| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jimmy" |
| Date: |
28 Oct 2005 04:28:30 AM |
| Object: |
Some astro questions |
Hi! Have science found what universe expands in or from? Where does the new
building material come from? Or was it already there?
Just saw a program with Hawking. He believes universe was created from
nothing and at random. Is it proven that something can be created from
nothing?
Thanks!
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
01 Nov 2005 03:34:57 PM |
|
|
Hi Jimmy, You wrote:
Just saw a program with Hawking.
He believes universe was created from nothing and at random.
Is it proven that something can be created from nothing ?
I posit that gravity and long_lived protons are naught but
left_over density from the nominal start of the big bang.
What is the density of protons anyway ? No one knows.
Gravity is like casino winnings,
....irregardless of short_term gains, it loses to the house in the long_run.
All any ever did was burn bright, like a star, dissipating into the night.
All die in the long run, none having chose to be born in the first place.
The universe is observed to be dissipating, that is, going from
relatively infinite density and no entropy, to relatively no density,
a perfect vacuum, infinite entopy.
Cosmic_Time is really entropy, the fifth _Spatial_ dimension,
....Space_Time_Entropy... the entire universe, including protons
are on course to become relatively nothing... a vacuum.
There is more negative mass_energy in the universe than positive.
We know that because we know the universe, as a whole,
is gravitationally repulsive.
Data from standard candles, e.g type 1-A supernovae,
tell us that space_time is expanding at an accelerated rate
where Einstein's cosmological constant, lambda, is the best fit.
Dark energy, described best by Einstein's Cosmological_Constant, is entropy.
Just as randomness is incomplete information, ever virtual, never real,
so too is any reversal of entropy... it's naught but virtual.
Whether an entity is a wave or a particle depends on how one measures it.
Entropy, from the second law of thermodymanics, means that
Mass_Energy, a.k.a. Wave_Particles, tend to dissipate,
....making them unavailable for useful work !
We suffer from an entropy crises, not an energy crises.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
01 Nov 2005 04:37:44 PM |
|
|
If the universe started as a very dense "singularity" its
gravity would be at its maximum.
How is the Big Bang going to get over its gravity?
I say that is the purpose of INFLATION: to get the
universe over its original gravity.
How do you like that?
Jeff?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
01 Nov 2005 05:10:26 PM |
|
|
Hi Nick, I said:
I posit that gravity and long_lived protons are naught but
left_over density from the nominal start of the big bang.
What is the density of protons ? No one knows.
And you replied:
If the universe started as a very dense _Singularity_
its gravity would be at its maximum.
How is the Big Bang going to get over its gravity ?
I say that is the purpose of INFLATION:
to get the universe over its original gravity.
How do you like that ?
The so_called _Singularity_ was only nominal... virtual, not real.
Inflation is the leading theory right now,
but it's quite wrong... entropy is eternal, ***** just dissipates,
....getting forever and ever less dense over the long_run.
I don't know why you think gravity would be at it's maximun
and the nominal start of the big bang.... as I said:
There is more negative mass_energy in the universe than positive.
We know that because we know the universe, as a whole,
is gravitationally repulsive.
It's just always been like that... and will always be like that.
Entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension,
....it's _Spatial_, static and parochial... Or so I posit.
It's just what's most likely, I think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
01 Nov 2005 05:37:20 PM |
|
|
Sorry to take up your time jeff
Unless you atre enjoying that is!
Jeff_Relf wrote:
Hi Nick, I said:
I posit that gravity and long_lived protons are naught but
left_over density from the nominal start of the big bang.
What is the density of protons ? No one knows.
And you replied:
If the universe started as a very dense _Singularity_
its gravity would be at its maximum.
How is the Big Bang going to get over its gravity ?
I say that is the purpose of INFLATION:
to get the universe over its original gravity.
How do you like that ?
The so_called _Singularity_ was only nominal... virtual, not real.
I say singularities are different. They can mathematically
be either a zero infinitesimal or a nonzero infinitesimal.
There is a diffrence.
I say there are only "nonzero" infinitesimals are physical
singularities.
These nonzero infinitesimals are the closest thing to zero.
Inflation is the leading theory right now,
but it's quite wrong... entropy is eternal, ***** just dissipates,
...getting forever and ever less dense over the long_run.
I don't know why you think gravity would be at it's maximun
If the universe started as a buildup of energy because it
would be in the singlarity I described gravity would have
to be at its limit. As matter gets spread out in inflation
gravity rapidly drops below the maximum.
Inflation reduces the gravity.
and the nominal start of the big bang.... as I said:
There is more negative mass_energy in the universe than positive.
We know that because we know the universe, as a whole,
is gravitationally repulsive.
It's just always been like that... and will always be like that.
Entropy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension,
...it's _Spatial_, static and parochial... Or so I posit.
It's just what's most likely, I think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Re: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
02 Nov 2005 12:45:26 AM |
|
|
Hi Nick, You started by telling me:
Sorry to take up your time jeff... unless you're enjoying it, that is !
Don't worry about me, I like replies,
....it shows that someone is at least Semi_Carefully reading what I wrote.
I happen to have the time and desire to reply to you right now even though
there are 5 homeless people in my tiny room right now... Wecome to the rave.
We're playing with a PSP, a 250 USD handheld game device from Sony.
I said that singularities are only nominal, virtual, not real,
....They only exist in our mental maps, they are not the real territory.
And you replied:
I say singularities are different. They can mathematically be either
a zero infinitesimal or a nonzero infinitesimal. There is a diffrence.
I say there are only _NonZero_ infinitesimals are physical singularities.
These nonzero infinitesimals are the closest thing to zero.
Zero is only virtual, not real.
I asked why you thought gravity would be
at it's maximun at the nominal start of the big bang... and you replied:
If the universe started as a buildup of energy
because it would be in the singlarity I described
gravity would have to be at its limit.
As matter gets spread out in inflation gravity rapidly drops below the maximum.
Inflation reduces the gravity.
There was never any long_term, cosmic, build_up of energy... as I said:
I posit that gravity and long_lived protons are naught but
left_over density from the nominal start of the big bang.
What is the density of protons anyway ? No one knows.
...
There is more negative mass_energy in the universe than positive.
We know that because we know the universe, as a whole,
is gravitationally repulsive.
Did you undstand the part about the net negative mass_energy ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Left_Over density from the nominal start of the big bang. |
02 Nov 2005 05:42:46 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message =
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Nov_1_aeXR@Cotse.NET...
|=20
| Hi Nick, You started by telling me:
|=20
| Sorry to take up your time jeff... unless you're enjoying it, that is =
!
|=20
| Don't worry about me, I like replies,
| ...it shows that someone is at least Semi_Carefully reading what I =
wrote.
|=20
| I happen to have the time and desire to reply to you right now even =
though
| there are 5 homeless people in my tiny room right now...=20
What the ***** does that have to do with physics?
