 |
 | 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 / November 2006A Theory of Everything: Geometric Generalization is updated
A theory of everything, and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy: Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature is reviewed and extended. The updated version of this elegant theory is presented on its new website: http://www.unitytheory.info/introduction.html The new website now includes an Introduction - Quick Overview page. The list of readers' comments and other similar theories are also added. I would appreciate your comments on this paper. Regards, M. Erk Durgun > A theory of everything, and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy: > Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature is reviewed and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Regards, > M. Erk Durgun Thank you for submitting your Theory of Everthing to alt.astronomy for our review. You said: "Physically, our abstract expanding space represents the early inflationary epoch. However, the expanding space has collapsed onto itself, and the increase in the circumfrance's (space) size has decelerated. This epoch is what we practically observe as Hubble's constant expansion." But doesn't this fly in the face of recent observations that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? Double-A From AA: >But doesn't this fly in the face of recent >observations that the expansion of the >universe is accelerating? Then there is always the alternative, as expounded here mucho many times previoulky. See- http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html oc > From AA: >> > A theory of everything, and a mathematical formulation of a philosophy: >> > Geometric Generalization of the Structure of Nature is reviewed and [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > oc AA, you said, "the expansion of the universe IS (mycaps) accelerating . . ." This, to me, epitomizes present-day cosmology and the fact that science is still avidly wrestling with this idea, as well as with the idea of "space as something instead of nothing". It seems by now that science takes for granted that the farther out we look, the longer back in time we are looking. When we look at an object that is 100 light years in distance away from us, we are also looking at the object as it was 100 years ago. And yet, most everything we read on this idea tells us that "the expansion of the universe IS accelerating". Some of us, including yourself, AA, have been asking for a long time, "Wouldn't it be more precise if cosmologists would say, that all we can really see is that the universe WAS at one time expanding, and that billions of years ago, this expansion appears to have been accelerating?" Since we live in a "fishbowl" of sorts, since our science has hardly scratched the surface of that ancient giant bowl that is our sky, painted dark with little pinholes, so that the godly light on the "other side" could only shine through the holes to make the "stars", there is absolutely no way we can possibly know precisely what the universe is doing right now, right this moment. Our universe may still be expanding, and this expansion may still be accelerating... or maybe not. How can we really tell? Then comes the idea of the paradigm of void space. We hear time and time again about how gravity curves space, or how space is sucked into a black hole, and yet, scientists STILL attempt to explain their observations with inexplicable things like dark matter and dark energy. All this only means that cosmology is still very muchso in its infancy. And scientists are still very diligently, almost stubbornly, groping around like an infant wanting to get hands on a new toy. And unlike parents, who can see the toy and watch as the baby thrusts out its hand, first this way and then that way, it's as if we are inside the baby's head. We can't see the toy. We can only hope that, through continued observation and the tenacity to keep on thrusting out those hands, our science will one day fully grasp the object of our affection and REALLY, TRULY know it. Intimately. Until then, we are all hardly better of than those ancient Greeks who had the unmitigated gall to get us *started* on all this stuff! <g> happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > > From AA: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > years ago, this expansion appears to have been > accelerating?" I think they compared the recession of closer galaxies to the distant ones and found that the closer ones, that we are seeing closer to the present, are moving away from us disproportionately fast compared to the distant ones that we are seeing further in past. Thus the conclusion was that the expansion is accelerating. However I was considering the implications of what oc brought up about space being denser in the early universe, therefore light possibly moved faster. That might make distant galaxies look less red shifted than they really are, and make us think they are not moving away from us as fast as they really are. Another consideration is that if dark energy really does exist, how does it affect the speed of light? We know that light moves slower through a gravity well such as when it's passing close to the Sun. So light must move at least a little faster in intergalactic space than it does here on Earth. But since dark energy is thought of as an antigravitational force, and if it is the dominant force in intergalactic space, could it make light move even faster there? > Since we live in a "fishbowl" of sorts, since our > science has hardly scratched the surface of that [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org Another thought I had is about frame dragging. Our galaxy contains a lot of mass, which is relatively a lot closer to us than the mass of any other galaxy. Even though our galaxy turns only slowly, there is a lot of mass being turned. I wonder if the frame dragging of the galaxy itself wouldn't have the effect of lessoning the amount of gravity required to keep stars in their galactic orbits, especially toward the outer edges. If so, this could greatly lesson the need for dark matter as an additional source of gravity to explain the orbits. Double-A Painius How about thoughts on an "Oscillating universe"? I can fit that into my concave & convex theory. Might do a "what if" on this thinking Reality could be the universe is so big it can do a lot of tricky stuff in different locations. We know there is no spacetime that is exactly the same,because motion and gravity determines the swing of the pendulum Bert > Painius How about thoughts on an "Oscillating universe"? I can fit that > into my concave & convex theory. Might do a "what if" on this thinking > Reality could be the universe is so big it can do a lot of tricky > stuff in different locations. We know there is no spacetime that is > exactly the same,because motion and gravity determines the swing of the > pendulum Bert Morning Bert, I read a book back in the 60's called "The Oscillating Universe", written by Professor and Astronomer Ernst J. Opik. But the theory has fallen out of favor now that scientists think the universe is accelerating in its expansion rather than slowing down. Double-A Double-a Expanding on the outer layer and contracting in the inner layer sounds like a black black hole or the massive star that has imploded leaving a black hole or neutron star at the core,and its horizon exploding ( expanding) into space to seed the nebula with heavy atoms and molecules so the gas can be compressed easier. Bert > Painius How about thoughts on an "Oscillating universe"? I can fit that > into my concave & convex theory. Might do a "what if" on this thinking > Reality could be the universe is so big it can do a lot of tricky > stuff in different locations. We know there is no spacetime that is > exactly the same,because motion and gravity determines the swing of the > pendulum Bert A Universe that "breathes"?... mpeg file!... http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy/cluster_animation_lg.mpg Asimov wrote a bit on an oscillating universe. His writing made me feel as if, when the matter and the space imploded back on itself, it would mainly just pass through itself to begin the next cycle of massive expansion. