Gravity is what keeps you from flying off the earth as it spins about it's
axis. It works similar to
the way water stays in a bucket when you swing it around and around.
thanks,
Jd
sdr wrote:
>On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden
>BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>> Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata
>
>http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS
>
>>> Ha! Those are by Mozart.
>>> Last time "I" wrote a piano
>>> sonata it caused such hysterics
>>> (of laughter) that I
>>> was briefly held on a charge
>>> of attempted homicide
>>> (of my listeners).
>>
>> Sorry... interpretation...
>>
>>>> I wish we could discuss the relation of
>>>> thermodynamics and gravity.
>
>VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:
>
>Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
>land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
>there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
>towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
>because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
>only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
>universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
>tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
>all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
>"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
>than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
>have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
>because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
>have eventually become our universe (the concentration
>of so many, many somethings). SEE:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
>"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
>is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
>"singularities" are physically impossible in our
>reality--all you need do is look around you).
>
> Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
> compare "the size" of the universe... it will
> "always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
> matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.
>
> Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
>of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
>shrinking may actually be).
>
>Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
>is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
>drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.
>You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
>which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
>away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:
>
>Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2
>above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
>earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of
>"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
>to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the
>falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it
>hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it
>accelerate at all?
>
> The reason for this acceleration is that the
> "shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
> engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
> hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
> angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
> sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]
>
>The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
>growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
>to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
>entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
>merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
>"faster" it grows smaller... forever.
>
> This is the reason why for a dozen or more
> years before astronomers finally discovered
> that the universe's "expansion" was
> accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
> the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
> to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.
>
>If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual
>black hole star, its acceleration would almost
>certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
>of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
>only just "nearly."
>
>This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
>point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
>(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
>dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in
>place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
>And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
>as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
>earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole
>star's. Why?
>
> Because this effect/interaction is one which is
> strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:
>
>In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
>identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
>in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
>"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
>unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
>as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
>not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
>words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
>Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's
>floor and vice versa.
>
>And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
>the center of the universe ["down" is strictly only a
>"relative" term], it is "the sum centers of mass" that
>are the "points" toward which the surrounding mass
>is/are "shrinking" (i.e. obviously, "space" plays no
>part whatsoever in "shrinking" ... and therefore the
>"illusion" of weaker/stronger "gravitational fields").
>
> The "distance" between two nearby bodies will
> diminish more than/long before the "distance"
> between them and bodies farther afield" (because
> all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]
> towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and
> therefore away from everything else "outside" them.
>
>There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely
>that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit
>under consideration" that, to all practical effects...
>every such bit of the universe can be described as its
>"center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"
>towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale
>towards its whatever singular sum center.]
>
> Individual stars, planets ... and related/very
> close but "untouching" conglomerations will be
> "shrinking" into a point "in space" which is the
> center of the sum of their added mass: the
> earth/moon system, as well as solar systems,
> galaxies, galaxy groups, et al ... and so forth
> outwards with every surrounding and
> correspondingly independent conglomeration of
> mass/energy from the smallest subparticle to the
> entire universe itself (which you may choose to
> call "gravitational systems" if you still believe
> in gravitons).
>
>As one continues to pull back one will always observe
>all whatever groupings of such conglomerations to be
>behaving as if they were independently "associated
>super-conglomerations" BECAUSE they will always be
>"shrinking" towards the center of the sum of their
>total mass. And so it will continue (as you "pull
>back") until the entire universe itself will be "seen"
>as behaving as if it were one single "associated
>conglomeration," [not a "singularity" of course].
>
> The effect can be "observed to be" extremely
> subtle or extremely pronounced (depending on the
> amount of mass, and its organization, whether
> more compact or more spread out/insubstantial.
> The crucial factor being the amount of mass in a
> given volume observed, and not necessarily how it is
> distributed across that volume... again, because
> what matters always is "how much mass/matter is
> falling towards the sum of its mass' center, or
> [see above] the closer a sum of mass/energy is to
> itself, the more it will be moving away from
> everything else afield.
>
>As the independent conglomerations "shrink into
>themselves" the distance between them will naturally
>increase ... subtly with proximity and increasing with
>distance so that very distant galaxies will seem to be
>speeding away from each other at nearly the speed of
>light (there is no natural law against something
>moving faster than the speed of light,* but "catching
>sight of something moving away faster than the speed
>of light" is always problematical, even if only
>philosophically).
>
> * Einstein's restriction comes from his assumption
> that the "Fitzgerald contraction" (that all matter
> contracts in the direction of its motion) was true
> [as truly a whoppingly moronic explanation of why
> the speed of light is constant as is "dark energy"
> to explain why the universe's "apparent expansion"
> is accelerating]. But having assumed that, Einstein
> was left with the fact that this moronic assumption
> demanded that matter could only contract "so much"
> and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a
> reflection of his state of mind, I imagine). ergo:
> The "numbers" told him that at 7/8th the speed of
> light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,
> and so forth, until at the speed of light his ruler
> would have contracted to zero--And, as a ruler can
> then contract no further, Einstein left himself no
> wiggle-room to imagine any speed greater than that
> of light. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein,
> smart as he was, the "facts" upon which he built his
> Grand Temple were rotten and, eventually, it shall
> all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be able to
> tell when this is happening by the number of rats
> leaving the edifice ... and whether they will be
> sauntering out, or scrambling like ... rats).
>
>Of course, the actual distance between galaxies, as
>measured by a yardstick outside the universe, will
>actually be "shrinking." But, since we can only
>measure such distances with our own "shrinking"
>galactic yardsticks... such distances must therefore
>forever appear to us to be increasing! An effect which
>is clearly discernible to us as the "illusion" that
>the galaxies are everywhere moving away from each
>other at rates of speed "surprisingly" related to how
>"distant" they are from each other.
>
>Needless to say, any silly goose first coming upon
>this peculiar motion of the galaxies away from each
>other ... with a brain empty of the knowledge I have
>just outlined above must inevitably conclude that THE
>UNIVERSE MUST OBVIOUSLY BE EXPANDING (as if
>it were ... oh, I don't know, the result of an ancient
>explosion, a really "big bang"). And so, imagine the
>surprise of all such "empty brains" when astronomers
>suddenly discovered (in 1997 or so) that their
>UNIVERSAL EXPANSION IS ACTUALLY ACCELERATING!