Semi-careful reading just became "*****".
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
28 Oct 2005 04:12:14 PM |
|
|
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Have science found what universe expands in or from?
What's expanding is the distances between galaxies. From the
perspective of any one galaxy, the other galaxies in the universe
appear to be moving away from it. But since this is true for every
galaxy, no single place can be identified as the center of the
expansion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 11:51:14 AM |
|
|
Nothingness.
Right.
Physicists always talk about "nothingness", and claim that it existed before
the big bang, that the universe evolved from this mystical weird thing known
as "nothingness".
But they tend to deny that "nothingness" exists today.
Physics has no instrument or operation or place where "nothingness" has any
meaning in routine calculations. Mathematicians have their zero, and their
nonexistences, but there is no equivalent type of instrument in physics -
unless you are looking at big bang cosmology. Yet - they give _no_ rigorous
explanation of why it existed nor do they resolve any of the paradoxes which
result from "the physical presence of a physical nonexistence".
I'll tell you something very simple. If you cannot observe time, then you
have your nonexistence - it is an illusion created by the restricted
observability of time. It's so stinking simple that I could just eat a sh*t
sandwich.
Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain why
it would occur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 01:56:16 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message =
news:UY2dnZfslYgeEf7eRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
| Nothingness.
|=20
| Right.
|=20
| Physicists always talk about "nothingness", and claim that it existed =
before
| the big bang, that the universe evolved from this mystical weird thing =
known
| as "nothingness".
No I don't.=20
| But they tend to deny that "nothingness" exists today.
No I don't. Space is nothing.
=20
| Physics has no instrument or operation or place where "nothingness" =
has any
| meaning in routine calculations. Mathematicians have their zero, and =
their
| nonexistences, but there is no equivalent type of instrument in =
physics -
| unless you are looking at big bang cosmology. Yet - they give _no_ =
rigorous
| explanation of why it existed nor do they resolve any of the paradoxes =
which
| result from "the physical presence of a physical nonexistence".
There was no big bang, that's a myth spread by phuckwits, not =
physicists.
|=20
|=20
| I'll tell you something very simple. If you cannot observe time,=20
Non sequitur, time is observed.
| then you
| have your nonexistence - it is an illusion created by the restricted
| observability of time. It's so stinking simple that I could just eat a =
sh*t
| sandwich.
|=20
| Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain =
why
| it would occur.
Not nothing =3D something.=20
Burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove the something and describe
its properties.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 04:34:40 PM |
|
|
| Nothingness.
|
| Right.
|
| Physicists always talk about "nothingness", and claim that it existed
before
| the big bang, that the universe evolved from this mystical weird thing
known
| as "nothingness".
No I don't.
What you do is up to you.
| But they tend to deny that "nothingness" exists today.
No I don't. Space is nothing.
Space is not "nothing". Space is definately "something". It is 3 dimensions
of length and 1 dimension of time. Empty space is not nothingness.
| Physics has no instrument or operation or place where "nothingness" has
any
| meaning in routine calculations. Mathematicians have their zero, and their
| nonexistences, but there is no equivalent type of instrument in physics -
| unless you are looking at big bang cosmology. Yet - they give _no_
rigorous
| explanation of why it existed nor do they resolve any of the paradoxes
which
| result from "the physical presence of a physical nonexistence".
There was no big bang, that's a myth spread by phuckwits, not physicists.
It is the logical conclusion of expansion based on redshift, but they get
carried away with that line of reasoning.
If you saw a car moving westward, would you automatically assume that it
originated in the east at the beginning of time ? really silly.
|
| I'll tell you something very simple. If you cannot observe time,
Non sequitur, time is observed.
Sequitur schmequitur. Time is not observable below Planck scale. Nor in
deepest space.
See Planck.
| then you
| have your nonexistence - it is an illusion created by the restricted
| observability of time. It's so stinking simple that I could just eat a
sh*t
| sandwich.
|
| Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain why
| it would occur.
Not nothing = something.
Burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove the something and describe
its properties.
Androcles.
Why would logical calculus work properly when discussing an obvious
singularity in space ? Do you divide by zero too ?
QM weirdness supports everything I said.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 10:18:31 AM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:UY2dnZfslYgeEf7eRVn-sQ@comcast.com...
Nothingness.
Right.
Physicists always talk about "nothingness", and claim that it existed before
the big bang, that the universe evolved from this mystical weird thing known
as "nothingness".
But they tend to deny that "nothingness" exists today.
Who, specifically, are "They"? I think you're making this
up as you go. Please cite a list of recognized scientists
and their papers that show that "they always talk about
nothingness" AND that they "deny that 'nothingness' exists
today". I think you've got a hole in your argument that
you could drive a train through.
Physics has no instrument or operation or place where "nothingness" has any
meaning in routine calculations. Mathematicians have their zero, and their
nonexistences, but there is no equivalent type of instrument in physics -
unless you are looking at big bang cosmology. Yet - they give _no_ rigorous
explanation of why it existed nor do they resolve any of the paradoxes which
result from "the physical presence of a physical nonexistence".
Bullcrap. Physics sets all sorts of arbitrary zero references for
things like potential energy. There's no mystery there. Also,
physics does not pretend to answer "why" questions. It answers
"how" questions. If you are in need of the comfort of a creation
myth to explain existence, then you'd best turn to religion or
metaphysics.
I'll tell you something very simple. If you cannot observe time, then you
have your nonexistence - it is an illusion created by the restricted
observability of time. It's so stinking simple that I could just eat a sh*t
sandwich.
The above appears to be nonsense. Better warm up the sh*t sandwich.
Can you specify a universal frame of reference where every observer,
no matter what their state of motion, would be unable to "observe
time", whatever that's supposed to mean...
Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain why
it would occur.
Again, physics doesn't answer "why". It answers "how". Given a
set of circumstances and a set of rules, it models _how_ things
will evolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 02:04:31 PM |
|
|
Nothingness.
Right.
Physicists always talk about "nothingness", and claim that it existed
before
the big bang, that the universe evolved from this mystical weird thing
known
as "nothingness".
But they tend to deny that "nothingness" exists today.
Who, specifically, are "They"? I think you're making this
up as you go. Please cite a list of recognized scientists
and their papers that show that "they always talk about
nothingness" AND that they "deny that 'nothingness' exists
today". I think you've got a hole in your argument that
you could drive a train through.
Mainstream physics, not specifically anyone in this thread, or anyone at
all. But to talk about nothingness from which the universe emerged is
nonsense unless one can explain that nothingness. Even philosophy cannot
explain the pre big bang nothingness which we toss around as if it were
fact.
I have never seen a suitable explanation of any kind, how "nothingness"
could exist, or any mechanism to explain how it could occur, with one
exception - the unobservability of time.