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. It's an interesting idea, but very cosmocentric, which i do my best to avoid. I would be more comfortable with a part of the Universe, a part larger than our present visible "bubble", expanding into another large part of the universe that's contracting. Then when the cycle reverses, our large part of the Universe will contract while another part of the Universe expands into our part. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org From Painius: >Asimov wrote a bit on an oscillating >universe. His writing made me feel as if, >when the matter and the space imploded >back on itself, it would mainly just pass >through itself to begin the next cycle of >massive expansion. And so on, and so >on, ad infinitum. The 'oscillating' or reciprocating model is fully accomodated within the 'big picture' of the CBB model. The sphere of our visible cosmos (the 'marble embedded in the donut') experiences a finite begining and end. The 'bang-expansion-crunch' cycle is like a single stroke of a piston engine. Whereas the overarching Process is continuously running like a gas turbine. Or like the compressor in the freon cycle analogy (Zinni's favorite. Ha ha:-)). So the 'oscillating' model is correct within its own referance frame. In the refrigeration analogy, a particular cluster of freon molecules in the gas flow represents the sphere of our visible cosmos in its emergence, expansion, and final re-assimilation back thru the 'Compressor'. The compressor and condenser (the 'hot' coil on the back of the fridge) represent the pre-BB state. The highly compressed liquid erupts thru a tiny aperture (the 'Bang' point) and flashes to a gas in the evaporator (the 'freezing unit' inside the fridge). The expanded gas represents the whole externalized universe, the 'cold' part of the cycle. So the 'Temperature' aspect was tacitly implicit in this analogy (before it was codified unwittingly here by Mr. 'OG'. Thanks, OG). If the fanciful expression 'E=mc³' (a Painius original) could describe the energy density of space itself, then 'E=mc^4' could describe the energy level of the TRULY hot pre-BB state. oc > > Painius How about thoughts on an "Oscillating universe"? I can fit that > > into my concave & convex theory. Might do a "what if" on this thinking [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org "Cosmic Bubbles"! You may have something there! It might be the maco equivalent of quantum foam! Double-A >> > From AA: >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > the distant ones that we are seeing further in past. Thus the > conclusion was that the expansion is accelerating. I call this "cosmocentric" thinking, AA. It's just an extension of geocentric and heliocentric thinking. We appear to be at the center of the part of the Universe that we can see, so we can only infer just so much about the Universe. To think we can determine the state of the entire Universe based upon the relatively little we've thus far observed is the height of scientific arrogance! > However I was considering the implications of what oc brought up about > space being denser in the early universe, therefore light possibly > moved faster. That might make distant galaxies look less red shifted > than they really are, and make us think they are not moving away from > us as fast as they really are. Interesting, yet still cosmocentric. We have a staggering panorama of "past" to look at all around us. Space flows and glows with energies still far beyond any and all sensitivity, sensibility, and even comprehension we have yet to invent and discover. It is a happy paradox to me that our continued future advancement as human beings relies upon our continuing discovery of the truth about our past... the past of our Universe. > Another consideration is that if dark energy really does exist, how > does it affect the speed of light? We know that light moves slower [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > antigravitational force, and if it is the dominant force in > intergalactic space, could it make light move even faster there? I wouldn't be surprised if the dark energy turns out to be Gordon Wolter's "pressure-driven flow", what we've been herein calling the "SPED". Then, it would not be an antigravitational force, but the very same force that, while also flowing into planets and suns, flowing into gravitational vacuum stars and crushing suns into neutron stars, it would be the force that drives whole galaxy clusters and super-clusters away from each other. It gets sucked into matter, into gravity wells. But while it's flowing toward matter, it's "pushing" things apart. > Another thought I had is about frame dragging. Our galaxy contains a > lot of mass, which is relatively a lot closer to us than the mass of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Double-A Well, we know that *something* huge and massive is rotating at the center of our galaxy, and so the frame- dragging effect must be unimaginably pronounced. Anybody done the math? As a footnote, "frame dragging"!... yet another head- scratcher when it comes to the deeply embedded VSP. When a rotating object is said to be "dragging space and time around with it", what precisely is the object dragging around with it? Of course, i know what Zinni's answer would be... "It's dragging SPACE-TIME around with it!" "You didn't hear me, i said it's dragging SPACE-TIME around with it!!" "Are you DEAF??? You STILL didn't hear me, i said it's dragging SPACE-TIME around with it!!!" <sigh> happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org From AA: >I was considering the implications of >what oc brought up about space being >denser in the early universe, therefore >light possibly moved faster. Google 'Magueijo-Albrecht VSL'. This VSL (variable speed of light) model is proposed by a certain 'maverik' mainstreamer teaching at Imperial College, London. He posits that the speed of light drops precipitously from the instant of the BB, thus solving the horizon problem and the flatness paradox.. which obviates any need for 'inflation'. Only problem is- he's a Void-Spacer and has no concept of the _mechanism_ of his proposed c-drop, namely, a precipitous drop in the PDT of the spatial medium from the instant of the BB. >Another thought I had is about frame >dragging. Our galaxy contains a lot of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >required to keep stars in their galactic >orbits, especially toward the outer edges. >If so, this could greatly lesson the need >for dark matter as an additional source of >gravity to explain the orbits. The subject of non-Keplerian rotation of galaxies has been beat to death before too. A spiral galaxy differs from the solar system in one major respect: the solar system has 99% of its mass concentrated in the center, in the sun. Thus the planets obey the laws of motion observed by Kepler. Whereas a galaxy has far more of its mass dispersed out thru the peripheral arms, and rotates in a more unitary fashion. _Mutual gravitation_ of all the material in the arms would certainly account for much of this. Invoking '"dark matter" to explain it begins to look more and more like a solution without a problem. The question was asked if gravitational lensing is consistent with the presence of galactic 'dark matter'. Zinni was quick to pounce, citing a study that seems to indicate the observed gravitational lensing _is_ consistent with DM. Whether such studies are fudges or not remains unclear, so the jury's still out. But if DM is real, it's totally transparent, non-refractive, nonreflective and invisible, yet manifests gravity. Pretty magical stuff alright. Concerning frame dragging, under the CBB model, it's space dragging matter instead of vice-versa. oc > From AA: > >I was considering the implications of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the _mechanism_ of his proposed c-drop, namely, a precipitous drop in > the PDT of the spatial medium from the instant of the BB. Since Dr. Magueijo has already taken the plunge into "alternative" cosmology with his VSL Variable Speed Light theory, he might just as well go with the "flow" too! Double-A nightbat wrote >>From AA: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>the _mechanism_ of his proposed c-drop, namely, a precipitous drop in >>the PDT of the spatial medium from the instant of the BB. > Commander Double-A > Since Dr. Magueijo has already taken the plunge into "alternative" > cosmology with his VSL Variable Speed