>(Obviously, a physical impossibility for the remnants
>of an explosion.) Oh, I don't know, I suppose they
>might be made loopy enough to even grow to imagine
>that this inexplicable/completely unpredictable (in a
>big bang universe) acceleration HAD TO BE due to some
>invisible and undetectable mystical/magical kind of
>"dark" energy or something. No, really, don't laugh:
>Billions of dollars being dropped down this particular
>black hole is more something to cry about.
>
>But that is how man's knowledge advances across the
>stumbling nature of his history... from blind guess to
>blind guess, I guess.
>
>There, now I've written it so that even a fly can
>understand it. But, have I not said all this before?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.writing/browse_frm/thread/6f0a645f3396d26c/d78cefd3fac75ed8?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=10&hl=en#d78cefd3fac75ed8
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/ff7ec99ec1b81be1/40929f9de7c2c691?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=3&hl=en#40929f9de7c2c691
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/browse_frm/thread/a091392fffc54754/a838a80c4ae977f8?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=12&hl=en#a838a80c4ae977f8
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math.recreational/browse_frm/thread/6e5d492b144e459d/8a19d4d38299b031?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=13&hl=en#8a19d4d38299b031
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/browse_frm/thread/17ffea174afdf1f8/010994cc894b662a?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=15&hl=en#010994cc894b662a
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.prose/browse_frm/thread/6f0a645f3396d26c/ec8b8841a9ee4081?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22&rnum=5&hl=en#ec8b8841a9ee4081
>
>Yep. Thought I did ...
>
>>> If you wish to plunge into the lighter side of
>>> humanity visit:http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
>>
>> Unfortunately your poem is as long as your treatise
>> on gravity and thermodynamics.
>
>And people have forgotten how to read. I know.
>
>> By the time I get a bit of the way through I am
>> tired and wish that you could compress the rhetoric
>> down to a simplistic construction.
>
>A kind of Dick and Jane Reader for physicists... yes.
>
>> Then there could be a real discussion.
>
>O yeah--yeah--O yeah--yeah--O yeah. Been there.
>
>> I do not wish to be light. You would like to goof
>> around a bit and it is your right to do so.
>
>What else can one do around goofballs?
>
>> You say you are old.
>
>My bones concur. As well as the last two brain cells
>still alive and echoing back & forth to each other in
>the otherwise Brain Cells Mausoleum of my mind.
>
>> Will your idea of unifying gravity and
>> thermodynamics die with you?
>
>The instant I die the universe shall be swallowed by
>eternal oblivion. I should be better off worrying
>about keeping a smile on until that instant, don't you
>think. Well, perhaps you don't. But that's no skin off
>my nose either.
>
>> Is there even anything substantial there?
>
>For whom?
>
>> Why then would you attempt to force your reader
>> through such a long roundabout path?
>
>Thank me for my least effort. And then move on!
>I shall be thankful for your thanks (I do not intend
>to take anything with me to oblivion.)
>
>> The direct approach is much more efficient. When
>> you have someone offering to be a student why
>> would you throw them away?
>
>So that, hopefully, a real teacher might catch them.
>I am not a teacher but an observer. This is an
>interesting planet.
>
>> I suppose you are a man of great variations with
>> little basis.
>
>Ah! You have been to:
>
>http://www.archive.org/details/BACH_ART_OF_THE_VARIATION
>
>> I challenge you to present your theory of
>> gravitation and thermodynamics in as compact
>> a form as possible.
>
>I have news or you, my boy: It will never be compact
>enough for someone or other. Otherwise they would have
>surely stopped running the 100-yard dash long ago.
>
>Those who truly wish to understand ... will.
>
>> I have a brief theory that predicts that large solid
>> objects cannot achieve low temperature.
>
>I think my fridge disproves it already...
>
>> By a natural tendency of matter to cohere as it
>> oscillates such a tendency can be intuited.
>
>Now, think about why matter "coheres" and one day
>you may yet come to understand that the universe is
>imploding!
>
>> I admit that my own theory is infantile
>> and it needs work. I
>> encourage you to present even just such
>> a starting point as a kernel
>> of development.
>
>Can't: My ancient digestive system can no longer
>take corn.
>
>> Operating by declaration is necessary but the
>> quality of the declarations are an open problem.
>
>Isn't that a declaration!
>
>> All human knowledge is
>> constructed and as such is suspect
>> and therefor open to development.
>
>Another declaration? Will it never end?
>
>> Unfortunately your declarations are
>> either nonexistent or lay buried.
>
>Declaration or mere opinion, or both?
>
>> Perhaps you should bury your hard drive
>> with you. Or will you be incinerated?
>
>Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.
>
>> Either way your state is presently grim.
>
>Don't be too sure: I seem to suffer from incurable
>happiness. I think it's genetic. From my father's
>side. The curious thing is that I grew up with my
>mother's family, grim apes the lot of them... and here
>was this jolly kid always having a grand ole time
>living among them). It must have infuriated them no
>end (something always rather hilarious to me).
>
>> It seems you need this reflected.
>
>I own several mirrors. Albeit I have them all covered
>up now so that I can still live the illusion that I am
>seven years old! I'll uncover one of them ... last
>time I uncovered them was last time I had visitors (on
>account of some time ago other visitors accused me of
>being Dracula, and I had AN AWFUL time proving to
>everybody that I wasn't): Monkeys, can't live with'em-
>
>> -Tim (with more retort below)
>>
>>> There are no atheists in the human species. Anyone
>>> sez he's an atheist who then prays/prays and prays
>>> that he gets the job is a mere hypocrite (at best).
>>
>> I am an atheist.
>
>Hello: You are a hypocrite. Again you weren't reading!
>
>> This merely means that I do not believe in God.
>
>NOTE that you did not say "there is no God."
>Trust me: "hypocrite."
>
>> Prayer is closer to thought and intention
>
>When you propose something only God can affect,
>you are proposing God. USE YOUR BRAIN, sometime.
>
>> and may not be far from meditation.
>
>When you meditate on things God does,
>how could you possibly think you are NOT
>medicating [sic] on God?!?