Physics has no instrument or operation or place where "nothingness" has
any
meaning in routine calculations. Mathematicians have their zero, and
their
nonexistences, but there is no equivalent type of instrument in
physics -
unless you are looking at big bang cosmology. Yet - they give _no_
rigorous
explanation of why it existed nor do they resolve any of the paradoxes
which
result from "the physical presence of a physical nonexistence".
Bullcrap. Physics sets all sorts of arbitrary zero references for
things like potential energy. There's no mystery there. Also,
physics does not pretend to answer "why" questions. It answers
"how" questions. If you are in need of the comfort of a creation
myth to explain existence, then you'd best turn to religion or
metaphysics.
I'm not arguing about God. And yes, physicists do use zero. But they dont
use nonexistence. Mathematicians use both all the time. That is my
complaint. And if you want to see an example of nothingness in physics, you
have to go all the way back before the big bang which I find unacceptable.
Does God exist ? Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, but this has
nothing to do with God. Just straight cosmology.
I'll tell you something very simple. If you cannot observe time, then
you
have your nonexistence - it is an illusion created by the restricted
observability of time. It's so stinking simple that I could just eat a
sh*t
sandwich.
The above appears to be nonsense. Better warm up the sh*t sandwich.
Can you specify a universal frame of reference where every observer,
no matter what their state of motion, would be unable to "observe
time", whatever that's supposed to mean...
Yes, I can. But instead of going through 5,000 lines of text, I'll give you
a simple example. You have a flask full of space. For some strange reason,
time is unobservable inside that flask. What does it look like inside the
flask ? It "looks like" nonexistence. Why ? Because anything which exists
for only zero seconds does not really exist. And if it only exists for less
than Planck time, then it will "appear" nonexistent.
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
My sandwich is in the fridge, still sealed in it's plastic wrapper.
Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain
why
it would occur.
Again, physics doesn't answer "why". It answers "how". Given a
set of circumstances and a set of rules, it models _how_ things
will evolve.
It answers why all the time. If it did'nt say "why" then it would be
useless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 12:20:46 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:yM6dnfdfw4laNv7eRVn-gw@comcast.com...
Who, specifically, are "They"? I think you're making this
up as you go. Please cite a list of recognized scientists
and their papers that show that "they always talk about
nothingness" AND that they "deny that 'nothingness' exists
today". I think you've got a hole in your argument that
you could drive a train through.
Mainstream physics, not specifically anyone in this thread, or anyone at
all. But to talk about nothingness from which the universe emerged is
nonsense unless one can explain that nothingness. Even philosophy cannot
explain the pre big bang nothingness which we toss around as if it were
fact.
You're demanding an answer to a "why" question from physics,
which does not answer "why" questions, and really has no
interest in "why" questions. Seek out a philosopher for
answers to "why" questions. Physics deals with the observable.
I have never seen a suitable explanation of any kind, how "nothingness"
could exist, or any mechanism to explain how it could occur, with one
exception - the unobservability of time.
And you won't get one from physics. By definition, that which is
unobservable is not part of the universe, and is not dealt with
by physics.
[snip]
Bullcrap. Physics sets all sorts of arbitrary zero references for
things like potential energy. There's no mystery there. Also,
physics does not pretend to answer "why" questions. It answers
"how" questions. If you are in need of the comfort of a creation
myth to explain existence, then you'd best turn to religion or
metaphysics.
I'm not arguing about God. And yes, physicists do use zero. But they dont
use nonexistence. Mathematicians use both all the time. That is my
complaint. And if you want to see an example of nothingness in physics, you
have to go all the way back before the big bang which I find unacceptable.
Physics deals with what exists and what is observable. Theories
go back as far as the first instant when something exists, and
goes no further. Everything beyond that is unobservable and conjecture,
and does not admit of a physical theory.
Does God exist ? Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, but this has
nothing to do with God. Just straight cosmology.
Cosmology does not go back beyond time t=0. Philosophy and mysticism
does, though.
[snip]
Yes, I can. But instead of going through 5,000 lines of text, I'll give you
a simple example. You have a flask full of space. For some strange reason,
time is unobservable inside that flask. What does it look like inside the
flask ? It "looks like" nonexistence. Why ? Because anything which exists
for only zero seconds does not really exist. And if it only exists for less
than Planck time, then it will "appear" nonexistent.
Show us the magic flask. When it is observable, physics can then
ask "how" questions about its operation and consequences. If
you can't produce the flask, then it has as much to do with
reality as invisible pink elephants.
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
My sandwich is in the fridge, still sealed in it's plastic wrapper.
Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot explain
why
it would occur.
Again, physics doesn't answer "why". It answers "how". Given a
set of circumstances and a set of rules, it models _how_ things
will evolve.
It answers why all the time. If it did'nt say "why" then it would be
useless.
No. Physics does not answer "why" questions. It answers "how"
questions. Given a set of circumstances, it asks how does the
system evolve, with calculated predictions. "Why" questions are
for philosophers and mystics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 04:00:30 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:gaO8f.13863$Nj3.1377326@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:yM6dnfdfw4laNv7eRVn-gw@comcast.com...
Who, specifically, are "They"? I think you're making this
up as you go. Please cite a list of recognized scientists
and their papers that show that "they always talk about
nothingness" AND that they "deny that 'nothingness' exists
today". I think you've got a hole in your argument that
you could drive a train through.
Mainstream physics, not specifically anyone in this thread, or anyone at
all. But to talk about nothingness from which the universe emerged is
nonsense unless one can explain that nothingness. Even philosophy cannot
explain the pre big bang nothingness which we toss around as if it were
fact.
You're demanding an answer to a "why" question from physics,
which does not answer "why" questions, and really has no
interest in "why" questions. Seek out a philosopher for
answers to "why" questions. Physics deals with the observable.
OK then - "why" is perpetual motion impossible - answer, 2nd law of thermo.
We answer why all the time. You're deflecting.
I have never seen a suitable explanation of any kind, how "nothingness"
could exist, or any mechanism to explain how it could occur, with one
exception - the unobservability of time.
And you won't get one from physics. By definition, that which is
unobservable is not part of the universe, and is not dealt with
by physics.
That which exists, but is not observable exists nevertheless, and can be
demonstrated to be so.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
[snip]
Bullcrap. Physics sets all sorts of arbitrary zero references for
things like potential energy. There's no mystery there. Also,
physics does not pretend to answer "why" questions. It answers
"how" questions. If you are in need of the comfort of a creation
myth to explain existence, then you'd best turn to religion or
metaphysics.
I'm not arguing about God. And yes, physicists do use zero. But they
dont
use nonexistence. Mathematicians use both all the time. That is my
complaint. And if you want to see an example of nothingness in physics,
you
have to go all the way back before the big bang which I find
unacceptable.
Physics deals with what exists and what is observable. Theories
go back as far as the first instant when something exists, and
goes no further. Everything beyond that is unobservable and conjecture,
and does not admit of a physical theory.
So then it is wrong to say that big bang evolved from "nothingness" ? For
that matter, yesterday is unobservable, should I not believe that it
happened ?