Light theory, he might just as > well go with the "flow" too! > > Double-A nightbat What Commander a mainstreamer finally agreeing with observed reality instead of misinterpreted or non understood math data, Mrs. Einstein would turn in her grave. Why because we would have to make him an profound Earth Science Team Member and all that, unprecedented, unheard of, outrageous, preposterous, oh mercy! Mainstream field theorists listening to far advanced Maverick net deep theoretical thinkers, what's next physics relativity and quantum theory leap unblocking and the unified field theory? You mean it's possible to finally join these two disciplines of study into a concise practical working model of field PDT dynamics, impressive. First the acceptance of density and pressure gradients applied to space by scientists is a great breakthrough but recognition of the actual field reciprocal observed cosmic background thermal gradient too, oh my! The PDT gradient, but space was always previously viewed from an null understanding due to the MM experiment so Dr. Einstein's assessment is correct that frame viewing is very important, it's all relative. Net time spent with a beautiful women like Officer Twitty goes by oh so quickly, but posts read from our Saul or Mr. Scott, or our perfectly logical Officer Zinni, how they drag on. Second with the acceptance of space as a dynamic medium incorporating the applicable PDT gradient understanding we can surmise while no physical material gas or liquid can be directly measured to the consistency of space its background field effects can however via the PDT gradient base framing. Please, please, gentlemen continue your brilliant insightful deep theoretical applied science formulations and united field investigations. Yes, while I go investigate time fleeting Officer Twitty's status. on alert, the nightbat From NB: >What...a mainstreamer finally agreeing >with observed reality instead of >misinterpreted or non understood math >data,..? Oh, Magueijo isn't isn't the only mainstreamer questioning the doctrine of universal c-invariance. Google the foillowing: 'Moffatt, Barrow, Troitskii, light speed'. These other 'maverik' mainstreamers, like Magueijo, intuitively _know_ there's something fishy about the c-invariance doctrine. But being Void-Spacers all, they do not make the connectrion with a cosmological density gradient (or PDT drop) to explain it. >You mean it's possible to finally join >these two disciplines of study into a >concise practical working model of field >PDT dynamics... ? As has been mentioned several times here previously, IF it were possible for the Mageijo/Moffatt/Barrow/Troitskii group to connect with the Lindner/Shifman/Warren/Paxton flowing-space group (who recognize density gradients in the spatial medium), then a working model could come out of it. But don't hold your breath.:-) oc oc Photons moving faster than 'c' would destroy my "Spin is in theory" Density gives gravity a greater force. Density can create more photons of gamma and inferred. Low density (tired photons) and you have radio photons. However the speed of photons are constant. Their speed is set. There would be no universe if this was not so. There are as many virtual photons and they are needed for the universe's balancing act. Bert > oc Photons moving faster than 'c' would destroy my "Spin is in theory" > Density gives gravity a greater force. Density can create more photons [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > virtual photons and they are needed for the universe's balancing act. > Bert The speed of photons varies in or out of gravitational fields. Einstein even came up withn an formula for it in 1911. But I think he stopped promoting it because it confused people with recard to the other concept that c is constant. But they both can be true, you know. According to SR, light will always travel at the same speed when measured locally with local clocks and measures. But the speed of distant light, or light in a gravitational field some distance away, can be measured to be different than c when using those same local clocks and measures. Thus light or radio waves passing near the Sun take longer to get to us because they are moving slower relative to our local clocks and measures. Double-A From AA: >The speed of photons varies in or out of >gravitational fields. Einstein even came [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >concept that c is constant. But they both >can be true, you know. That's right. Both can be true, within their local referance frames. That's the 'big picture' of what the 'relative' in relativity is all about - seeing from an external frame, and correctly interpreting what is seen. >According to SR, light will always travel >at the same speed when measured >locally with local clocks and measures. >But the speed of distant light, or light in a >gravitational field some distance away, >can be measured to be different than c >when using those same local clocks and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >relative to our local clocks and >measures. ..... nightbat wrote > From AA: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>relative to our local clocks and >>measures. ..... nightbat Excellent report as always Captain oc and Commander Double-A and the net dissidents are in disarray due to the profound implications of unified field PDT gradient theory iterations and further possible gravitational loop closure. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and best wishes for the coming Holiday season to all. cheers, the nightbat oc Time does not exist for photons. There is no reference frame(experiment) that can show photons measured other than light speed. Not even two flash lights back to back. A star coming to you at 90,000 mps still has photons hitting you at 186,242 mps That is the heart of SR 'c' is a constant. Don't be fooled when they tell you photons are slowed in a lab. when sodium is cooled to almost absolute zero,and its speed is only 3 mph That gives me a laugh. Best to keep in mind photons from the Sun's core take 100,000 yeaRS TO BREAK THROUGH ITS SURFACE and there is good science telling us the reason. To sum it up Photons never change speed Photons don't bounce SR is a great theory Photons do come out of the 'c' spinning cloud of the electron. They enter this cloud at 'c' (absorbed) they are emitted from the electron at 'c' How long they stay in the spinning cloud depends on high or low energy where needed. Photons makes sure natures balancing act is always in use. When Heisenberg came up with his "Uncertainty Principle" it was photons and electrons he had in mind Bert Double-A I never read Einstein having any thought that photons change speed He proved gravity can bend them. Once you are taken down that long black alley of bad science you can't see the end. Reality is if the photons could slow down you have to ask what brings them back to their measured speed of 186,242 mps ? No answer that figures well with why 'my spin is in theory' is good science Bert > Double-A I never read Einstein having any thought that photons change > speed He proved gravity can bend them. "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein - 1920. http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html > Once you are taken down that > long black alley of bad science you can't see the end. Reality is if > the photons could slow down you have to ask what brings them back to > their measured speed of 186,242 mps ? No answer that figures well > with why 'my spin is in theory' is good science Bert What speeds sound waves up when the pass from cold air to warm air? Where does the energy come from? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe.html Double-A > > Double-A I never read Einstein having any thought that photons change > > speed He proved gravity can bend them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation > of light varies with position. Double-A Look up the definition of "velocity" as opposed to "speed". > Now we might think that as a consequence > of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Double-A >Look up the definition of "velocity" as >opposed to "speed". Zinni's right, AA. For example, see- http://physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L1d.html Of course the "speed /velocity" distinction is used in buttressing the doctrine of absolute c-invariance from the instant of the BB to present.. which is one of the fundamental tenets of the VSP. And this tenet would be true IF there is 'no medium' and IF there are no density gradients in that medium at cosmological distances and in gravity wells. As has been stated here many times, under the CBB model, c is constant _locally_, in the absence of any density gradient. It is exactly 186,282 m/s here at home, and it is exactly 186,282 m/s "out there", outside the Sun's gravity well, and it's exactly 186,282 m/s out at the edge of the observable cosmos. So what gives? What's the argumant with the Standard Model and VSP? Simply this: from the 'outside' referance frame, there is seen a precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density (or PDT value) of the spatial medium from the instant of the BB.. per the illustration- http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/page2.html Concomitant with this drop, across this cosmological density gradient, the speed of light is seen to drop proportionately.This is what Gordon Wolter called "c-dilation". All the while, c is fixed to its constant value *locally*. There is no argument with relativity; it is simply seeing from an expanded referance frame.. just as relativity was to Newtonian physics. Now overlay this model incorporating 'c-dilation' onto the VSL (variable speed of light) model of Magueijo et al, which recognizes the precipitous lightspeed drop but not the mechanism for it. oc > >Look up the definition of "velocity" as > >opposed to "speed". [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > observable cosmos. So what gives? What's the argumant with the Standard > Model and VSP? The speed of light is slower in the Sun's gravity well as timed by clocks here on Earth, and it should be faster in intergalactic space as timed by Earth clocks. This was observed to be true by Dr. Shapiro in timing radar signals bounced off the planets such that the radar photons passed near the Sun. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_effect The article also notes that this was PREDICTED by Einstein! But of course that's not to say that if you took your clock to some point on the path of the photons and measured their speed locally, that you wouldn't measure exactly c. But relative to Earth, and as measured by clocks on Earth, photons move < c in a gravity well, and must move > c (c as measured on Earth) completely outside the Sun's gravity well. Double-A > Simply this: from the 'outside' referance frame, there is seen a > precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density (or PDT [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > oc From AA: >...of course that's not to say that if you >took your clock to some point on the path >of the photons and measured their speed >LOCALLY, that you wouldn't measure >exactly c. My point exactly. >But relative to Earth, and as measured >by clocks on Earth, photons move < c in >a gravity well, and must move > c (c as >measured on Earth) completely outside >the Sun's gravity well. That's an example, on a very small scale, of 'c-dilation' - the change of lightspeed across a PDT gradient _as observed from an external frame_ . Frame of referance is everything. oc > Simply this: from the 'outside' referance frame, there is seen a > precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density (or PDT [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the speed of light is seen to drop proportionately.This is what Gordon > Wolter called "c-dilation". Hey BS I've been meaning to ask you about this point. See ... "All other things being equal, sound will travel more slowly in denser materials, and faster in stiffer ones. For instance, sound will travel faster in aluminium than uranium, and faster in hydrogen than nitrogen, due to the lower density of the first material of each set." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound "Typically there are two essential types of properties which effect wave speed - inertial properties and elastic properties. The density of a medium is an example of an inertial property. The greater the inertia (i.e., mass density) of individual particles of the medium, the less responsive they will be to the interactions between neighboring particles and the slower the wave. If all other factors are equal (and seldom is it that simple), a sound wave will travel faster in a less dense material than a more dense material." http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/U11L2c.html "3. The velocity of a wave varies with the tension and density of the medium. In general, v = root(tension factor/inertial factor)" http://serp.la.asu.edu/ChemPhy_dir/Waves_TE.pdf So, if in general, a wave moves slower in a more dense medium and faster in a less dense medium, and applying your method of "Intuitive Blather" (IB) It would seem that if there was a "precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density of the spatial medium from the instant of the BB" then there should be a corresponding increase in the Speed of Light. But you assert that "the speed of light is seen to drop proportionately." Care to explain your reasoning in light of your method of IB??? > All the while, c is fixed to its constant > value *locally*. There is no argument with relativity; it is simply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > oc >Care to explain your reasoning in light of >your method of IB??? Sure. In your sound speed examples, the inertial properties of mass impose lower propagation speed in denser matter.The sub-Planck energy domain is not matter and is not subject to inertial properties of matter. The substratum of pure sub-Planck energy is the *carrier* of EM radiation. The higher the energy state (energy density or PDT) of the medium, the higher the propagation speed of EM radiation it supports. Pretty straightforward. Note that we're talkin' specifically about EM, not gravitational wave radiation. You were answered with civility, decorum and courtesy. Do you think you might be capable of doing likewise? Try it. You might surprize yourself. oc > >Care to explain your reasoning in light of >your method of IB??? > > Sure. In your sound speed examples, the inertial properties of mass > impose lower propagation speed in denser matter.The sub-Planck energy > domain is not matter and is not subject to inertial properties of > matter. Is it subject to the properties of "angels, imps and sky pixies"??? > The substratum of pure sub-Planck energy is the *carrier* > of EM radiation. So does the *carrier* have a medium or does it exist in (dare I say it!!!) a VOID??? > The higher the energy state (energy density or PDT) of > the medium, the higher the propagation speed of EM radiation it > supports. Pretty straightforward. That's a fine word salad you have there (are those croutons?). Do they mean anything??? > Note that we're talkin' specifically about EM, not gravitational wave > radiation. > > You were answered with civility, decorum and courtesy. Do you think you > might be capable of doing likewise? Try it. You might surprize yourself. Blow it out your ear. > oc >>John Zinni politely asked... >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is it subject to the properties of "angels, imps and sky pixies"??? No, John, these appear to be the domain of modern cosmology! >> The substratum of pure sub-Planck energy is the *carrier* >> of EM radiation. > > So does the *carrier* have a medium or does it exist in (dare I say > it!!!) a VOID??? The carrier *is* the medium, teeny weeny Zinni! And the medium is the *carrier*, slow chron John! >> The higher the energy state (energy density or PDT) of >> the medium, the higher the propagation speed of EM radiation it >> supports. Pretty straightforward. > > That's a fine word salad you have there (are those croutons?). Do they > mean anything??? It means that there is a *reason* that light and other electromagnetic radiation stick to _c_ "in vacuo". The constant velocity of electromagnetic radiation is no longer in the domain of whimsical sky pixies! >> Note that we're talkin' specifically about EM, not gravitational wave >> radiation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >> oc You're improving, John. By Christmas you just might be speaking the human language of... sapience! SignatureLife is Good! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > >>John Zinni politely asked... > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > No, John, these appear to be the domain of > modern cosmology! OK, let's recap a bit ... "Space _demonstrates itself_ to be a dynamic, highly mobile, hyperpressurized fluid amenable to compression/expansion and (gasp) density gradients." - BS - And "The sub-Planck energy domain is not matter and is not subject to inertial properties of matter." - BS - So it would appear that the "sub-Planck energy domain" is only subject to the properties that are convenient to BS at the time. Please feel free to remain willfully ignorant and continue to listen to the rantings of BS. It's easier on you. Making stuff up out of thin air is much easier than actually learning something. > >> The substratum of pure sub-Planck energy is the *carrier* > >> of EM radiation. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You're improving, John. By Christmas you just > might be speaking the human language of... Blow it out your ear. > sapience! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org From JohnZ: >...it would appear that the "sub-Planck >energy domain" is only subject to the >properties that are convenient to BS at >the time. Not at all. In his sound speed examples, John's attempting to attribute inertial properties of mass to a domain that is _not_ mass but pure energy. The inertial properties peculiar TO matter are not properties of the SPED. The "density" referred to is _energy density_, "E=mc³" being a fanciful representation emphasizing that density state. The SPED _demonstates itself_ to be a fluid, a perfect, frictionaless fluid (superfluid or 'hyperfluid') which underlies and fixes the laws of inertia and momentum on 'this side' of the Planck length. Inertial mass is _conferred_ by the SPED, it is not a property _of_ the SPED. Its hyperfluidic nature, or 'frictionless-ness' confers conservation of momentum. The very same property of the SPED causative of inertia also causes gravity: i.e., an object resists acceleration in space; conversely, accelerating space imparts momentum to an object in space. Ergo, gravity-acceleration equivalence. The 'hyperfluidic' nature of the medium is patently obvious and self-evident, particularly in the behavior of gravity, and in the physical laws of inertia and momentum. Besides its hyperfluidic nature, it demonstrates itself as being under an incalculably high pressurization state, evidenced by its ability to crush massive stars down to BHs. And it demonstrates its extreme energy density by the fact that there is NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION, and by the high, fixed propagation speed of light. Last but not least, The Sub-Planck Energy Domain demonstrates itself as being purely and intrinsically holographic and nonlocal. How else do you account for the identical-ness of the elements everywhere in the universe? How does H 'know' to be H and He 'know' to be He on opposide sides of the universe, out of lightspeed communication? The SPED's holograpic/nonlocal nature is indicated in small measure even on 'this side' of the Planck length, and demonstrated in the lab; objects as large as viruses and buckyballs have been shown to display bilocation. In the final analysis, the "no medium" or Void-Space Paradigm was an edict of pure caprice and fiat. The old 'rigid lattice' model was junked and rightly so. But instead of following the rational course of investigating a dynamic FLUID medium amenable to compression/expansion and density gradients, the baby was thrown out and the afterbirth raised instead. And the rest, as they say, is history. oc > > >>John Zinni politely asked... > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > http://www.painellsworth.net > > http://www.savethechildren.org Sound waves do move faster through denser air than through less dense air. "Sound moves faster through denser air because the molecules are closer together in dense air and sound can be more easily passed on." http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/Popup/discussion004.htm Double-A From db: >Blow it out your ear. As mentioned before, ol' db has always conveyed the impression of that little nose-picking, baldheaded egghead guy in the 'Austin Powers' series. This clip really galvanizes the impression - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVpvFcyfJyQ&mode=related&search= oc >> >>John Zinni politely asked... >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > density gradients." > - BS - Yes, it's called the sub-Planck energy domain or "SPED". It is the only explanation i've seen so far that can explain "gravity" without jarring quantum theorists out of their seat. > And > > "The sub-Planck energy domain is not matter and is not subject to > inertial properties of matter." > > - BS - Yes, unless of course you can demonstrate any form of matter as being a part of the SPED. This domain is pure energy, as Bill has stated. > So it would appear that the "sub-Planck energy domain" is only subject > to the properties that are convenient to BS at the time. I know what properties can be *excluded* from this domain, such as yes, the inertial properties of matter. We can include those properties of pure energy we know about, however i'm uncertain as to all of the potential properties of such extremely dense energy at exceedingly minuscule wavelengths. > Please feel free to remain willfully ignorant and continue to listen to > the rantings of BS. It's easier on you. Making stuff up out of thin air > is much easier than actually learning something. In the immortal words of the kid who drove Geena Davis to the dance bar in "A League of Their Own", "Can't we do both?" > Blow it out your ear. Quite a waxy thought for someone who has a good deal of trouble lighting candles, someone who seems to prefer snuffing them out. Come up with a better explanation for gravity, John, and i shall be "all ears"! I noticed that Owen has been posting... Owen, if you happen to read this, i sincerely hope you are having an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday! SignatureLife is Sooo Good! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > >> >>John Zinni politely asked... > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that can explain "gravity" without jarring quantum > theorists out of their seat. And you know this because of your extensive interaction with quantum theorists??? > > And > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > form of matter as being a part of the SPED. This > domain is pure energy, as Bill has stated. So now your asking me to demonstrate properties of a piece of gobledigook??? > > So it would appear that the "sub-Planck energy domain" is only subject > > to the properties that are convenient to BS at the time. > > I know what properties can be *excluded* from > this domain, such as yes, the inertial properties of > matter. You KNOW this, do you??? And how is it that you KNOW this??? > We can include those properties of pure > energy we know about, however i'm uncertain as > to all of the potential properties of such extremely > dense energy at exceedingly minuscule wavelengths. Why is that??? Because you haven't made them up yet??? > > Please feel free to remain willfully ignorant and continue to listen to > > the rantings of BS. It's easier on you. Making stuff up out of thin air [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org Db asks, >You KNOW this, do you??? And how is it >that you KNOW this??? Um, how about it's from having the mental clarity and objectivity to simply LOOK AT THAT WHICH _DEMONSTRATES ITSELF_ BY ITS BOUNTY OF EFFECTS, unencumbered by a mind locked down by pre-held indoctrination? It's exactly the same dynamic held by those geocentrists four centuries ago, whose doctrine utterly forbade them to look thru the glass. Indeed, "there is nothing new under the sun." oc >> >> >>John Zinni politely asked... >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > And you know this because of your extensive interaction with quantum > theorists??? I have heard no complaints thus far, no. Of course, when one has an idea that essentially supports the two primary existing physical theories, relativity and quantum mechanics, and the idea is founded upon what many scientists might see as "circumstantial" evidence rather than direct, empirical evidence, then we must forgive scientists for being sheep in a herd. Lest we forget, there are people who