>
>> These concepts are not directly tied to the
>> three letter word.
>
>When you use a metaphor that can only be alluding
>to God, it is to God you're alluding. How much more so
>when you directly allude to God's very name!
>
>> If you wish to define an abstract God we may
>> come to some resolution
>
>Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself
>--first.
>
>> but I will prefer the word reality to such a misuse
>> of the old egotistical construction.
>
>>>> The Abrahamic religions are false belief systems.
>>> Do these religious principles really require that
>>> they
>>> be correct? I mean, after all: Didn't the Maya keep
>>> the world from coming to an end for a thousand
>>> years
>>> by ripping the still beating hearts out of the
>>> breasts
>>> of their countless sacrificial victims? These
>>> things work.
>>
>> But do they work well?
>
>Hello! Kept the entire WORLD from coming to an end:
>ALL religions are saving Mankind, saving the universe,
>preserving existence itself... what more do you want?!
>
>> The current situation may be dismissed as
>> purely political,
>
>You mean this post?
>
>> but are the greivances of the Islamic
>> fundamentalists valid?
>
>You mean that non-Muslims are stubbornly refusing to
>join the blood-thirsty cult? Sure. Their religion says
>that people who refuse to join should be killed,
>man, woman, or child. It's the Maya all over again.
>Oh no, wait, the Maya only sacrificed enemy warriors:
>Islam is a much more primitive sort of barbarism.
>
>> Their unified mixture of tribal culture,
>> religion, and government is old and strong.
>> The American attention
>> deficit disorder does not allow for such
>> consideration.
>
>You should know: You can't even read a collection of
>old jokes....
>
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
>
>> The maturity
>> of American politics is suspect, especially when
>> the leader preaches
>> that God is on his side.
>
>That's true. I think the President's poll numbers
>might improve if he started preaching that he's a
>Satan-wor****pper instead...
>
>>>> Perhaps the situation for the individual is of
>>>> multiple identities.
>>> Don't woik:
>>> Multiple identifies = multiple taxation.
>
>> Yes. We already have multiple taxation: town, state,
>> nation ...
>
>But obviously you don't have a good tax consultant.
>You must be one of "the little people."
>
>>>> So I cannot rule out the media completely.
>>> Yeah! Nasty bastards all, who are always bending
>>> backwards to try to be unbiased and re****t only the
>>> facts when they should properly be the instruments
>>> of
>>> OUR propaganda/the voices of our biases/the petards
>>> of our prejudices! But, nooooooo!
>>
>> How often is it mentioned in the media that the US
>> is facing a long term foreign policy crisis?
>
>Like: EVERY TIME. You gotta stop commenting on things
>you never see/hear/read about/watch/know the least of!
>
>> Are we ever reminded that we helped to build the
>>Taliban?
>
>Every Democrat and independent commentator I ever
>saw on every news show repeats it. It's like, "You do
>know that bread is made with flour, don't you" Yeah--
>
>> That the US and GB armed Saddam Hussein?
>
>I have not heard "we've got ants" mentioned more!
>(Green Bay armed Saddam Hussein--? Holy--!)
>
>>> A financial crisis looms and dithering from
>>>> external
>>>> forces along with
>>>> another terrorist attack are a plausible end.
>
>Are you even on planet earth? Prove it: Explain
>to me what cows are.
>
>>>> It's
>>>> not going to be
>>>> pretty, but it is perhaps the right thing in terms
>>>> of global justice.
>
>Global justice is what justifies local injustices.
>Old as time.
>
>>> Yes. Well, it's a good thing Russia, China and Iran
>>> are there to pick up the slack if the United States
>>> falters in this world, no? Ho! Ho! Ho!
>>
>> The USA has played a large part in how these
>> countries that you
>> mention have come to be what they are.
>
>Then they are right to hate us. They're ****.
>
>> Your own sense of hostility is
>> exactly the tension of which I have spoken
>> elsewhere.
>
>Elsewhere I have spoken of ducks, and of chickens,
>and of ping pong playing wombats...
>
>>>> Of course, the US could stand down, join the ICC,
>>>> stop twisting the
>>>> rest of humanity around its interests...
>>> And implode into the most monumental economic crash
>>> ever seen on this earth since The Flood (which I'm
>>> sure won't even blow away a single leaf in the rest
>>> of the planet)... Ha! Ha! Ha!
>>
>> We'll see won't we? At some level we just watch
>> and see what unfolds.
>
>We do that at every level, the world is a colossal
>Colosseum, ain't it.
>
>>>> Morality has been a puzzle for philosophers yet it
>>>> is clear to me that
>>>> symmetry plays a fundamental role in the supply
>>>> of moral values.
>>> The more criminals that arise/the more cops we
>>> gotta hire: Yes, I'm beginning to see the symmetry
>>> of human behavior.
>>
>> No. I do accept that there are asymmetries in our
>> behavior.
>
>Where do you get asymmetries from symmetries?
>Are you a mathematician?
>
>> But in a
>> search for moral principles which we accept as
>> ideal symmetry would be
>> observed.
>
>Because if something makes us feel good, it is
>"obviously" good. We are bastards all, yes.
>
>> It is also a grave mistake to presume that others
>> operate exactly as ones self.
>
>I don't know. Medicine is based on that assumption.
>
>>>> We must exist in a
>>>> culture of false assumptions
>>> Who did you say made this unchallengeable judgment?
>>
>> Me.
>
>I thought as much, since it is a false assumption!
>
>> You are of course free to challenge it.
>
>Okay: "Coke is better than Pepsi." There! I win.
>
>> It is tiring to preface
>> everything with
>> 'I think/believe/...'
>
>>From now on use: "**** you/Bite me/..."
>They'll pay more attention to you. They might
>even throw you in jail (which is like the highest
>amount of attention society can pay you).
>
>> So before everything I write you can just insert
>> this preface universally.
>
>You can insert my preface (above) before everything
>you write too: I even think it sounds funnier. And
>I like that.
>
>>> Yes. And I know which parts too, but, because by
>>> almost universal agreement, we term those parts
>>> "dirty," as a gentleman of the old school (in fact,
>>> I believe it's been torn down & carted away): I
>>> refuse to mention such terms.
>>
>> This is cryptic
>
>Some people just aren't equipt to discern the funny
>parts. Sometimes that can be rather funny too.