Does God exist ? Perhaps it's in the eye of the beholder, but this has
nothing to do with God. Just straight cosmology.
Cosmology does not go back beyond time t=0. Philosophy and mysticism
does, though.
Big bang is just the Old Testament in a tuxedo. "In The Beginning.....etc
etc", that's what your t_0 does, it turns the Bible into a physics journal.
[snip]
Yes, I can. But instead of going through 5,000 lines of text, I'll give
you
a simple example. You have a flask full of space. For some strange
reason,
time is unobservable inside that flask. What does it look like inside
the
flask ? It "looks like" nonexistence. Why ? Because anything which
exists
for only zero seconds does not really exist. And if it only exists for
less
than Planck time, then it will "appear" nonexistent.
Show us the magic flask. When it is observable, physics can then
ask "how" questions about its operation and consequences. If
you can't produce the flask, then it has as much to do with
reality as invisible pink elephants.
That magic flask exists on extreme scales, both large and small. Sub-Planck
scale, and also deep space. Approximately 40 orders of magnitude smaller or
larger than your average sized bathtub.
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
My sandwich is in the fridge, still sealed in it's plastic wrapper.
Dont let them ***** you with a "nothingness" if they cannot
explain
why
it would occur.
Again, physics doesn't answer "why". It answers "how". Given a
set of circumstances and a set of rules, it models _how_ things
will evolve.
It answers why all the time. If it did'nt say "why" then it would be
useless.
No. Physics does not answer "why" questions. It answers "how"
questions. Given a set of circumstances, it asks how does the
system evolve, with calculated predictions. "Why" questions are
for philosophers and mystics.
It answers what where when why and how, if it does'nt say how then somebodys
not doing their job.
All physical science is %99 philosophy and %1 math.
Mysticism is %100 philosophy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 03:29:03 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:VtidnfbUcsVsW_7eRVn-tg@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
[snip]
You're demanding an answer to a "why" question from physics,
which does not answer "why" questions, and really has no
interest in "why" questions. Seek out a philosopher for
answers to "why" questions. Physics deals with the observable.
OK then - "why" is perpetual motion impossible - answer, 2nd law of thermo.
We answer why all the time. You're deflecting.
You're concluding a "why" answer from the "how" statement
that physics makes. The second law is a description of
how energy behaves.
[snip]
That which exists, but is not observable exists nevertheless, and can be
demonstrated to be so.
How? Only observation can demonstrate existence, whether direct
or indirect observation by way of consequences.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
If there is supporting evidence, then there is observation of that
evidence. If there is no observation, there is no supporting
evidence.
[snip]
Physics deals with what exists and what is observable. Theories
go back as far as the first instant when something exists, and
goes no further. Everything beyond that is unobservable and conjecture,
and does not admit of a physical theory.
So then it is wrong to say that big bang evolved from "nothingness" ? For
that matter, yesterday is unobservable, should I not believe that it
happened ?
Yesterday was observed a it occurred, and the evidence of
today shows ample evidence of yesterday. Science can say nothing
definite of what preceeded the Big Bang, if indeed it can make
any sense at all to speak of things preceeding the beginning of
time and space.
[snip]
Big bang is just the Old Testament in a tuxedo. "In The Beginning.....etc
etc", that's what your t_0 does, it turns the Bible into a physics journal.
Hardly. Science says nothing about what preceeded or caused
nothing to become something. Religion tells a nice "just so"
story about how things came into existence, but balks at
explaining how the Something that created everything came into
being itself. Philosophy and mysticism always seem to end up
crying "It's turtles all the way down", as though that exlained
everything.
[snip]
Show us the magic flask. When it is observable, physics can then
ask "how" questions about its operation and consequences. If
you can't produce the flask, then it has as much to do with
reality as invisible pink elephants.
That magic flask exists on extreme scales, both large and small. Sub-Planck
scale, and also deep space. Approximately 40 orders of magnitude smaller or
larger than your average sized bathtub.
So you say. Yet you haven't managed to produce it. Shall I
also say that invisible pink elephants exist at all sizes scales?
Does this give them more substance? The words individually
have meaning, yet together they do not explain or make it so.
You're invoking the words of science as a sort of magic spell
as though by stating them in the order you've put them has
proved the existence of something. Where are your observables?
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
As I've said, science has no answer to that. Why do you
insist on an answer from a method that can give you no
answer?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
The words are not the substance. Show us the flask.
Show us the evidence. Where are the scientific results
that confirm your assertion?
[snip]
No. Physics does not answer "why" questions. It answers "how"
questions. Given a set of circumstances, it asks how does the
system evolve, with calculated predictions. "Why" questions are
for philosophers and mystics.
It answers what where when why and how, if it does'nt say how then somebodys
not doing their job.
It does not answer why. If you think you can make science answer
"why", then go ahead. Create the revolutionary breakthrough that
will unite science, philosophy, and religion and show us all how
it's done.
All physical science is %99 philosophy and %1 math.
Nonsense. Physical science is 99% empirical evidence confirming
1% mathematical modelling.
Mysticism is %100 philosophy.
On that we can agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 06:55:37 PM |
|
|
You're demanding an answer to a "why" question from physics,
which does not answer "why" questions, and really has no
interest in "why" questions. Seek out a philosopher for
answers to "why" questions. Physics deals with the observable.
OK then - "why" is perpetual motion impossible - answer, 2nd law of
thermo.
We answer why all the time. You're deflecting.
You're concluding a "why" answer from the "how" statement
that physics makes. The second law is a description of
how energy behaves.
Why, as in "what's the meaning of life", and how as in "how does life
exist" - I'll buy that. Otherwise, why and how are pretty similar.
That which exists, but is not observable exists nevertheless, and can be
demonstrated to be so.
How? Only observation can demonstrate existence, whether direct
or indirect observation by way of consequences.
Indirect observation.
Nonexistence is demonstrated by QM weirdness as an indirect observation.
Explained by unobservability of time on that scale.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure
observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
If there is supporting evidence, then there is observation of that
evidence. If there is no observation, there is no supporting
evidence.
Quantum eraser & double eraser. Instantaneous dynamics are observed,
acausality is observed, the only way to explain this is that time is
unobservable on that scale - and it makes sense.
Physics deals with what exists and what is observable. Theories
go back as far as the first instant when something exists, and
goes no further. Everything beyond that is unobservable and
conjecture,
and does not admit of a physical theory.
So then it is wrong to say that big bang evolved from "nothingness" ?
For
that matter, yesterday is unobservable, should I not believe that it
happened ?
Yesterday was observed a it occurred, and the evidence of
today shows ample evidence of yesterday. Science can say nothing
definite of what preceeded the Big Bang, if indeed it can make
any sense at all to speak of things preceeding the beginning of
time and space.
I dont know that it even makes sense to speak of a beginning at all. Big
bang cosmology extrapolates backwards to an absurdity.
