of re-normalization. The reason why the re-normalization trick works is because that the charge does not reside within the electron in the first place. What this mean is that there was no infinity problem to begin with. Is Endless Discussion (ED syndrome) bad? No. Better to Endlessly Discuss issues that be nonexistent. > The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... Such as? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Euler-Lagrange_equations Where are you referring to, Seto? > > The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... > > Such as? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Euler-Lagrange_equations > Where are you referring to, Seto? The equations in this link are re-normalized equations. The original qed equations before re-normalization contains infinities due to the misconception-conception that the charge of the particle resides within the particle. When the charge is residing within the electron its self energy will become infinite as the distance approaches zero. > > > The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > particle. When the charge is residing within the electron its self energy > will become infinite as the distance approaches zero. ...but it predicts correctly, something your theory can't claim. >>> The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > particle. When the charge is residing within the electron its self energy > will become infinite as the distance approaches zero. Interesting in that QED is *the most successful theory* ever invented by humans. > >>> The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... > >> > >> Such as? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics#Euler-Lagrange_equations > >> Where are you referring to, Seto? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Interesting in that QED is *the most successful theory* ever > invented by humans. But QED is based on the misconception that the charge is residing within the particle. >>>>> The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... >>>> Such as? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But QED is based on the misconception that the charge is residing within the > particle. It's just like relativity, Seto--the misconceptions are with your understanding, not the two major pillars of physics. Hell, you have many misconceptions about classical mechanics... concepts like relative velocity, vectors and energy. Get a copy of Halliday & Resnick... you can't even work the problems! > >>>>> The infinity problems that are inherent in the QED equations... > >>>> Such as? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > many misconceptions about classical mechanics... concepts like > relative velocity, vectors and energy. Which came first - not understanding the basics or not understanding the advanced stuff? > Get a copy of Halliday & Resnick... you can't even work the problems! [snip junk] Notice how there is no mathematics and no supporting evidence for this latest "theory". Just like with the three subdimensions of time, just like h-aether, just like with logarithmic space. No substance, no volume, no content. Just fluff from a man who fancies himself as a physicist because he lies about his name [actual name Ralph Rabbidge] and forged some science diplomas. In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:40:11 GMT <jn6kt2pb32ve3cjb3orjeednjkaq936ig9@4ax.com>: > This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > > Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single > electron. Well, there's a useful supposition! :-) But OK, let's see how far this goes. > We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel > like charges and attract unlike ones. And the location of another charge within this supposed Universe is ... oh, wait, there isn't one. Problem already! > Its strength tapers off with distance > according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what > makes a 'field'. As far as I'm concerned, a "field" -- more properly, a vector field -- is simply a mapping of coordinate space (and possibly time, if the charge is moving and/or variable) into a series of vectors. In the case of the singleton electron the vectors would all point in towards the electron (this is admittedly an ad hoc convention), with length e/d^2 where d is the distance between the point and the electron. > Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further > away from the electron. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED? I'm not sure this is all that meaningful a question. One problem, of course, is that fields are a hypothetical construct to begin with. While one can perform measurements (e.g., with a sensitive electroscope and/or force meter) around a charge, this is at most an approximation of the singleton electron case. > Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of > that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > It is reasonable to assume that space that contains a fields Either this got truncated or you made an error here; in either case, I don't know what to think of your theory until you've at least attempted to solve the cosmological question. The simplest way to put it, of course, is that, given the current state of the Universe, we observe a red shift as things go farther away from us; furthermore, this red shift is apparently accelerating. Presumably, your theory, nort-holes and all, can estimate and explain this acceleration in the Hubble shift. (Current SR/GR theories suggest an approximate density as follows: Matter: 5% Energy: miniscule? Dark Matter: 25% Dark Energy: 70% Whether this explains the acceleration, I for one don't know. ) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net /dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) ><HW@> > wrote >> Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single >> electron. Ghost, just for you, (the master of irrelevancy) I will change that to a 1 metre round ball with 100000000000000 electrons on it. >Well, there's a useful supposition! :-) But OK, let's see how far this >goes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >And the location of another charge within this supposed >Universe is ... oh, wait, there isn't one. No, one of Eintein's fairies must have gobbled it up. >Problem already! The master speaks again... >> Its strength tapers off with distance >> according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >electron (this is admittedly an ad hoc convention), with length e/d^2 >where d is the distance between the point and the electron. Fields ar identified by the forces they exert. I know relativists deny that forces exist but the GR maths for gravity doesn't work for electrostatic forces at the same point. >> Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further >> away from the electron. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I'm not sure this is all that meaningful a question. .......Says the expert at uttering meaingless statements.... >One problem, of >course, is that fields are a hypothetical construct to begin with. Have you ever tried to push two N poles of a bar magnet together Ghost? Was the difficulty you had purely hypothetical? >While one can perform measurements (e.g., with a sensitive electroscope >and/or force meter) around a charge, this is at most an approximation >of the singleton electron case. Let's not worry about the practicalities of measuring it Ghost. >> Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of >> that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered. >> >Either this got truncated or you made an error here; in >either case, I don't know what to think of your theory [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >your theory, nort-holes and all, can estimate and explain >this acceleration in the Hubble shift. The redshift is caused by a number of factors that I have outlined over the years. There was NO BB and nothing is expanding....except your appetite for irrelevancy... >(Current SR/GR theories suggest an approximate density as follows: > >Matter: 5% >Energy: miniscule? >Dark Matter: 25% >Dark Energy: 70% Who cares about the guesses of relativists? WCHs make up the dark matter. >Whether this explains the acceleration, I for one don't know. I for another, don't care... What has happened to Androcles. He seems to have disappeared. [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate > [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This >message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the >computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for >a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 >http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate I thought you had disappeared In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:02:10 GMT <nv2nt2tk7c26v2rim7vqhl9u7gpesqb6j3@4ax.com>: >> [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This >>message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I thought you had disappeared Of course not. He's *helping* you develop your theory. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123: std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i); -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) <HW@> wrote on Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:13:43 GMT <um3lt2lbbuh89hvobv6263ln67hg6hbrd3@4ax.com>: >>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) >><HW@> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ghost, just for you, (the master of irrelevancy) I will change that to a 1 > metre round ball with 100000000000000 electrons on it. As you like. Is that 1m diameter or 1m radius? Also, are those 10^14 electrons distributed within the ball or (more likely) sitting all on the ball's surface? >>Well, there's a useful supposition! :-) But OK, let's see how far this >>goes. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, one of Eintein's fairies must have gobbled it up. Of course, they're everywhere. >>Problem already! > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > forces exist but the GR maths for gravity doesn't work for electrostatic forces > at the same point. A field is an abstraction. I'm not sure about a force, though it's clear that something's pushing or pulling in most cases, so I'll go that far. >>> Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further >>> away from the electron. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Have you ever tried to push two N poles of a bar magnet together Ghost? Was the > difficulty you had purely hypothetical? That's not a field problem, but a force problem. >>While one can perform measurements (e.g., with a sensitive electroscope >>and/or force meter) around a charge, this is at most an approximation [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > There was NO BB and nothing is expanding....except your appetite for > irrelevancy... Ah, OK. So the redshift is caused by....? >>(Current SR/GR theories suggest an approximate density as follows: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > WCHs make up the dark matter. Ah. And the proportions of matter, energy, and WCHs are ... ? >>Whether this explains the acceleration, I for one don't know. > > I for another, don't care... > > What has happened to Androcles. He seems to have disappeared. Don't worry. He'll come back. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123: std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i); -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Feb 21, 7:47 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <e...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson) > <HW@> [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > >>Dark Matter: 25% > >>Dark Energy: 70% these proportions seem overly ambitious. I would give matter an assignment of a/(infinity) where a is less that 100 or equal to galaxies. > > Who cares about the guesses of relativists? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Hi Henri_Wilson, Measuring infinite density and an infinitely powerful vacuum are forever and always impossible, mere metaphysical notions. Based on the desired result and " givens ", scientists chose the best model(s)... be it Quantum Mechanics, thermodynamics, special relativity, general relativity or a mix. General Relativity can model the field of a massive object only because its energy is so very predictable. " Static 4-D spacetime " ( i.e. GR's gravitational field ) equals, " 8 * pi * G * T_αβ / c^4 ". ( A function of density and pressure ) The laws of thermodynamics are cosmic in scope; so, like all energy, gravity is constantly fading away, being " consumed ", as it were... This is " Dark Energy ", I posit. The cosmos is truly causal ( i.e. falsely random ), so all changes ( including so-called choices ) are nominal. Time is truly spatial ( i.e. falsely directional ) and " life " arises from this eternal consumption of Gibbs Free Energy. Cold Dark Matter might merely be regions that are massive/dense/close enough to have a --> gravitational <-- effect on the outer reaches of the visible Milky Way ( for example ), ...but not massive/dense/close enough to be noticed any other way. The known Universe has no birth or death, just a _ Hard _ limit to what can be observed. Like ever-active yeast in a loaf of bread, the cosmos expands everywhere, all the time. In 2-D, I visualise cosmological " time " as the Y axis and ( ever-flat, ever-static 4-D ) Minkowskian spacetime as the X axis. But the Y axis is " Cosmic Kinetic_Energy/Gravity, CKEG ", not time. " d CKEG " is a slice of cosmic spacetime in " cosmological time ". Adding up the slices forms something like a " static 5-D supernova ". w( z ) always equals -1, I posit, and Omega_Lambda is always .74. So Rho_Lambda ( and inflation ) was higher when Rho_Crit was higher. ( Because a higher density has a higher " consumption rate " ) And, " Pressure_Cosmos = - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Matter * c^2 " For more, see: " www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG " Where is spacetime free to warp into, if not CKEG ? What place and time has absolutely no kinetic energy or gravity ? Already, a portable LaCoste-Romberg gravimeter can measure 10^-9 g's, and the FINAQS project is developing " quantum gravimeters " which employ atom lasers. Quoting from, " www.Finaqs.Uni-Hannover.DE ": [ Our gravimeters ] may even permit a new definition of the kilogram - at present based on the mass of a metal artefact kept in Paris - in terms of the fundamental physical constants. How is it that Mass can be defined the same way as Length and Time ? ( i.e. as M, L and T oscillations of a special laser ) How is it that GR's gamma alters the standard kilogram, not just the meter and second ? Mass is the fifth spatial dimension. On Feb 19, 9:10 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: [snip garbage] > Mass is the fifth spatial dimension. No it isn't, you fuckup. Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me, " read " my post and construct a " reply ". I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could. On Feb 19, 9:20 pm, Jeff...Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote: > Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me, > " read " my post and construct a " reply ". > I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could. At least I have one. >Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me, >" read " my post and construct a " reply ". >I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could. Why do you bother to answer the little sh.t? Actually he's pretty right for once though. You were raving.... > >Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me, > >" read " my post and construct a " reply ". > >I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could. > > Why do you bother to answer the little sh.t? For the same reason you post under a pseudonym and lie routinely. > Actually he's pretty right for once though. You were raving.... [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate JeffRelf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote: >Hi Eric_Gisse, It litterally takes you a few seconds to stalk me, >" read " my post and construct a " reply ". >I'd revoke your high school diploma, if I could. Oh the irony. SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert > Mass is the fifth spatial dimension. Hahahaha. What happened to temperature, k00kboi? How can liht fare throuh a nort-hole if it's nothing? It doesn't. Anyway, as there are three dimensions I don't expect any whit to exhibit plane waves; one should trace a cuff or somesuch. The univers should be finite; after some distanse between two charges (e+ and e-), they become degenerato with the vacuum/univers and "annihilat" the other way. The field of one whit must be definen by that of another whit; there is no behind when there is no work. If you put one charge in its own univers, you may as well write in whatever size it has. -Aut > This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > > Imagine if there were only one piece of matter in the whole universe, a single > electron. How would you know that it was an electron if it was the only particle anywhere? > We know that the electron has an electric field around itself that will repel > like charges and attract unlike ones. How can it when it's the only particle in the universe? > Its strength tapers off with distance > according to an inverse square law. In the physical sense, we have no idea what > makes a 'field'. There is no field at all since there can be no test particles to probe it. > Now the question we must ask is, what happens as we move further and further > away from the electron. As what moves further and further from the "whatever it is"? > Does its field strength become infintely weaker and weaker? How would you be able to tell? >...or is there a > point where it can be reduced no more and becomes fragmented. > In other words, is there a point where the electron field becomes so weak that > it can be no longer be reduced in strength? Yes, it's called zero. >Can a point be reached where the > field of the electron doesn't permanently exist at all? Yes, at infinity. That is if you could measure it, but with only one electron, I guess you're out of luck. > ARE FIELDS QUANTIZED? Some are, some aren't. > Would there be regions of space where 'field quanta' are so rare that most of > that region literally consists of 'absolutely nothing'? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ....but is it possible that in very remote space, the fields that make up EM > and gravity become literally 'full of holes'? Bad examples. EM and gravity have infinite ranges. > My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam > polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta' > whilst the holes consist of genuine 'nothing'. The holes are very temporary > since EM carrying its own fields passes through them continuously, partially > destroying them. Hardly a new idea. It seems you got to that party a bit late. > Because 'Wilsonian nort-holes' consist of nothing, they have no properties, no > geometry, no time. The concept of an infinite nort-hole presents no real > problem since the word 'nothing' in reality implies a genuine 'absence of > anything' and without anything, the concept of infinity doesn't really exist. But they have to be bounded by something. What are you a pessimist? Thinking only of the holes and not what bounds them. > It is possible that huge nort-holes separate all the individual universes that > make up space. Anything's possible. Even you coming up with some reasonable physics. But I'm not exactly holding my breath. > Light travels through a nort-hole purely ballistically since there is no > intrinsic dielectric constant or magnetic permeability there. Maxwell's > equations have no relevance in a nort-hole. Light couldn't travel through the hole at all. It would have to stay on the boundary. That's the only place where space is defined. > Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it. You could never observe them. Period. > The 'Wilson Density Threshold' is that at which nort-holes first start to > appear. (Note: 'density' refers to both matter and fields, here) > As the density decreases, so does the proportion of 'nothing' in any volume. Gotta love your sense of modesty. > Indeed, since nort-holes possess no spatial properties, the true volume of what > we presently refer to as 'empty space' must be redefined to mean 'that volume > actually occupied by field quanta which exist there'. It is a distinct > possibility that lengths as well as volumes are effectively 'contracted' in > most of intergalactic space. Whatever that means. >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > >Whatever that means. ...poor fellow.... ....another 'would-be' scientist if he had the ability... > >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > ...poor fellow.... > ....another 'would-be' scientist if he had the ability... ....like you? *snicker* [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate > [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This >message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the >computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for >a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 >http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk Identical screed posted more than 20 times is cancelable spam, abuser. SignatureSupreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "To err is human, to cover it up is Weasel" -- Dogbert >> [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This >>message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Identical screed posted more than 20 times is cancelable spam, abuser. His finger got stuck on the Ctl-V button when his brain froze.... > >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > ...poor fellow.... > ....another 'would-be' scientist if he had the ability... I don't think you appreciate just how ironic that statement happens to be. Maybe one of these days you'll come up with something of genuine scientific merit, instead of all this qualitative drivel. > This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > It is reasonable to assume that space that contains a fields Another manuscript for the stand up comedian? Paul >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >> What makes space carrying field quanta different from that which is completely >> devoid of any is a question that remains to be answered. >Another manuscript for the stand up comedian? > >Paul Still too cold for blood to reach the brain, Paul? Don't worry, spring is just around the corner.... [snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/WilsonFake.JPG This message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234 http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/images/small/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate > This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > what > makes a 'field'. You may not, the rest of us do. Read this for a layman's introduction: http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170 George >> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170 Expressing the behavior of a field mathematically even at the highest level does not explain what it is PHYSICALLY. >George >>> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > level > does not explain what it is PHYSICALLY. Physics is the application of maths to quantify the behaviour. Usually that then gives you a picture of what is happening physically. In the case of QM that doesn't happen but that's just tough. If you want that sort of explanation, join a philosophy group, it is not the province of science. George >>>> This is mainly about 'fields' and the complete absence of them. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >sort of explanation, join a philosophy group, it is not the province >of science. Absolute rubbish George. We know just about everything there is to know MATHEMATICALLY about action-at-a-distance. Do you really believe that explains why it happens. We can describe MATHEMATICALLY how a current is generated in a closed conductor when it cuts a magnetic field...but that doesn't explain WHY the current moves at right angles to the other two movements. Physics is about finding out WHY as well as HOW. Philosophy groups never progress beyond identifying the questions. They can bullshit even more than relativists. >George > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:51:57 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > We know just about everything there is to know MATHEMATICALLY about > action-at-a-distance. Do you really believe that explains why it happens. "action-at-a-distance" was Newton's "explanation", nowadays we know that momentum, energy, etc. are transferred by particles or "force carriers". You are somewhat out of date Henry ! George >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:51:57 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >know that momentum, energy, etc. are transferred by particles >or "force carriers". You are somewhat out of date Henry ! Define it any way you like George. It wont go away. Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force WITHOUT any movement. >George > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:49:24 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > any > movement. Sure, and that force is transferred through 'fields' which is a name we give to a flux of carrier particles. The idea of "action-at-a-distance" with nothing between went out a long time ago. George >> On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:49:24 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >of "action-at-a-distance" with nothing between went out a >long time ago. Don't be so purile George. All you are doing is giving it another name. >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. ... >>>>>>Physics is the application of maths to quantify the behaviour. Usually >>>>>>that then gives you a picture of what is happening physically. In the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Don't be so purile George. > All you are doing is giving it another name. Don't try to stay in denial Henry, Newton's "action-at-a-distance" was supposed to be an effect with no physical connection between the objects. Explaining it with particles which obey all the usual rules of physics removes that philosophical problem. George >>>> Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force WITHOUT >>>> any movement. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >the objects. Explaining it with particles which obey all the usual >rules of physics removes that philosophical problem. No use of 'particles' can explain an 'attraction at a distance' George. Who are you trying to fool? >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > >>>> Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force WITHOUT > >>>> any movement. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No use of 'particles' can explain an 'attraction at a distance' George. What makes you say that? Are you being an idiot, Henri? Whether a force is attractive or repulsive has to do with the direction in which the energy of the state increases, not the direction the intermediary particle is going. Or are you stuck in some 3rd-grade "toss-the-ball-on-a-skating-rink" analogy? PD > Who are you trying to fool? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >> >>>> Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force WITHOUT >> >>>> any movement. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >direction in which the energy of the state increases, not the >direction the intermediary particle is going. f.cking moron.. Action at a distance is as big a mystery as it ever was. Einsteiniana has done nothing at all to explain it.. >Or are you stuck in some 3rd-grade "toss-the-ball-on-a-skating-rink" >analogy? f.ck off moron... >PD > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. [...] You sure do spend a lot of time trying to communicate your "breakthrough" theories to "f.cking morons". > >> >>>> Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force WITHOUT > >> >>>> any movement. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Action at a distance is as big a mystery as it ever was. > Einsteiniana has done nothing at all to explain it.. Einstein had nothing to do with quantum field theory, Hank. Einsteiniana likewise. > >Or are you stuck in some 3rd-grade "toss-the-ball-on-a-skating-rink" > >analogy? > > f.ck off moron... Why? You said something stupid. When you do that, I like to point it out. PD > >PD > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:27:44 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > No use of 'particles' can explain an 'attraction at a distance' George. If you hit a cue ball with the cue and it rolls down the table to hit another ball which then moves in turn, it all looks very ordinary. Take away the cue ball and have the ball at the far end of the table just by flicking the cue without hitting anything and you have "action-at-a-distance", a little bit of magic. Force carrier particles convey momentum just like the cue ball, there is nothing mysterious in it. George >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:27:44 -0000, "George Dishman" >> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Force carrier particles convey momentum just like the cue ball, >there is nothing mysterious in it. Nothing mysterious at all :) Now please explain ATTRACTION in this way George.... :) >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:12:51 -0000, "George Dishman" > <george@briar.demon.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Nothing mysterious at all :) > Now please explain ATTRACTION in this way George.... :) Since when did "pushing two bar magnets together" involve attraction Henry? They tend to pull themselves together when they attract. Still, to answer your question ... The momentum being carried points the other way :) George >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:12:51 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>>>Don't try to stay in denial Henry, Newton's "action-at-a-distance" >>>>>was supposed to be an effect with no physical connection between [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >attraction Henry? They tend to pull themselves together >when they attract. Still, to answer your question ... Of course not. You are just being silly... >The momentum being carried points the other way :) What causes the 'momentum they carry'? >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:12:51 -0000, "George Dishman" > >>>>>Don't try to stay in denial Henry, Newton's "action-at-a-distance" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > What causes the 'momentum they carry'? Conservation of momentum from what I can see. The fields contain energy, makes sense that they have momentum. By the way Ralph, do you know the name of the object that determines where the momentum in the fields is going? > >George > > "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. >>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:12:51 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:27:44 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:45:58 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>>>>> <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: ... >>>>>>>>> Try pushing two bar magnets together. Clearly there can be force >>>>>>>>> WITHOUT any movement. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Of course not. You are just being silly... No, I'm just quoting your 'silly' remark at the top which I was answering. I've out it back as you carelessly snipped it giving the false impression that the silliness was mine. >>The momentum being carried points the other way :) > > What causes the 'momentum they carry'? What causes momentum? That's a different question entirely. Something to do with a Higgs boson or some such if I read the press releases correctly, but that's way out of my field. George >>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 13:12:51 -0000, "George Dishman" >>>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:27:44 -0000, "George Dishman" [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >Something to do with a Higgs boson or some such if I read >the press releases correctly, but that's way out of my field. You haven't explained attraction at a distance at all, George. >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. [...] > "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know > him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." > --Jonathan Swift. Poor poor Ralph, always being persecuted. > Don't be so purile George. > All you are doing is giving it another name. purile != puerile Learn the Latin pue- root. One can't "giving" anything. > > Don't be so purile George. > > All you are doing is giving it another name. > > One can't "giving" anything. Henry's grammar in this case is correct, "is giving" is the present continuous tense. George > "action-at-a-distance" was Newton's "explanation", nowadays we > know that momentum, energy, etc. are transferred by particles > or "force carriers". You are somewhat out of date Henry ! Those carriers would be charges. > > "action-at-a-distance" was Newton's "explanation", nowadays we > > know that momentum, energy, etc. are transferred by particles > > or "force carriers". You are somewhat out of date Henry ! > > Those carriers would be charges. No, the electromagnetic force between charges is carried by photons. George >> > "action-at-a-distance" was Newton's "explanation", nowadays we >> > know that momentum, energy, etc. are transferred by particles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >No, the electromagnetic force between charges is >carried by photons. You seem to be making up your own theory George, as you go along... >George "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." --Jonathan Swift. > We can describe MATHEMATICALLY how a current is generated in a closed conductor > when it cuts a magnetic field...but that doesn't explain WHY the current moves > at right angles to the other two movements. The magnetic field is by definition on the next axis to the elèctric field. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=electrion+magnetism+strofsis http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Autymn+whorl -Aut > My hypothesis says that 'empty' space somewhat resembles felted fibre or foam > polystyrene, where the fibrous or plastic bits resemble the field 'quanta' [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Any attempt to investigate a nort-hole will destroy it. At the risk of encouraging Henri "I was born with a scientific mind" Wilson by even acknowledging this rubbish, I will point out that positing something that is, even in principle, undetectable and serves no value in quantitatively predicting other detectable phenomena, is a marked step away from science and directly toward religion. Giving it a name that involves "Wilson" is a self-aggrandizing religion. Jonestown comes to mind. To compound this, Henri supposes that light (which is composed entirely of fields) can travel across a region that is *defined* as being fieldless, and in so doing obey different physical laws governing those fields, though he declines to say in what ways those laws are different. In other words, the moment light enters a region where the laws governing light are different, the light destroys the region where those laws are different, thereby restoring lights behavior to the laws outside of the fieldless region. Henri gives new meaning to the term self-contradiction. The sole value in bringing attention to Henri's posts is to point out the fact that he is not only dressed in a clown suit, but the pants are down around his ankles. PD > At the risk of encouraging Henri "I was born with a scientific mind" > Wilson by even acknowledging this rubbish, I will point out that > positing something that is, even in principle, undetectable and serves > no value in quantitatively predicting other detectable phenomena, is a > marked step away from science and directly toward religion. Science and religion are the same, since pantheism is correct (the universe and God are identical) Giving it > a name that involves "Wilson" is a self-aggrandizing religion. > Jonestown comes to mind. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the fact that he is not only dressed in a clown suit, but the pants > are down around his ankles. Well, that's the same as watching Teletubies and imagining that Bush's cabinet meetings are identical to that. Hmmmm, I wonder????? "Whats beyond the causal horizon?" What if the space external to the causal horizon is filled with Big Bang Universes, just as filled with them as our BB universe is filled with virtual particles. (After all, that's the speculation - our BB universe arose through the equivalent of a quantum fluctuation.) That universe - the universe filled with BB universes - may have its own causal horizon..... What would cause its causal horizon? Not light. Gravity? So - it woud be gravity, right? You either have an open Universe or a closed universe (the UBCH, that is.) (Universe Beyond the Causal Horizon). Either an infinity of BB universes or a finite (though huge) number, if they're as common as quantum fluctuations. So - what does that leave us? You'd have to gain knowledge of the UBCH to know if it's open or closed. So how do you probe it????? I guess gravity is all you have? Gravity detectors? The thing is this is satisfying since it follows cybernetic form. If our Universe out to the causal horizon is just a quantum fluctuation, it should then exist in a metauniverse of many such universes. On Feb 22, 3:02 am, "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > At the risk of encouraging Henri "I was born with a scientific mind" > > Wilson by even acknowledging this rubbish, I will point out that [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - the first formula I ever published on the web 2 years ago was a representation of the Universe, as it corresponds to gravity. The conclusions I drew were that galaxies are finite, but they move in infinte space (its u |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message