>
>> but I suppose there is a lack of tabboo in current
>> culture that you find distasteful.
>
>The only thing I find universally distasteful any more
>is cheese: I've eaten too much of it.
>
>> Still the open paradigm is strong
>> especially here on this medium which you choose
>> to use.
>
>She is a good medium. I have already spoken to
>everybody I know who's dead (brain dead).
>
>Good luck,
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>RE:
>
>
>On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob
><robwil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no
>> magic is required you need to
>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning,
>> i.e. how something evolved from
>> nothing. -- Rob
>
>As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>yourself must realize: "If Existence had to
>have had "a" beginning it could not exist."
>
>In a very real sense: There was always
>"something." AND/OR what now exists is
>another version/variation of Nothingness
>--Something which some scientists and
>theoreticians (including myself) like to swear
>is the case:
>
>SEE http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>universe to continue "conserving" the energy
>of which it is made from larger/slower to
>smaller/faster ... for all eternity.
>
>We do not notice this eternal conservation
>of energy, of course. Except for the "force"
>we call "gravity."
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>*****************************************
>
>On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson
><c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> You try to force the Universe to conform
>> with the limitations of your
>> imagination, rather than trying to
>> expand your ideas to encompass the
>> reality of the Universe.
>
> Pardon me for thinking.
>
>> I suspect the Universe is far different,
>> and far more interesting, than
>> the form you attempt to define
>> with your philosophy.
>
> EVOLUTION
>
>Horatio, believe Einstein (a very smart
>fellow) when he assures you that is it
>unlikely the universe began from complexity
>and more likely it began BECAUSE of ONE
>very simple principle... from which it
>evolved to the present level of complexity.
>
>> What came "before",
>> or whether any such concept as "before"
>> even has meaning, is currently
>> beyond our ability to know. When
>> that question is answered, however, it
>> will be by science (not philosophy)-
>> and it's perfectly possible that
>> the answer will be that there truly was nothing-
>> in any sense- before the BB. Chris L Peterson
>
>Dear Horatio, the very essence of
>analytical thinking is directly involved
>with understanding "what came before"
>FROM the study of "what exists now."
>(Ask your local police detectives & such.)
>
>... Just as, hopefully, studying present
>conditions will tell us what's coming next:
>Which is, in sum, why the brain evolved
> --aside its body maintenance duties--
>in the first place: that is, to predict the
>future. "If I jump in the creek the gator
>will eat me!"
>
>Even BigBangers understand that "something
>can not come out of nothing" and have
>thought up all sorts of sci-fy scenarios in
>which, for the most part, the Big Bang erupts
>(is, in fact, a puncture) from some other
>dimension/universe when hanging bedsheets
>(banes) "blowin' in the wind" touch the
>prick point (Big Bang!) through which it all
>then came to fill up our universe! Complexity
>creates the universe--Einstein sez, "Nix!"
>
>Unfortunately for them, this marvelous scenario
>better than anything I could possibly come up
>with (with all my wit), exemplifies the ancient
>circular argument against those who claim that
>God created the world: That, if God created
>the world, then the business of "origins" is no
>longer about the world's origin but about God's.
>
>The Big Bangers have themselves made the Big
>Bang as irrelevant as the God proponents have
>made the world. Please hand out the straitjackets
>so we can start arguing which God created God
>and which dimension created which dimension
>worlds without end. "Simplicity is the essence
>of elegance."
>
>Look. Let's be reasonable about this. And let's
>try to reduce it to its simplest and most logical
>(sanity): The nature of matter speaks about it
>being (speaking too poetically perhaps) "a mere
>swirl of energy." Everywhere we look into the
>subatomic world we "see" horrific/enormous
>amounts of energy "bound" in tiny swirls. And
>when we look out to the greater universe we
>see the unmistakable evolution of "the universe
>of stars" into "tighter swirls" called "black holes."
>
>SEE? ... One can look at "matter" as EITHER
>Something OR Nothing. Nothing could be simpler:
>
>After there are no more stars (atoms) there will
>be no more us. But there will be a universe (of
>black holes). In such a universe there may yet
>arise intelligent life--since we do not know the
>ultimate limitations of life... and it may be very
>difficult for those beings, perhaps, to imagine
>life (their forms of life, of course) possible in
>the universe of atoms/stars which existed before
>them. And they will know about our universe
>
> BECAUSE
>
>They will create monstrously powerful machines
>which will crash black holes (or tear them apart)
>until showers of galaxies pour out. In human
>lifetimes, these out-pouring galaxies will live for
>billions and billions of our years. But for the black
>hole physicists they will wink out perhaps after
>only a flash of one of their moments.
>
>Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is
>reading http://physics.sdrodrian.com
and thinking:
>"How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy
>"shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"
>
>And then after all is said & done, perhaps only
>Dr. Seuss's philosophy (from amongst all that
>have peopled this noble race of ours) will have
>any truth/meaning left at all. Albeit, I doubt
>seriously there will be even one "black hole
>physicist" named Horton among the lot of'em.
>
>Look for beauty where it exists, Horatio. Close not
>your eyes to it and but curse the blackness.
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>
>RE:
>
>
>On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, bdbry...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:
>>sdr <sdrodr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>
>> > Existence is absolutely deterministic.
>>
>> Physicists have determined otherwise.
>> --
>> Bobby Bryant
>> Reno, Nevada
>
>Don't bet on it, Bobby.
>
>Or, before you place that bet, at least consider
>THE SORT of "physicists" who have made
>the "claim" that there is a ****tion of existence
>where the laws of physics (i.e. determinism)
>do not apply. In essence, Quanta Theory is
>statistical analysis (it is BOUND to produce
>the most informed guess, but it is NEVER looking
>directly and absolutely at its subject in its
>totality). This explains its many (and continuing)
>successes; and why it ought to have no say
>--whatsoever-- in any discussion trying to settle
>the question of the nature of existence in its sum
>total. [You cannot have someone who is but guessing
>about exactly what it is he/she is looking at being
>the final arbiter of that thing's description--and no
>matter how well such a guess works in the meantime.]