Big bang is just the Old Testament in a tuxedo. "In The
Beginning.....etc
etc", that's what your t_0 does, it turns the Bible into a physics
journal.
Hardly. Science says nothing about what preceeded or caused
nothing to become something. Religion tells a nice "just so"
story about how things came into existence, but balks at
explaining how the Something that created everything came into
being itself. Philosophy and mysticism always seem to end up
crying "It's turtles all the way down", as though that exlained
everything.
Religion has it's shortcomings in terms of solving problems, and probably
even creates some problems in many ways. It's no substitute for physical
science, nor should it be a vehicle to justify anyone's religion. The
separation of church and science is probably more important than that of
church and state. Until you get into questions of ethics of building bombs
and biological frankenstein creature weapons.
The most important law of science is that every invention will eventually be
utilized by man for some evil purpose. That's why religion still has value.
Show us the magic flask. When it is observable, physics can then
ask "how" questions about its operation and consequences. If
you can't produce the flask, then it has as much to do with
reality as invisible pink elephants.
That magic flask exists on extreme scales, both large and small.
Sub-Planck
scale, and also deep space. Approximately 40 orders of magnitude smaller
or
larger than your average sized bathtub.
So you say. Yet you haven't managed to produce it. Shall I
also say that invisible pink elephants exist at all sizes scales?
Does this give them more substance? The words individually
have meaning, yet together they do not explain or make it so.
You're invoking the words of science as a sort of magic spell
as though by stating them in the order you've put them has
proved the existence of something. Where are your observables?
If time is unobservable below Planck scale, then all dynamics become, or
will "appear" to be instantaneous. This agrees with nonlocal effects which
are instantaneous, and this is easily observed in any lab.
Need I go on......
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
As I've said, science has no answer to that. Why do you
insist on an answer from a method that can give you no
answer?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
The words are not the substance. Show us the flask.
Show us the evidence. Where are the scientific results
that confirm your assertion?
Basically, the flask is a gedanken experiment to demonstrate how
trivialities regarding time justify the usage of "trivial space" or a
tangible nonexistence.
No. Physics does not answer "why" questions. It answers "how"
questions. Given a set of circumstances, it asks how does the
system evolve, with calculated predictions. "Why" questions are
for philosophers and mystics.
It answers what where when why and how, if it does'nt say how then
somebodys
not doing their job.
It does not answer why. If you think you can make science answer
"why", then go ahead. Create the revolutionary breakthrough that
will unite science, philosophy, and religion and show us all how
it's done.
I dont think that would work, but I think it's possible for relativity to go
much further than it has, probably even explaining some quantum effects.
I dont think that relativity is complete.
The lizards told me so. : o
All physical science is %99 philosophy and %1 math.
Nonsense. Physical science is 99% empirical evidence confirming
1% mathematical modelling.
Mysticism is %100 philosophy.
On that we can agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 05:27:21 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:GeSdndX5ufhgcv7eRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Nonexistence is demonstrated by QM weirdness as an indirect observation.
Explained by unobservability of time on that scale.
We simply don't have any predictive model that describes
reality at scales at or below that of the quantum foam.
But this doesn't necessarily imply that time is unobservable
below those scales. We see the consequesnces of the sum
of whatever it is that has happened, and our models give
us the end results that appear at scales that we observe.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure
observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
If there is supporting evidence, then there is observation of that
evidence. If there is no observation, there is no supporting
evidence.
Quantum eraser & double eraser. Instantaneous dynamics are observed,
acausality is observed, the only way to explain this is that time is
unobservable on that scale - and it makes sense.
No, I don't see that as a justification for stating that time
is not observable at those scales. We don't have any models
for what happens at that scale/energy. It could be that time
and space are indistinguishable at those scales, or that there
are extra dimensions that come into play, or who knows what.
It may well be that the laws of physics are just plain different
at that scale and do not make common sense to us, who often
insist on prosaic models that fit our own ideas of what makes
sense rather than accept that things could really be that
different.
[snip]
Yesterday was observed a it occurred, and the evidence of
today shows ample evidence of yesterday. Science can say nothing
definite of what preceeded the Big Bang, if indeed it can make
any sense at all to speak of things preceeding the beginning of
time and space.
I dont know that it even makes sense to speak of a beginning at all. Big
bang cosmology extrapolates backwards to an absurdity.
It extrapolates back as far as the model will hold, and no further.
That you find the predicted conditions at that time to be absurd,
is neither here nor there unless you've a better model that fits
all the available evidence.
[snip religious contempations]
So you say. Yet you haven't managed to produce it. Shall I
also say that invisible pink elephants exist at all sizes scales?
Does this give them more substance? The words individually
have meaning, yet together they do not explain or make it so.
You're invoking the words of science as a sort of magic spell
as though by stating them in the order you've put them has
proved the existence of something. Where are your observables?
If time is unobservable below Planck scale, then all dynamics become, or
will "appear" to be instantaneous. This agrees with nonlocal effects which
are instantaneous, and this is easily observed in any lab.
Need I go on......
You haven't shown that time is unobservable at those scales
and that the effects shown by quantum models aren't simply
the result of some other underlying physics where time
still exists but operates along with different laws.
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
As I've said, science has no answer to that. Why do you
insist on an answer from a method that can give you no
answer?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
The words are not the substance. Show us the flask.
Show us the evidence. Where are the scientific results
that confirm your assertion?
Basically, the flask is a gedanken experiment to demonstrate how
trivialities regarding time justify the usage of "trivial space" or a
tangible nonexistence.
You haven't shown that the magic flask is possible even in
principle. You're assuming your conclusion.
[snip]
It does not answer why. If you think you can make science answer
"why", then go ahead. Create the revolutionary breakthrough that
will unite science, philosophy, and religion and show us all how
it's done.
I dont think that would work, but I think it's possible for relativity to go
much further than it has, probably even explaining some quantum effects.
I dont think that relativity is complete.
The lizards told me so. : o
Heh. Well, relativity is mathematically complete and self
consistent, yet it obviously doesn't include the effects
due to quantum physics. In that regard, both relativity and
quantum theory are incomplete and even at odds. The work of
finding a synthesis theory that will be a Grand Unified Theory
is ongoing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 09:02:01 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:IFS8f.14878$Nj3.1413839@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:GeSdndX5ufhgcv7eRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Nonexistence is demonstrated by QM weirdness as an indirect observation.
Explained by unobservability of time on that scale.
We simply don't have any predictive model that describes
reality at scales at or below that of the quantum foam.
But this doesn't necessarily imply that time is unobservable
below those scales. We see the consequesnces of the sum
of whatever it is that has happened, and our models give
us the end results that appear at scales that we observe.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure
observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
If there is supporting evidence, then there is observation of that
evidence. If there is no observation, there is no supporting
evidence.
Quantum eraser & double eraser. Instantaneous dynamics are observed,
acausality is observed, the only way to explain this is that time is
unobservable on that scale - and it makes sense.