have been tried, convicted *and* executed based upon nothing more than strong and convincing circumstantial evidence. And to me, so far the evidence for concepts like the SPED, flowing space-time and the "Continuous Big Bang" theory of the Universe are thusly supportable. In all our conversations, whether you were your usual innocuous, though caustic self, or you were really trying to be almost nice, nowhere have you been able to lessen my estimate of CBB theory. I ask you truly hard questions and you circumvent them either by vague, redundant responses or by no response at all. I must draw the same conclusion as Bill, that you are expert at one thing and one thing only... You are adept at citing and sticking with existing scientific doctrine. In that, you continue to be more than just a little useful and helpful! >> > And >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So now your asking me to demonstrate properties of a piece of > gobledigook??? The nebulous nature of these ideas comes as no surprise. When i wrote "you" in the above, it was meant in a general manner, as in ". . . unless of course anyone can demonstrate any form of . . ." What i'm asking *you* to demonstrate is a level of comprehension beyond that which you've shown in the past. >> > So it would appear that the "sub-Planck energy domain" is only subject >> > to the properties that are convenient to BS at the time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You KNOW this, do you??? And how is it that you KNOW this??? The fact that the SPED does not exhibit inertial properties of matter was predicted by Einstein, and i have no doubt that he was correct... "We shall see later, however, that the general theory of relativity confirms Descartes' conception in a roundabout way. What brought Descartes to his remarkably attractive view was certainly the feeling that, without compelling necessity, one ought not to ascribe reality to a thing like space, which is not capable of being 'directly experienced'." Then in a footnote to the phrase "directly experienced" Einstein wrote, "This expression is to be taken _cum grano salis_". Taken from appendix V of his his popular book, this says to me that, while general relativity does not require the need to ascribe physical reality to space, and while said requirement does not necessarily completely negate the possibility that space is made of something, whatever it is that space may be made of is not physical, not material in substance. Einstein's wording is as careful as it can be and still maintain the "dumbing down" required for the work. He later goes on to say,... "There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field. "Thus Descartes was not so far from the truth when he believed he must exclude the existence of an empty space. The notion indeed appears absurd, as long as physical reality is seen exclusively in ponderable bodies. It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity, to show the true kernel of Descartes' idea; there exists no space 'empty of field'." The CBB theory takes the above to the next level. In order to understand this, one must first go beyond the classic idea of "empty space", i.e. the idea that "if one removes all matter from space-time, there is 'nothing' left." Einstein took us part of the way by introducing the idea of a field and that space-time can never be "empty of field". I may be able to take this to the next level for you if you are willing to at the very least consider the possibility that there may *be* a next level. >> We can include those properties of pure >> energy we know about, however i'm uncertain as >> to all of the potential properties of such extremely >> dense energy at exceedingly minuscule wavelengths. > > Why is that??? Because you haven't made them up yet??? Yes, that's essentially correct. Nobody has yet been able to "fully envision" all of the potential properties we will someday discover about the SPED. And may i remind you that, while your wording above taints the process with negative connotation, there are many cases in science for which discovery was preceded by imagining the many possibilities, or in your eyes, "making things up". That is essentially your failing up to now, John. You don't seem to be able to "make things up", to imagine the things that might be possible. I sincerely hope you are not as the alcoholic who refuses to recognize a drinking problem. You will never be more than a parrot until you first recognize that, when things change, when new discoveries are made, parrots tend to keep on squawking the only words they know. >> > . . . >> > Making stuff up out of thin air [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> "Can't we do both?" Your continuing inquiry into these ideas, as noted by your willingness to challenge them, shows me that, while you have the mouth of a parrot, you also possess the mind of an inquisitive scientist. I would have given up on you long ago, but i see something in you that you probably don't even see in yourself... your ability to inspire thought in others. Can you turn this powerful ability on that person you see in the mirror? SignatureHow can we make Life better and better? Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org Space makes up the body of Eternity as does time itself. SignatureThere are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens. The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond Telescope Buyers FAQ http://home.inreach.com/starlord Sidewalk Astronomy www.sidewalkastronomy.info The Church of Eternity http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html From Painius, addressing db: >What i'm asking *you* to demonstrate is >a level of comprehension beyond that >which you've shown in the past. I think you're *really* overestimating the dude. He's as quintessentially hidebound to his doctrine as those who sat at the inquisition of Galileo, and as likely to change. To look thru Galileo's lens was utter, total anathema, something they could not and would not consider. Today, the "Galileo's lens" is nothing more than a rational, clearheaded observation of THAT WHICH _DEMONSTRATES ITSELF_ by its abundance of effects, with a mind uncontaminated with void-space indoctrination. And i dare say, that's an extreme rarity. >I may be able to take this to the next >level for you if you are willing to at the >very least consider the possibility that >there may *be* a next level. To db, there *is* no next level. Just zippo, nada. Void. >(quoting Einstein) >"...there exists no space 'empty of field'." > >The CBB theory takes the above to the >next level. Wolter's CBB model was fully formed when he arrived at his concept of 'c-dlation'. This natural expansion/extension of SR occured as a sidebar of the already-fully-formed model. It came unsought and unintended. By seeing from the 'outside' frame the whole Process from BB to the present, he saw with absolute clarity the precipitous density(PDT) drop and its attendant lightspeed drop... while from the 'inside' frame, c is always constant *locally*. Thus his expanded model holds c constant in all density(PDT) frames just as Einstein's SR holds it constant in all inertial frames. But without the _fully formed_ CBB model already in place, he could have never have arrived at this insight/sidebar. So what does the CBB model actually tell us about what we're seeing from here 'inside', looking out at the great vault of the firmament? What are the visible *artifacts* of a deep-past cosmological density gradient? For starters, we're looking thru a great spherical "Lens" that begins getting exponentially 'thicker' at deep cosmological distances. The result is like looking thru a telescope backwards; deep-past objects appear dimmer, smaller, more distant, and _older_. The space they occupy, being denser, is _correspondingly less voluminous_. And the objects within it are correspondingly less voluminous (this diminuation of volume with increasing density would be true of the 'Singular BB' model as well). These are factors that need to be considered in look-back under the Void-Space regime, which recognizes no artifacts of a cosmological density gradient in what's being observed.. particularly in the SN1a data. So the question is whether space is truly an isotropic 'void' all the way back to the BB, or whether it embodies the aforementioned density(PDT) gradient. The answer obviously has enormous relevance to the biggest questions in cosmology.. like the age of the (visible) cosmos and the ultimate fate of the universe. oc > > >Care to explain your reasoning in light of >your method of IB??? > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That's a fine word salad you have there (are those croutons?). Do they > mean anything??? Funny, nobody ever complains about all the math salads that get presented. Double-A > > Note that we're talkin' specifically about EM, not gravitational wave > > radiation. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > oc >> Simply this: from the 'outside' referance frame, there is seen a >> precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density (or PDT [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > due to the lower density of the first material of each set." > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound Uhm, John? According to this reference you cite, sound travels over 4 times faster through water than through air at sea level. I'm no expert on density, but isn't water denser than air? > "Typically there are two essential types of properties which effect > wave speed - inertial properties and elastic properties. The density of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dense material than a more dense material." > http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/U11L2c.html This appears to be a contradiction of your Wiki reference, John. > "3. The velocity of a wave varies with the tension and density of the > medium. In general, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Care to explain your reasoning in light of your method of IB??? There is no need for explanation based upon your reasoning, since your reasoning seems to be quite faulty, John. >> All the while, c is fixed to its constant >> value *locally*. There is no argument with relativity; it is simply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> oc I don't understand how you can cite a reference that flies in the face of your assertion regarding the speed of sound? SignatureLife is Good! Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > >> Simply this: from the 'outside' referance frame, there is seen a > >> precipitous drop, by many orders of magnitude, of the density (or PDT [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sound travels over 4 times faster through water > than through air at sea level. Right. As stated above "sound will travel more slowly in denser materials, and faster in stiffer ones." Sound is faster in water than in air because water is stiffer than air not because it's denser. > I'm no expert on > density, but isn't water denser than air? You're right, you are no expert. My car can go faster than my bike, my car is gray and my bike is green. from this would you conclude that "gray" things are faster than "green" things??? > > "Typically there are two essential types of properties which effect > > wave speed - inertial properties and elastic properties. The density of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This appears to be a contradiction of your Wiki > reference, John. You really need to start explicitly stating things that you feel are obvious in your head as they are not necessarily obvious to sane people. Please point out the contradiction. > > "3. The velocity of a wave varies with the tension and density of the > > medium. In general, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org oc & Zinni If you guys would stop arguing and go with "c' being a constant speed for every photon length wave. Stop comparing sound waves with photons. They don't relate No sonic boom in space. Sound travels faster the closer to the Earth's surface. Its air that is doing the booming (better transfer) as true for water. Electrons spin at "c' Their cloud is made of photons,and that means they leave at "c" and enter the spinning cloud at "c" Photons do not bounce to show reflection. They go in an out of free electrons what are on smooth silver surface. Think of them as you think of revolving d0oors "In one side and half way around and out" I have shown I can disturb these free electrons without disturbing the atoms that make up the material(metal,or glass) You will argue forever until you realize SR is a great theory,and my "Spin is in theory" adds the right mechanics to it. Bert PS If photons bounce like a rubber ball hitting a wall we would have no universe go figure From Bert: >..stop arguing and go with "c' being a >constant speed for every photon.. No problem with that, Bert, as long as there's no density(PDT) gradient in the spatial medium.. or if there is "no medium". But what if there _is_ a medium? What if out at deep cosmological distances, you start encountering an exponentially-steepening density(PDT) value of the medium? What does that tell you about objects you're observing out at the edge of visibility (such as in the Hubble Extreme Deep Field)? And what about 'tiny' gradients locally, in the gravity wells of stars? oc > oc & Zinni If you guys would stop arguing and go with "c' being a > constant speed for every photon length wave. Stop comparing sound waves > with photons. They don't relate No sonic boom in space. But there is Cherenkov radiation, which is something like a sonic boom for particles going faster than the speed of light for the medium. > Sound travels > faster the closer to the Earth's surface. Because the air is denser there. > Its air that is doing the > booming (better transfer) as true for water. A sonic boom in water? Since the speed of sound in water is over four times faster, the torpedo creating the boom would have to really be hauling, wouldn't it? > Electrons spin at "c' Only in your theory. > Their cloud is made of photons,and that means they leave at "c" and > enter the spinning cloud at "c" Photons do not bounce to show > reflection. They go in an out of free electrons what are on smooth > silver surface. Think of them as you think of revolving d0oors "In one > side and half way around and out" Then why do some photons exit at the angle of reflection which equals the angle of incidence, while other photons exit at the angle of refraction according to Snell's law? Why don't they exit in all directions equally? Or maybe they do, but we can't perceive them in our reality? (Cue Twilight Zone music!) > I have shown I can disturb these free > electrons without disturbing the atoms that make up the > material(metal,or glass) You will argue forever until you realize SR > is a great theory,and my "Spin is in theory" adds the right mechanics to > it. Bert PS If photons bounce like a rubber ball hitting a wall we > would have no universe go figure But they sure try hard to fool us into thinking they're bouncing! Double-A Double-A Fooling that they bounce is relating photons to the macro rubber ball.,and the reality is no action in the micro can relate to the macro,and that is reality. My theory does away with the hard question if the photon hits the wall it has to come to a complete stop before ir rebounds back. My theory does away with slowing down,and the hard question"what energy brings them back to a precise speed of 'c'. Macro rubber effect is used by macro man,and to see effects in the micro,and its no wonder scientists use rubber sheets Photons entering the electron say at 30 degrees will exist at the same angle. Refraction fits well with my theory. because refraction is the bending of light rays that occur as the rays go to one transparent material and enter another.(like glass and air) Best to keep in mind bending light rays can make a sharper image. Gravity can do that very easily It would not be an electron if its cloud did not spin at "c' There would not be a universe if my theory was wrong. Bert PS not hard to be fooled by the micro world after all if you don't think QM is weired,you don't no anything about it(Bohr) > Double-A Fooling that they bounce is relating photons to the macro > rubber ball.,and the reality is no action in the micro can relate to the > macro,and that is reality. My theory does away with the hard question if > the photon hits the wall it has to come to a complete stop before ir > rebounds back. My theory does away with slowing down,and the hard > question"what energy brings them back to a precise speed of 'c'. But your theory doesn't explain why the light leaves at particlular angles as described by the laws of optics. (I didn't like my optics class, but little did I know back then how important the subject was.) > Macro > rubber effect is used by macro man,and to see effects in the micro,and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rays that occur as the rays go to one transparent material and enter > another.