>
>START QUOTE
>
>mccarthy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>
>Mr. S D Rodrian,
>
>I have been reading scientific articles
>(i.e. space.com, nature.com,
>etc) and following the mainstream
>thinking (BB, string theory, QM,
>QP, extra dimensions, etc.) for
>the last 8-10 years and not
>understanding what all the fudge
>factors (dark energy, dark matter,
>etc.) are all about and why they
>were so illogical.
>
>With great difficulty, I managed to
>wrap my head around most of it
>except that in spite of all I read,
>I could never ever comprehend
>where a single photon emitted from
>a candle gets its insane energy
>and acceleration to travel that "fast"
>( in all 3 dimensions ) and
>always regain its speed after being
>slowed down by some medium.
>It never occurred to me that a
>photon is created, suspended in
>'place' while everything else is
>collapsing (imploding) towards,
>from, away or past this photon -
>depending on one's reference point.
>
>Your explanation clicked something
>I can understand and comprehend
>now in laymen's terms; and as you
>said, it should be simple enough
>for me to see everything from
>hereon out on my own.
>
>much appreciated,
>-eric
>
>******************************************
>
>eric,
>
>Thank you for your note. I was just now
>thinking about the implosion vs expansion
>(Big Bang, et al) dichotomy. And contemplating
>the endless number of nonsense required for
>the expansion model to "work" (not to mention
>all the things which actually put it into question)...
>while at the same time realizing that I have yet
>to find a single objection to my own implosion
>"viewpoint."
>
>I am more than willing to admit that if ever
>there is ANY objection (even the slightest), my
>entire theory would collapse--and I would be
>more than glad to admit it: If but a paperclip
>were to cast a doubt on it, that would be enough
>for me. And I would let others fight it out from
>here on out.
>
>But I have not yet run across even a paperclip
>objecting to it. And so I will continue to believe
>that the implosion model describes the universe
>--And that THAT is why everything appears to
>agree with it. Reality agrees with itself.
>
>I believe the world (of men) will slowly but
>eventually come around--One can only ignore
>the Sun in the sky so long.
>
>Good luck,
>
>S D Rodrian
>
>******************************************
>
>mccarthy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>To S D Rodrian:
>
>...and I appreciate your reply.
>I am sure you get enough email to
>make it impossible to answer all of them.
>
>I am not a mathematician, physicist
>etc., just a plain M.Sc. from a
>canadian university. I have been
>trying to find some model that
>would explain the world around me
>for years now. Since "everybody"
>was so excited and united wrt the
>BBang, strings, "branes" concept,
>it appeared they just "must" be correct
>even though my logic couldn't
>get around all the complexities and
>hiccups involved in the BB model.
>
>This may sound silly, however, since
>I couldn't possibly get my head
>around the BB concept with cra****ng
>branes, multi-dimensions, etc. in
>its entirety, I had started
>compensating for the lack of logical
>flow in the BB th. by thinking about
>our universe as a computer
>generated, recursive, virtual reality
>simulation. The BBang being
>"somebody" throwing the switch
>and all the inconsistencies and
>contradictions in the model being
>programming mistakes. I thought of
>it all as a universe within universe(s)
>with time as such being
>relative and irrelevant.
>
>Right or wrong, your theory/explanation
>via imploding universe using
>laws of thermo-dynamics clicked with
>me and the logic of universe
>finally flows for me. It just makes
>plain sense. The fact I can now
>understand why photon behaves the
>way it behaves was well worth the 5-
>6 hours it took me to read your
>material and absorb it. Great stuff.
>You certainly gave me a lot to think
>about...in a different light.
>
>thanks again,
>-eric
>
>********************************************
>
>mccarthy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>Hi, S D Rodrian:
>
>can this double-slit experiment:
>
>http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html
>
>be explained by the imploding universe model?
>
>How can a photon pass
>through two holes at the same time?
>
>thanks,
>-eric
>
>*********************************************
>
>eric,
>
>I have sometimes thought it very well may. It might,
>were the photon to not only not "move" but also not
>"shrink" (however, this is self-evidently not the
>case, or light could never be "aimed"). But I have
>also had to admit that the double-slit experiment is
>too subject to interpretation for a slick answer (it's
>not just a matter of: ask a child what he/she is
>seeing and of course you'll never get the QM answer
>... but that it also depends on a large number of
>assumptions about the nature of the photon, et al,
>going back to Thomas Young's 1803 version of the
>double-slit experiment and Newton's even older
>interpretations on the nature of light, all of which
>have to be absolutely correct): The QM interpretation
>is just that, one interpretation of the light
>refraction. And none of the QM interpretations HAVE
>TO BE correct: If they are ALL correct, however, then
>the answer is either indeed the imploding universe
>OR we are all insane. Hard to come up with a third
>alternative:
>
>Take the following quote from the article as the
>perfect hint of what quantum fundamentalists
>(extremists) are carried away with:
>
> "and ... nothing existing until it is observed,
> these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
> reality that are consistent with the experiments
> and observations."
>
>Every child understand that the answer to the ancient
>question of whether a falling tree really makes a
>noise if there is no one there to hear it fall is that
>YES IT DOES. But QM fundamentalists have not yet
>grown up even to the level of children (apparently).
>That's saying a lot.
>
>It is merely/purely/only/simply a display of the
>heights of human arrogance to claim that if WE cannot
>"measure" something "it cannot be measured." And yet
>we have made such a claim, as you can see!
>
>The point that "one cannot measure something so
>frail/delicate without the very act of measuring it
>changing its character/nature/displacement" is
>absolutely reasonable. But when one jumps from such
>reasonableness to the idea that "something does not
>have a definite position at a definite time--and ONLY
>the measurement/observation GIVES it that." Then one
>are talking logical insanity. One needs a doctor, not
>a science journal editor.
>
> Dr. Heisenberg wrote, "Some physicist would prefer
> to come back to the idea of an objective real
> world whose smallest parts exist objectively in
> the same sense as stones or trees exist
> independently of whether we observe them. This
> however is impossible."
>
>Quanta theory is one of the greatest mathematical
>tools ever devised to "peer" into the realms of things
>which will never be observed directly. But it is
>merely a form of statistical analysis. Period. The
>problem is that when QM theoreticians start "looking"
>into the world that can NEVER be seen, they start
>"seeing" everything in their heads there. And people's
>heads are teeming with squirming eecky nightmares.