No, I don't see that as a justification for stating that time
is not observable at those scales. We don't have any models
for what happens at that scale/energy. It could be that time
and space are indistinguishable at those scales, or that there
are extra dimensions that come into play, or who knows what.
It may well be that the laws of physics are just plain different
at that scale and do not make common sense to us, who often
insist on prosaic models that fit our own ideas of what makes
sense rather than accept that things could really be that
different.
Noethers Theorem says that the laws of physics apply everywhere. But quantum
weirdness has led some peolpe to state that things are "acausal" on the
quantum scale. Seriously now - acausality ? I dont think so. That has got to
be an illusion, one which is easily created by time being unobservable.
Physical objects must be unique. If you have a penny - it is only 1 penny.
You cannot say that you have 1,000,000 pennies which are all identical, in
the same exact location, doing the same exact thing simultaneously. It's
just 1 penny, and the other 999,999 pennies are trivial. All physical
objects must posses that property.
But QM says that an object can be in two separate places at the same time.
There is only one way that this can happen that makes any sense, Planck time
is an observational phenomena, it's relativistic due to extreme differences
in scale, and this creates the illusion of QM weirdness.
Yesterday was observed a it occurred, and the evidence of
today shows ample evidence of yesterday. Science can say nothing
definite of what preceeded the Big Bang, if indeed it can make
any sense at all to speak of things preceeding the beginning of
time and space.
I dont know that it even makes sense to speak of a beginning at all. Big
bang cosmology extrapolates backwards to an absurdity.
It extrapolates back as far as the model will hold, and no further.
That you find the predicted conditions at that time to be absurd,
is neither here nor there unless you've a better model that fits
all the available evidence.
[snip religious contempations]
So you say. Yet you haven't managed to produce it. Shall I
also say that invisible pink elephants exist at all sizes scales?
Does this give them more substance? The words individually
have meaning, yet together they do not explain or make it so.
You're invoking the words of science as a sort of magic spell
as though by stating them in the order you've put them has
proved the existence of something. Where are your observables?
If time is unobservable below Planck scale, then all dynamics become, or
will "appear" to be instantaneous. This agrees with nonlocal effects
which
are instantaneous, and this is easily observed in any lab.
Need I go on......
You haven't shown that time is unobservable at those scales
and that the effects shown by quantum models aren't simply
the result of some other underlying physics where time
still exists but operates along with different laws.
Noethers Theorem.
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
As I've said, science has no answer to that. Why do you
insist on an answer from a method that can give you no
answer?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time
is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
The words are not the substance. Show us the flask.
Show us the evidence. Where are the scientific results
that confirm your assertion?
Basically, the flask is a gedanken experiment to demonstrate how
trivialities regarding time justify the usage of "trivial space" or a
tangible nonexistence.
You haven't shown that the magic flask is possible even in
principle. You're assuming your conclusion.
[snip]
It does not answer why. If you think you can make science answer
"why", then go ahead. Create the revolutionary breakthrough that
will unite science, philosophy, and religion and show us all how
it's done.
I dont think that would work, but I think it's possible for relativity
to go
much further than it has, probably even explaining some quantum effects.
I dont think that relativity is complete.
The lizards told me so. : o
Heh. Well, relativity is mathematically complete and self
consistent, yet it obviously doesn't include the effects
due to quantum physics. In that regard, both relativity and
quantum theory are incomplete and even at odds. The work of
finding a synthesis theory that will be a Grand Unified Theory
is ongoing.
Which is why I'm racking my pint sized brain to write some algebra.
All you need to do is add one postulate to the Lorentz transform -
"Time is unobservable on extreme scales".
Maybe there is already some existing physics which would do the trick, or
who knows what. I have no idea how to do that with algebra. But I'm
convinced that it would be one hell of a good try, whether it's true or not,
I think that relativity could kick QM's *****.
At this point, I know what neeeds to be written, and dont know how to write
it. I just dont know enough physics. So, either I learn some, or just pass
the baton to someone who can run it down to the endzone.
If it happens in the real world, then it's modellable in the symbolic one.
Just dont know how.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 11:47:31 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:-YSdndu8Hu0AkPneRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:IFS8f.14878$Nj3.1413839@news20.bellglobal.com...
It may well be that the laws of physics are just plain different
at that scale and do not make common sense to us, who often
insist on prosaic models that fit our own ideas of what makes
sense rather than accept that things could really be that
different.
Noethers Theorem says that the laws of physics apply everywhere.
No, it says that for our recognized laws of physics there is
a one-to-one correspondence between symmetries and conservation
laws. It doesn't necessarily apply where the current laws
don't apply.
But quantum
weirdness has led some peolpe to state that things are "acausal" on the
quantum scale. Seriously now - acausality ? I dont think so. That has got to
be an illusion, one which is easily created by time being unobservable.
You'll have to explain that. It sounds like you just want to
hold up a curtain so the magician can rearrange things without
anyone being able to see him do it. Are you permitting speeds
greater than c during 'unobservable time'?
Physical objects must be unique. If you have a penny - it is only 1 penny.
You cannot say that you have 1,000,000 pennies which are all identical, in
the same exact location, doing the same exact thing simultaneously. It's
just 1 penny, and the other 999,999 pennies are trivial. All physical
objects must posses that property.
You mean, all physical objects of which you have direct personal
observation experience have shown this property. How can you
insist on simply extrapolating your everyday experience to
realms in which you have no direct experience? The results of
careful experiments performed by careful experimentors shows
that things really do behave differently in the quantum world.
But QM says that an object can be in two separate places at the same time.
Not quite. It says that something has a probability of being in
a given place at a given time, and that the probability
is non zero everywhere. It does not say that the object can be
found to be in two places at the same time.
There is only one way that this can happen that makes any sense, Planck time
is an observational phenomena, it's relativistic due to extreme differences
in scale, and this creates the illusion of QM weirdness.
Planck time is just a unit, like meters or seconds. It's not a
piece of something. "It's relativistic because due to extreme
differences in scale" makes no sense; it's just word salad.
[snip]
You haven't shown that time is unobservable at those scales
and that the effects shown by quantum models aren't simply
the result of some other underlying physics where time
still exists but operates along with different laws.
Noethers Theorem.
Irrelevant.
[snip]
Heh. Well, relativity is mathematically complete and self
consistent, yet it obviously doesn't include the effects
due to quantum physics. In that regard, both relativity and
quantum theory are incomplete and even at odds. The work of
finding a synthesis theory that will be a Grand Unified Theory
is ongoing.
Which is why I'm racking my pint sized brain to write some algebra.
All you need to do is add one postulate to the Lorentz transform -
"Time is unobservable on extreme scales".
What does that mean? The LT is a trivial relationship
between measurables of length and time between reference
frames. It has no dependence at all upon scale. It doesn't
have postulates, its an operation.