(like glass and air) But you cannot explain why this happens. Newton had some trick demonstrations with balls. > Best to keep in mind bending light rays > can make a sharper image. Gravity can do that very easily It would > not be an electron if its cloud did not spin at "c' So, is an electron entirely composed of photons? > There would not be a > universe if my theory was wrong. Bert PS not hard to be fooled by the > micro world after all if you don't think QM is weired,you don't no > anything about it(Bohr) That's the problem I have with QM. If you have trouble accepting the miracles described in the Bible, then how can you accept the miracles claimed by QM (Instantaneous communication, etc)? Double-A From AA: >That's the problem I have with QM. If >you have trouble accepting the miracles >described in the Bible, then how can you >accept the miracles claimed by QM...? Well, if you're referrin' to quantum nonlocality, it's not just "claimed" but proven in the lab. The quandary lies in explaining it under the void-space regime. Google shows over 63,000 hits on the subject, but barely ten speculating on "explanation of quantum nonlocality". oc > From AA: > >That's the problem I have with QM. If [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > nonlocality". > oc Proven? I haven't seen any proof yet that doesn't require you to accept some unlikely basic assumptions of QM before you will see these results as "proof". It's like if I can get you to believe that Paul Bunyon's ax dug the Grand Canyon, then I can prove it to you by showing you that it's still there today! Double-A oc QM is humankinds best theory,and my Spin is in theory is humankinds #2 theory. QM has never been proven wrong Go figure Bert OOPs. Make that 9,000, not 10. Misread the header. Double-A First I do not except miracles in any realm of the universe. There is a reason for every thing,and the bible has all the answers,but none that fit with good science. Angle into a spinning ball and coming out of this ball at the same entry angle is a tough question,but I hope to have the answer soon. Yes double-A the structure of an electron is photons,and virtual photons that make a cloud that is spinning at 'c' It also contains neutrinos and I have been wondering what the neutrino if for for over 30 years? I have a hint of its function. You mentioned "instant communication" That is tough (yes) I think man will never reach a point in his future spacetime when he will ever have it.(instant action) I can see it needed in our huge universe that is 22 billion LY in every direction. We know a wave can be infinitely long. It is written should a wave snap in two this action would be felt in every part of the universe at once Go figure Bert PS the Nobel prize winner Weinberg would like my photon structure of the electron I think Feynman might like instantaneous action?? (Sum over histories) From AA: >...the torpedo creating the boom would >have to really be hauling, wouldn't it? Heh. Google 'Supercavitating torpedo, underwater warp drive'. Then, 'Alcubierre warp drive' to see the analogy. oc > From AA: > >...the torpedo creating the boom would > >have to really be hauling, wouldn't it? > > Heh. Google 'Supercavitating torpedo, underwater warp drive'. Then, > 'Alcubierre warp drive' to see the analogy. oc Yes, interesting. Kind of hard to imagine supercavitating in void space, huh? Double-A From AA: >Kind of hard to imagine supercavitating >in void space, huh? Not at all.:-) It's done by manipulating equations and geometry. Kinda like twisting the speedometer needle to make the car go. :-) :-) oc > oc & Zinni If you guys would stop arguing and go with "c' being a > constant speed for every photon length wave. Stop comparing sound waves [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it. Bert PS If photons bounce like a rubber ball hitting a wall we > would have no universe go figure Hello Herbert my boy, I still remember meeting you many years ago. I am glad to see you took my advice and have pursued a career in theoretical physics just as I advised you. I always knew you had the mind for it. I am glad to see that after all these years, you now have a theory of your very own. Rubber is for mats, not for photons in Relativity Theory. Always remember that the photons are always traveling at c. And space-time curves in a convex manner, except in the event of a cosmological constant as I was considering some years ago. About that three-body problem, it all came to me one day while I was juggling three Newton apples! I planned to reveal it on some special occasion in hopes that they might name an apple after me! But keep working on it Herbert and you will get it. Hint: Do not think only of the motions of the three bodies themselves, also think of the dance of the space-time around them. I have to get back to my Unified Field Theory now. Odd, I do not know what I was thinking for the last fifty years. I cannot remember any of it! A. Einstein A Einstein I know it is really you. You signed the book you gave me A Einstein In hind sight I now know I should have taken the train with you back to Princeton. Are talk was much to short. You were very kind to me. I was afraid to mention my G=EMC^2 equation to you. I* was afraid to mention that I had a convex spacetime curve to go with your concave curving of spacetime. Now I'm much more knowledgeable than you. Now we have great Cern accelerators. All attempts to find gravity waves in the macro real have failed,and you and I know why. My spin is in theory touches on this,and gives an answer. I will be always grateful to Mrs Erma Ring making it possible to be at her home so that I could meet you. I( think of that morning just about every day. It was a compass that got you interested in science,and with me it was a gyro. We related to each other,and best to keep in mind a compass and a gyro relate to each other "gyrocompass" I have reached a spacetime where I'm older than you. I'm more knowledgable,but you are the most clever. Your fellow thinker Bert > A Einstein I know it is really you. You signed the book you gave me A > Einstein In hind sight I now know I should have taken the train with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > older than you. I'm more knowledgable,but you are the most clever. Your > fellow thinker Bert Bert, I think it is very profound that Dr. Einstein should choose alt.astronomy, the home of the Earth Science Officers, to make first contact from the other side! Maybe Darla and the Seans have rescued his brain from that jar and revived it! I know that if I were an all-powerful alien, that's what I would do! Double-A Double-A Right and wrong you are. Do I believe that was posted by A Einstien?? Does nightbat believe Treb is reality(NO) he will say its my old brain having a melt down(going bonkers) Darla he believes in (go figure) A Einstein must have read the few posts on my describing my meeting Einstein. or was Einstein like Darla,and Treb virtual reality. A thought just jumped in. I will do a "What if" on this today Bert From Einstein dude: >I do not know what I was thinking for the >last fifty years. I cannot remember any of >it! Hey why did you sit on your duff (or laurels as it were) from the 1920s onward, letting the 'no medium'/void-space dogma become the bedrock axiom of science, all the while knowing full well better? It wasn't because you're stupid. Was it in fact an act of supreme wisdom, like a mama bird feigning a broken wing, to lead science into the protective 'playpen' where it now resides? oc oc Seems Einstein had a big ego,and was stubborn. It took him years to agree QM was a great theory. He argued with Bohr,and Heisenberg. There side was better science He had a creative mind,but in his last 40 years he just became a Google brain ,or maybe his brain became passive Its these thoughts that frighten me Bert. From Bert: >...or maybe his brain became passive. >It's these thoughts that frighten me. I still prefer to think the best of the jolly old elf. that his knowing and "sitting on" the true nature of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message