>
>"Reality is absolutely deterministic." If ever you
>hear that "an experiment" has proven this wrong, you
>can be just as certain that it is the experiment that
>is wrong as if you had heard that the real Santa Claus
>was recently interviewed by Katie Curic. And no matter
>how much you trust the integrity of Katie Curic.
>
> "There are many ways we could go now in
> examining quantum results. If conscious
> observation is needed for the creation of an
> electron (this is one aspect of the Copenhagen
> Interpretation, the most popular version of
> quantum physics interpretations), then ideas
> about the origin of consciousness must be
> revised. If electrons in the brain create
> consciousness, but electrons require
> consciousness to exist, one is apparently caught
> in circular reasoning at best."
>
>The paragraph above is obviously a man struggling with
>his sanity. This is not science, this is psychology.
>
>Trust Einstein in this at least: The world is sane,
>period. When the "wise-ass kids" who came up with
>the "uncertainly principle" and other insanities by
>taking Quanta theory to its logical extremes were
>being lionized for saying things nobody even bothered
>to analyze in the light of day, all Einstein could say
>was that "God didn't pray dice." In his quaint way,
>what he was saying was that "reality is
>deterministic." The alternative is "magic" (as
>described in extremist QM) and "utter insanity"
>(again, as described in extremist QM).
>
>Quantum mechanics, as statistical analysis, will
>always produce predictions which will bear out--It's
>what statistical analysis does: wear down the numbers
>to the most probable results.
>
>NOTE, above all (or, if nothing else) this crucial
>passage:
>
> "The answer is that each individual photon must -
> in order to have produced an interference pattern
> -- have gone through both slits! This, the
> simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has
> been the basis of many of the unintuitive
> interpretations of quantum physics."
>
>And there you have one of the greatest examples of how
>just one very probably wrongly-interpreted experiment
>can lead an entire mob of zebu-people utterly crazy.
>
>The answer is NOT that the universe is magical and
>utterly insane. The answer is more likely that there
>is a simpler (and sane) explanation, after all.
>
>As I said above, it's very possible that what we are
>seeing is the photon acting very normally in an
>imploding universe, but I just don't have the time now
>to diagram all the steps. If you would like to, more
>power to you! It's (probably) very simple--and people
>shall laugh at why people should have thought it so
>difficult (as people have done since the dawn of time).
>
>S D Rodrian
>
>**************************************************
>
>mccarthy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>Hi, S D Rodrian:
>
>you wrote:
>
>>> imploding universe, but I just don't
>>> have the time now
>>> to diagram all the steps.
>>> If you would like to, more
>>> that's fine; I just wondered if
>>> there is some simple
>>> explanation using a model we know
>>> - perhaps your analogy with cork, helium
>>> balloons, drag and so forth...
>
>Also, perhaps the experiment itself is flawed in
>some way i.e. how and when the photon is created,
>how it (photon) reacts with the medium through
>which it travels, what forces (el.magn.) iterfere with
>it when the size of the slits and the material itself
>is considered, etc. Anyway, I'd hate to speculate
>about something that I cant competently defend.
>
>thanks anyway; perhaps we'll know the answer
>in our lifetime...
>-eric
>
>*************************************************
>
>eric,
>
>I actually saw the experiment carried out when I was
>very young. (It's actually something of a requirement.)
>Einstein was familiar with it too, and I don't wonder
>it might have been the reason he never came out more
>forcefully against the crazier QM claims. (Apparently,
>Einstein's confidence in Reality was only "relative,"
>whereas my confidence in Reality is ... absolute.)
>
>I was rather impressed by it myself. And had (have)
>no explanation for it (not that I have even given it
>any serious time): However, not much later I watched
>a lady being sawed in half and was equally baffled.
>(And much more impressed... there were screams,
>and a gush of blood... and if I'd had a gun with me
>I don't know whether I might not have taken a shot
>at the bastard doing the sawing.)
>
>Was it all magic? The ONLY difference between the
>two "tricks" is that the magician sawing the lady in
>half only claimed his "magic" was real in jest. But,
>I assume, those who "perform" the double-slit
>experiment actually always believe in its "magic."
>
>Ah! Some time later some TV magician explained
>how the lady was sawed in half (and was later glued
>back up with no apparent ill effects to her health).
>And the whole thing was, rather quite embarrassingly,
>very childishly simple.
>
>I always regretted Einstein didn't attend that lady-
>sawing performance--What might his mind have made
>of it!
>
>Will the explanation for the double-slit trick (I mean
>"experiment") turn out to be as childishly simple? Who
>knows? (I don't.) But, this is certain:
>
>I think I'll wait (until they perform the experiment
>inside a Bose-Einstein condensate with the photon
>travelling at a few inches per hour or so ... so we
>can "see" it go through the two different slits at the
>same time and then bounce! against itself) before I
>make any real attempt to "explain" an "experiment"
>which (like the sawing-the-lady-in-half experiment)
>just doesn't seem to square with reality. And reality
>is the thing I am more inclined to trust, frankly.
>
>THINK: Were the answer, say, that the photon quanta
>is not inviolate and two photons are produced by
>the experiment, then a most marvelous violation of
>the conservation-of-energy laws would occur, and
>by merely forcing a single photon through infinitely
>doubling double-slit experiments... we could produce
>enough energy to blow up the whole universe if
>necessary!
>
>PLEASE always remember: When you insist to someone
>(who asks you whether a tree falling in the forest
>without anybody being there to hear it fall makes a
>noise) that, yes, it does and he/she then inevitably
>asks you: "How do YOU know?!" Don't be shy about
>pointing out that "identical conditions produce
>identical results" (and that millions of trees have
>fallen while people were present--and ALL of them
>made a noise of falling). So there!
>
>Similarly, when they ask you whether Schrodinger's
>cat is alive or dead. You ask how long it's been in
>the box. And if it's been in there a year ... that cat
>is dead, baby: "You can bury the box now." And without
>having to look inside, either. Some magic tricks are
>just easier to figure out than others.
>
>Please forgive me for not having given the double-slit
>experiment more thought. But perhaps now you
>understand why I never did.