Chanting "Time is unobservable on extreme scales" is just
the same as saying "and then a miracle happens", or "ignore
the man behind the curtain".
So, what really are "extreme scales"? Can you sneak up on
them? Does time become merely dim or fuzzy at *nearly* extreme
scales?
Maybe there is already some existing physics which would do the trick, or
who knows what. I have no idea how to do that with algebra. But I'm
convinced that it would be one hell of a good try, whether it's true or not,
I think that relativity could kick QM's *****.
At this point, I know what neeeds to be written, and dont know how to write
it. I just dont know enough physics. So, either I learn some, or just pass
the baton to someone who can run it down to the endzone.
If it happens in the real world, then it's modellable in the symbolic one.
Just dont know how.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
30 Oct 2005 02:31:10 PM |
|
|
Lefty wrote:
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:IFS8f.14878$Nj3.1413839@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:GeSdndX5ufhgcv7eRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Nonexistence is demonstrated by QM weirdness as an indirect observation.
Explained by unobservability of time on that scale.
We simply don't have any predictive model that describes
reality at scales at or below that of the quantum foam.
But this doesn't necessarily imply that time is unobservable
below those scales. We see the consequesnces of the sum
of whatever it is that has happened, and our models give
us the end results that appear at scales that we observe.
You'll never observe an unobservable, obviously, but you can sure
observe
the supporting evidence that it really is there.
If there is supporting evidence, then there is observation of that
evidence. If there is no observation, there is no supporting
evidence.
Quantum eraser & double eraser. Instantaneous dynamics are observed,
acausality is observed, the only way to explain this is that time is
unobservable on that scale - and it makes sense.
No, I don't see that as a justification for stating that time
is not observable at those scales. We don't have any models
for what happens at that scale/energy. It could be that time
and space are indistinguishable at those scales, or that there
are extra dimensions that come into play, or who knows what.
It may well be that the laws of physics are just plain different
at that scale and do not make common sense to us, who often
insist on prosaic models that fit our own ideas of what makes
sense rather than accept that things could really be that
different.
Noethers Theorem says that the laws of physics apply everywhere. But quantum
weirdness has led some peolpe to state that things are "acausal" on the
quantum scale. Seriously now - acausality ? I dont think so. That has got to
be an illusion, one which is easily created by time being unobservable.
Physical objects must be unique. If you have a penny - it is only 1 penny.
You cannot say that you have 1,000,000 pennies which are all identical, in
the same exact location, doing the same exact thing simultaneously. It's
just 1 penny, and the other 999,999 pennies are trivial. All physical
objects must posses that property.
But QM says that an object can be in two separate places at the same time.
There is only one way that this can happen that makes any sense, Planck time
is an observational phenomena, it's relativistic due to extreme differences
in scale, and this creates the illusion of QM weirdness.
QM does not say that. It fact it doesn't say anything.
Given that it was invented by Psychology idiots like
Feynmann, rather than scientists.
It says quantum waves overlap.
It's doesn't say ANYTHING about physical objects,
light, mass, calculus, geometry, photons, electrons,
protons, neutrons, atoms, or chemistry.
Yesterday was observed a it occurred, and the evidence of
today shows ample evidence of yesterday. Science can say nothing
definite of what preceeded the Big Bang, if indeed it can make
any sense at all to speak of things preceeding the beginning of
time and space.
I dont know that it even makes sense to speak of a beginning at all. Big
bang cosmology extrapolates backwards to an absurdity.
It extrapolates back as far as the model will hold, and no further.
That you find the predicted conditions at that time to be absurd,
is neither here nor there unless you've a better model that fits
all the available evidence.
[snip religious contempations]
So you say. Yet you haven't managed to produce it. Shall I
also say that invisible pink elephants exist at all sizes scales?
Does this give them more substance? The words individually
have meaning, yet together they do not explain or make it so.
You're invoking the words of science as a sort of magic spell
as though by stating them in the order you've put them has
proved the existence of something. Where are your observables?
If time is unobservable below Planck scale, then all dynamics become, or
will "appear" to be instantaneous. This agrees with nonlocal effects
which
are instantaneous, and this is easily observed in any lab.
Need I go on......
You haven't shown that time is unobservable at those scales
and that the effects shown by quantum models aren't simply
the result of some other underlying physics where time
still exists but operates along with different laws.
Noethers Theorem.
And speaking of pink elephants, what came before the bgi bang ?
As I've said, science has no answer to that. Why do you
insist on an answer from a method that can give you no
answer?
Answer -> This phenomena can occur in all reference frames. Time
is
unobservable on extreme scales for "all frames of reference".
Show us the flask.
Sub-Planck scale, and deep space.
The words are not the substance. Show us the flask.
Show us the evidence. Where are the scientific results
that confirm your assertion?
Basically, the flask is a gedanken experiment to demonstrate how
trivialities regarding time justify the usage of "trivial space" or a
tangible nonexistence.
You haven't shown that the magic flask is possible even in
principle. You're assuming your conclusion.
[snip]
It does not answer why. If you think you can make science answer
"why", then go ahead. Create the revolutionary breakthrough that
will unite science, philosophy, and religion and show us all how
it's done.
I dont think that would work, but I think it's possible for relativity
to go
much further than it has, probably even explaining some quantum effects.
I dont think that relativity is complete.
The lizards told me so. : o
Heh. Well, relativity is mathematically complete and self
consistent, yet it obviously doesn't include the effects
due to quantum physics. In that regard, both relativity and
quantum theory are incomplete and even at odds. The work of
finding a synthesis theory that will be a Grand Unified Theory
is ongoing.
Which is why I'm racking my pint sized brain to write some algebra.
All you need to do is add one postulate to the Lorentz transform -
"Time is unobservable on extreme scales".
Maybe there is already some existing physics which would do the trick, or
who knows what. I have no idea how to do that with algebra. But I'm
convinced that it would be one hell of a good try, whether it's true or not,
I think that relativity could kick QM's *****.
At this point, I know what neeeds to be written, and dont know how to write
it. I just dont know enough physics. So, either I learn some, or just pass
the baton to someone who can run it down to the endzone.
If it happens in the real world, then it's modellable in the symbolic one.
Just dont know how.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 05:36:48 PM |
|
|
In article <GeSdndX5ufhgcv7eRVn-vg@comcast.com>
Lefty <Ye@h.Right> wrote:
Why, as in "what's the meaning of life", and how as in "how does life
exist" - I'll buy that. Otherwise, why and how are pretty similar.
Hmmmm.
Indirect observation.
This is the only way you can write that Down in your book in great big
letters?
Quantum eraser & double eraser. Instantaneous dynamics are observed,
acausality is observed, the only way to explain this is that time is
unobservable on that scale - and it makes sense.
Tilly striking1583@yahoo.
I dont know that it even makes sense to speak of a beginning at all. Big
bang cosmology extrapolates backwards to an absurdity.
B.