>
>Good luck,
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>END QUOTE
>
> "Experiments which produce verifiable results can
> not be ignored, as they are the foundation and
> sustenance of science. But this does not mean that
> our immediate interpretations of those experiments
> are and will always be the correct ones." --SDR
>
>
>Finally: NOTE that the very fact that the double-slit
>experiment ALWAYS produces the same results
>(and does not merely have a propensity to do so)
>is evidence of the deterministic nature of existence
>regardless of whatever explanations we may prefer
>to give for the results: "Identical conditions always
>produce identical results." Period. Modern science
>is based on verifiable (reproducible) results.
>
>Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>*************************************************
>
>Here is the text of the articles in question:
>
>Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment
>By Laurance R. Doyle
>SETI Institute posted: 11 November 2004
>
>This is a series of four articles each with a separate
>explanation of different quantum phenomena. Each of
>the four articles is a piece of a mosaic and so every
>one is needed to understand the final explanation of
>the quantum astronomy experiment we propose, possibly
>using the Allen Array Telescope and the narrow-band
>radio-wave detectors being build by the SETI Institute
>and the University of California, Berkeley.
>
>With the success of recent movies such as "What the
>&$@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Do We Know?" and the ongoing -- and continuously
>surprising -- revelations of the unexpected nature of
>underlying reality that have been unfolding in quantum
>physics for three-quarters of a century now, it may
>not be particularly surprising that the quantum nature
>of the universe may actually now be making in-roads
>into what has previously been considered classical
>observational astronomy. Quantum physics has been
>applied for decades to cosmology, and the strange
>"singularity" physics of black holes. It is also
>applicable to macroscopic effects such as
>Einstein-Bose condensates (extremely cold
>conglomerations of material that behave in
>non-classical ways) as well as neutron stars and even
>white dwarfs (which are kept from collapse, not by
>nuclear fusion explosions but by the Pauli Exclusion
>Principle - a process whereby no two elementary
>particles can have the same quantum state and
>therefore, in a sense, not collapse into each other).
>
>Well, congratulations if you have gotten through the
>first paragraph of this essay. I can't honestly tell
>you that things will get better, but I can say that to
>the intrepid reader things should get even more
>interesting. The famous quantum physicist Richard
>Feynmann once said essentially that anyone who thought
>he understood quantum physics did not understand it
>enough to understand that he did not actually
>understand it! In other words, no classical
>interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one.
>Parallel evolving universes (one being created every
>time a quantum-level choice is made),
>faster-than-light interconnectedness underlying
>everything, nothing existing until it is observed,
>these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
>reality that are consistent with the experiments and
>observations.
>
>There are many ways we could go now in examining
>quantum results. If conscious observation is needed
>for the creation of an electron (this is one aspect of
>the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most popular
>version of quantum physics interpretations), then
>ideas about the origin of consciousness must be
>revised. If electrons in the brain create
>consciousness, but electrons require consciousness to
>exist, one is apparently caught in circular reasoning
>at best. But for this essay, we shall not discuss
>quantum biology. Another path we might go down would
>be the application of quantum physics to cosmology --
>either the Inflationary origin of the universe, or the
>Hawking eva****ation of black holes, as examples. But
>our essay is not about this vast field either. Today
>we will discuss the scaling of the simple double-slit
>laboratory experiment to cosmic distances, what can
>truly be called, "quantum astronomy."
>
>The laboratory double-slit experiment contains a lot
>of the best aspects of the weirdness of quantum
>physics. It can involve various kinds of elementary
>particles, but for today's discussion we will be
>talking solely about light - the particle nature of
>which is called the "photon." A light ****ning through
>a small hole or slit (like in a pinhole camera)
>creates a spot of light on the screen (or film, or
>detector). However, light shown through two slits that
>are close together creates not two spots on the
>screen, but rather a series of alternating bright and
>dark lines with the brightest line in the exact middle
>of this interference pattern. This shows that light is
>a wave since such a pattern results from the
>interference of the waves coming from slit one (which
>we shall call "A") with the waves coming from slit two
>(which we shall call "B"). When peaks of waves from
>light source A meet peaks from light source B, they
>add and the bright lines are produced. Not far to the
>left and right of this brightness peak, however, peaks
>from A meet troughs from B (because the crests of the
>light waves are no longer aligned) and a dark line is
>produced. This alternates on either side until the
>visibility of the lines fades out. This pattern is
>simply called an "interference pattern" and Thomas
>Young used this experiment to demonstrate the wave
>nature of light in the early 19th Century.
>
>However, in the year 1900 physicist Max Planck showed
>that certain other effects in physics could only be
>explained by light being a particle. Many experiments
>followed to also show that light was indeed also a
>particle (a "photon") and Albert Einstein was awarded
>the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for his work
>showing that the particle nature of light could
>explain the "photoelectric effect." This was an
>experiment whereby low energy (red) light, when
>****ning onto a photoelectric material, caused the
>material to emit low energy (slow moving) electrons,
>while high energy (blue) light caused the same
>material to emit high energy (fast moving) electrons.
>However, lots of red light only ever produced more low
>energy electrons, never any high-energy electrons. In
>other words, the energy could not be "saved up" but
>rather must be absorbed by the electrons in the
>photoelectric material individually. The conclusion
>was that light came in packets, little quantities, and
>behaved thus as a particle as well as a wave.
>
>So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of
>unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally
>weird. But the double slit experiment had another
>trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or
>"quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time,
>with a sufficiently long interval in between, and
>eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the
>one produced when a very intense (many photons) light
>was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing
>happened. When one sends a single photon at a time
>(waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward
>the screen when both slits are open, rather than two
>spots eventually building up opposite the two slit
>openings, what eventually builds up is the
>interference pattern of alternating bright and dark
>lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was
>sent through the apparatus at a time?
>
>The answer is that each individual photon must - in
>order to have produced an interference pattern -- have
>gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum
>weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of
>the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We
>can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for
>example, that a particle of light is not a particle
>until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that
>the particle of light is rather a wave before it is
>measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave
>sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns
>out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That
>is, the elementary particles making up the trees,
>people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are
>apparently just distributions of likelihood until they
>are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much
>for the Victorian view of solid matter!