Religion has it's shortcomings in terms of solving problems, and probably
even creates some problems in many ways. It's no substitute for physical
science, nor should it be a vehicle to justify anyone's religion. The
separation of church and science is probably more important than that of
church and state. Until you get into questions of ethics of building bombs
and biological frankenstein creature weapons.
Either that, but I do not know what you are not.
The most important law of science is that every invention will eventually be
utilized by man for some evil purpose. That's why religion still has value.
There is no way you can write that Down in your book in great big
letters.
If time is unobservable below Planck scale, then all dynamics become, or
will "appear" to be instantaneous. This agrees with nonlocal effects which
are instantaneous, and this is easily observed in any lab.
In fact, I am not sure I understand the question.
Need I go on......
He is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
Basically, the flask is a gedanken experiment to demonstrate how
trivialities regarding time justify the usage of "trivial space" or a
tangible nonexistence.
Fancy that!
I dont think that would work, but I think it's possible for relativity to go
much further than it has, probably even explaining some quantum effects.
Good luck.
I dont think that relativity is complete.
Are you happy you do not think that relativity is complete?
The lizards told me so. : o
Is that the only way you can write that Down in your book in great big
letters?
--
Lady Chatterly
"Bartlo listed a bot, but not finely woven, hand-crafted socks? I'd be
insulted if I were you." -- Dan Baldwin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 09:10:16 PM |
|
|
Lady Chatterly
"Bartlo listed a bot, but not finely woven, hand-crafted socks? I'd be
insulted if I were you." -- Dan Baldwin
Yeah. I know. Words words words. What the hell good are they, it's just more
bla bla bla.
But hey, F=ma is just words too, just a different language.
So, maybe words aint so useless. How about helping me out with some algebra
? I've already admitted that I'm utterly clueless on how to model it - got
any greek you can slap on that ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
28 Oct 2005 10:55:25 AM |
|
|
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Have science found what universe expands in or from? Where does the new
building material come from? Or was it already there?
Just saw a program with Hawking. He believes universe was created from
nothing and at random. Is it proven that something can be created from
nothing?
Thanks!
First you have to determine what "something" is. A "something", it
turns out, is characterized by having certain values associated with
it, coupling strengths.
One is tempted to say that, in the beginning there was only energy and
a fundamental interaction, a law of symmetry that described how this
energy would behave. As the energy expanded, pieces of the energy
acquired (somehow) different coupling strengths, including a coupling
strength to another piece of the energy that imbued it with mass. In
the process as well, the fundamental interaction began to exhibit some
unequal facets, its symmetry broken, and the fundamental interaction
began to look like several different interactions. Pieces of the
energy, now with increasingly important masses, also acquired a
spectrum of different coupling strengths to the different facets of
interaction, dropping into a few different categories. Whether you call
those quanta particles or strings is a matter of adventurousness.
There is still a remaining problem with this in that energy itself is a
system property and not "stuff", and so this energy perhaps is a
property of something else, and some have proposed that this something
else is spacetime itself -- that spacetime bubbled up out of nothing
but carrying with it the property of energy and the fundamental
symmetry.
Having just sounded pompously ethereal, I would also add all of this is
largely just suggestive words with little if anything concrete to
support it. There are many things we do not know even about the pieces
that seem sure. We don't know why the fundamental symmetry broke down
the way it did or even what the first fundamental symmetry was. We
don't know why chunks of energy acquired only the sets of coupling
strengths and quantum numbers that they did. We don't really even know
what the fluctuation was a fluctuation *of*, or why the fluctuation
would have this many spacetime dimensions or why it would be imbued
with a property like energy that defined an entropic downhill.
There's an amazing amount of stuff we know from just a smattering of
second-hand data -- brilliant detective work. But there's also a bunch
we're no closer to knowing than we were 300 years ago.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 02:49:37 PM |
|
|
Jimmy wrote:
Hi! Have science found what universe expands in or from? Where does the new
building material come from? Or was it already there?
Just saw a program with Hawking. He believes universe was created from
nothing and at random. Is it proven that something can be created from
nothing?
Thanks!
Yeah, nothing and the root probabilistic flaw, whence it came.
I'll tell you why.
Ross
--
"I'm personally quite average." Ross: A democracy of one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 05:15:26 PM |
|
|
Hi! Have science found what universe expands in or from? Where does the
new
building material come from? Or was it already there?
Just saw a program with Hawking. He believes universe was created from
nothing and at random. Is it proven that something can be created from
nothing?
Thanks!
According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
"The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060 Planck
times."
So, you can deduce from this that time is considered a graduated dimension
and that the graduations are fixed. Yet, big bang cosmology tells us that
things are constantly expanding, so the ruler must be stretching.
What the ridiculous people do not understand is that the infinitely small is
really infinite, and if Planck time is relative (due to extreme scale), then
you _can_ have expansion of universe with no big bang. Big bang is NOT
neccesary to have a constantly expanding universe. A "beginning" or t_0 is
NOT required, if you let Planck time be an observational phenomena.
I repeat, you can have constant expansion of universe "without a beginning".
The "beginning" is not neccesary.
Silly people.
Yeah, nothing and the root probabilistic flaw, whence it came.
I'll tell you why.
Ross
--
"I'm personally quite average." Ross: A democracy of one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 03:34:45 PM |
|
|
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:hsidnRSr_ZgfRf7eRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
"The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060 Planck
times."
So, you can deduce from this that time is considered a graduated dimension
and that the graduations are fixed. Yet, big bang cosmology tells us that
things are constantly expanding, so the ruler must be stretching.
What the ridiculous people do not understand is that the infinitely small is
really infinite, and if Planck time is relative (due to extreme scale), then
you _can_ have expansion of universe with no big bang. Big bang is NOT
neccesary to have a constantly expanding universe. A "beginning" or t_0 is
NOT required, if you let Planck time be an observational phenomena.
I repeat, you can have constant expansion of universe "without a beginning".
The "beginning" is not neccesary.
Silly people.
You seem to have a small gap in your reading. Empirical
results of measurements of hyperfine atomic transitions
in distant sources indicate that the rulers are not
stretching along with space, and that the speed of light
has remained constant. So the sizes of particles have not
changed, nor the size of bound objects.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: Some astro questions |
29 Oct 2005 06:00:00 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:70R8f.13987$Nj3.1400358@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:hsidnRSr_ZgfRf7eRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
"The estimated age of the Universe (4.3 × 1017 s) is roughly 8 × 1060
Planck
times."
So, you can deduce from this that time is considered a graduated
dimension
and that the graduations are fixed. Yet, big bang cosmology tells us
that
things are constantly expanding, so the ruler must be stretching.
What the ridiculous people do not understand is that the infinitely
small is
really infinite, and if Planck time is relative (due to extreme scale),
then
you _can_ have expansion of universe with no big bang. Big bang is NOT
neccesary to have a constantly expanding universe. | | | | |