>
>The shock of matter being largely empty space may have
>been extreme enough -- if an atom were the size of a
>huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust
>particles floating around at all distances inside the
>building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom,
>would be smaller than a sugar cube. But with quantum
>physics, even this tenuous result would be superseded
>by the atom itself not really being anything that
>exists until it is measured. One might rightly ask,
>then, what does it mean to measure something? And this
>brings us to the Uncertainly Principle first
>discovered by Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Heisenberg wrote,
>"Some physicist would prefer to come back to the idea
>of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist
>objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist
>independently of whether we observe them. This however
>is impossible."
>
>Perhaps that is enough to think about for now. So in
>the next essay we will examine, in some detail, the
>uncertainty principle as it relates to what is called
>"the measurement problem" in quantum physics. We shall
>find that the uncertainty principle will be the key to
>performing the double-slit experiment over
>astronomical distances, and demonstrating that quantum
>effects are not just microscopic phenomena, but can be
>extended across the cosmos.
>
>************************************
>
>On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <th...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Hello, SDR!
>>
>> Slight correction - gravity is as a result
>> of the energy around us.
>
>Slight correction: Sweat is as a result
>of the energy around us.
>
>> We are
>> all part of the same 'mass' of energy that
>> was blown apart at the point of
>> the big bang.
>
>That is totally meaningless: You are saying:
>"Look but do not think!" I hate that.
>
>> It's one of the basic laws, energy
>> can not be created nor
>> destroyed, it just changes it's state.
>
>The universe as a result of an explosion
>is putting the horse before the cart. If you
>tell me, the universe and THEN it explodes
>it might be hard to imagine how, but at least
>it would not be counter-intuitive.
>
>> As for nothingness, impossible.
>
>Ah! Yet another man who believes there has
>always been death and taxes! (Me too!)
>
>> To
>> measure nothingness involves some form of
>> interaction, observer and event.
>
>Ha! You'd be surprised at how many people are even
>now in government measuring nothingness.
>
>> Not possible as event = action and reaction, and
>> in the event of nothingness
>> the equation can not be completed as you can
>> not oberve nothingness.
>
>Then what are all those strong-muscles gentlemen
>who say they're bending space really up to?
>
>
>************************************
>
>On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <robwil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 5 Aug, 12:14, sdrodr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob <robwil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>>
>>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no magic is
>>>> required you need to
>>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning, i.e. how
>>>> something evolved from nothing. -- Rob
>
>START QUOTE
>
>Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
>land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
>there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
>towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
>because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
>only an act of "magic" could have given rise to he
>universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
>tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
>all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
>"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
>than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
>have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
>because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
>have eventually become our universe (the concentration
>of so many, many somethings). SEE:
>
> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>END QUOTE
>
>>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>>> yourself
>>> must realize: "If Existence had to have had "a"
>>> beginning
>>> it could not exist."
>>
>>> In a very real sense: There was always "something."
>>> AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation
>>> of Nothingness--Something which some scientists
>>> and
>>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is
>>> the case:
>>
>>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>>> universe
>>> to continue "conserving" the energy of which it
>>> is made
>>> from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all
>>> eternity.
>>
>>> We do not notice this eternal conservation of
>>> energy,
>>> of course. Except for the "force" we call
>>> "gravity."
>>
>> That, and the argument on your website, is a
>> statement of belief.
>
>If I chose to believe in the laws of physics... let
>them take me where they're going to take me.
>
>> To
>> be a valid scientific theory it needs to propose
>> explanations from
>> which predictions can be made.
>
>Every prediction I have ever drawn from the
>conclusion that the universe is in implosion
>has proven true, from why the speed of light should
>be constant, to what really causes inertia, to the
>1997 discovery that the universe is in acceleration,
>and not (as a big bang universe predicts AND was
>proven false) in deceleration. Further, an universe as
>an implosion makes "dark energy" and "dark matter"
>unnecessary. Use the model to come up with a thousand
>predictions more, and then watch them all be proven
>true. GO: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>
>> These predictions then need to be
>> verified by independent, repeatable experiment.
>
>"No matter how you slice it an apple will ALWAYS
>prove to be an apple." There will be (and have already
>been) countless facts which will baffle/frustrate
>people who still believe the universe is the result of
>a big bang (no matter how many "proofs" they "find"
>to sup****t it). And there has not been nor can there
>ever be even one substantial fact ever found which
>will contradict that the universe is in implosion:
>This is an absolutely black/white either/or matter.
>
>The universe is either the aftermath of a "big bang"
>(which contradicts the laws of physics and countless
>discoveries about how the universe works) or it is
>in implosion, which instantly explains everything
>about how it works & why it works that way... with
>not a single contradiction.
>
>It is the difference between what is true and what
>is not true.
>
>****************************************
>
>On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ
><DontBot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> In article <1186209867.957163.147...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>> sdrodr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>>
>>> Otherwise, what you have there is A THING
>>> brought into existence out of Nothingness. Or,
>>> "created" by magic (with no connection whatever
>>> to the laws of science, of nature, of physics).
>>
>> The big bang is magic?
>
>Strictly speaking, it is a myth.
>
>1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly
>historical events that serves to unfold part of the
>world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,
>or natural phenomenon
>2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up
>around something or someone; especially: one
>embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
>or segment of society *seduced by the American
>myth of individualism- Orde Coombs*
>b: an unfounded or false notion
>
>It comes from observing that the galaxies are receding
>from each other as if they were the gigantic remnants
>of an ancient explosion. ERGO: "Run the film
>backwards" and one HAD TO eventually end up at a
>"point" where the "big bang" took place. And now you
>know how the Big Bang Myth came about. I kid you not.
>
>"running the film backwards" is the experiment which
>"proved" the "reality" of the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>**********************************
>
>On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsru****n.'"
><dolomi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 3 Aug, 03:53, SDR <sdrodr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 21, 5:21 am, "'foolsru****n.'"
><dolomi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>> All religions are local.
>>> Only science is universal.
>>
>>>> And, so, now, you are going to tell how, quite
>>>> accidently, of course,
>>>> you came to have your present opinions, God!
>
>>> Sure: I was in the wrong place
>>> at the wrong time.
>>
>> Where should we move you to - to get the
>> correct result?
>
>To the correct location.
>
>Thank you,
>
>S D Rodrian
>http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>
>All religions are local.
>Only science is universal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
|
