Subject: Re: Cosmology: Little Bangs and Big Bangs
From: Lawrence Foard
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 20:05:36 -0700
Steve Zink wrote:
>Secondary Little Bangs of Accelerating Black Holes.
>
> The large black holes, upon accelerating to the point where their
> mass reached the instability point, or when the ratio of m/r
> reached c^2/2G, also exploded.
Actually this doesn't work this way. The foundation of special
relativity is the non existance of any "special" reference frames.
Some of our more rash readers would simply say "of course it doesn't
happen, relativistic mass isn't gravitational mass." this is also
wrong, the real answer is more complex.
To start with, take the case of two electric charges, one + and
one -. An observer in the reference frame (moving at the same speed
of) the charges will always see it take a time t for them to collide
is seperated by a distance l.
However we know that another observer will not see them take time
t to collide, it will always appear to take longer. To an observer
watching moving charges attract it almost appears as though there
is a force holding them apart. This force happens to be magnetism,
which is really just another aspect of the electric force.
We can look at the same problem two different ways,
1) Figure out what the observer moving with the charges sees, and
translate that into our reference frame.
2) Calculate the combined effect of the electric and magnetic fields
in our own reference frame.
Both will give you the same answer.
The same thing happens with gravity. If we tried to throw an
object into one of these passing black holes, using the event
horizon calculated from its relativistic mass, the following would
happen. The object would be accelerated toward the "black hole", but
in the process would end up being "pulled along" with it, so as soon
as the object started to fall in it would be approximately in the
reference frame of your hoped for black hole. Looking at it from the
outside you would see some weird repulsive force (gravitomagnetism)
protect your object from doom. But in the objects reference frame it
sees a black hole some distance away, and if not thrown to intersect
its event horizon it won't go in, instead it will orbit, or escape.
Unfortunitly you can't shield gravity like you can the electric force,
so you can't get pure gravito magnetism. You can however get "pure"
relativistic mass increase. Make two counter rotating disks, one
inside the other the gravito magnetism will cancel leaving only the
mass increase.
--
The virgin birth of Pythagoras via Apollo. The martyrdom of
St. Socrates. The Gospel according to Iamblichus.
-- Have an 18.9cents/minute 6 second billed calling card tomorrow --
http://www.vwis.com/cards.html
Subject: Re: Quantization of time?
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 03:17:05 GMT
In article <323B25FB.27C3@ucflink.com>, John Covington writes:
... snip ...
>Question 1) Is time 'quantized'?
>
>I've heard people argue there is no such thing as time, but let's make the assumption that time does exist.
>The reason for this question is this:
>1) Energy determines space time
>2) Energy itself is 'quantized'
>3) Would time itself then be quantized?
Energy of specific systems may be quantized, this doesn't mean that
energy overall is quantized (in terms of having a minimal possible
unit of energy). But, to answer you question, the answer is "maybe".
It is possible but so far we've no evidence for it.
>
>Question 2) Is there a fundamental unit (wavelength) size that limits the universe? (related to Planck's
>constant). Perhaps the 'leaps' of quantization?
Again, it is possible that space is quantized and there is a
fundamental length unit, but so far we've no evidence for this.
>Question 3) If it is possible to get a 'wave function of the universe'.
Would the 'wave' function represent >infinite universes (perhaps parallel),
and the measurement of our current universe become a 'particle'.
Now, that's really ambitious. There are really two questions here,
3a) Is there a wave fund\ction of the universe.
3b) Can we find it, meaning generate an expression, model or
something of the sort which eables us to use it to get answers.
I think that it is again "maybe" on (3a). On (3b), I doubt it. Such
expression or model would've information content equal to this of the
whole universe and I doubt that anything smaller then the universe
could contain it. In other words, it would mean that you've a proper
subset of the universe containing all the information aboutthe
universe (including itself, since it is a part of the universe too).
See the problem?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: Re: IMPACT OROGENY ON EARTH
From: "Robert D. Brown"
Date: 15 Sep 1996 03:21:19 GMT
Thank you so much for your assistance, Tom. The continuing saga can now be
found under "Theory of Land and Life", in the sci.geo.geology, and
talk.origins newsgroups. RDB
A man ceases to be a beginner in any given science and becomes a master in
that science when he has learned that . . . he is going to be a beginner
all his life.
R. G. Collingwood (1889–1943), British philosopher. The New Leviathan, pt.
1, ch. 1, aph. 46 (1942).
Subject: A medium. Was Re: SR Unproved, Unproveable but not Inconsistent
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 00:02:26
In article Keith Stein
wrote:
>In reality there is always some material medium (e.g. air, water,
>glass, OR very low pressure hydrogen), and as per Maxwell's
>Equations the e-m wave must propagate RELATIVE TO THAT MEDIUM IN
>WHICH THEY TRAVEL. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
>experiment then becomes merely a consequence of the velocity of
>light being with respect to the air in the laboratory.
How much deeper have you taken this thesis, Keith. Or, as with
me, did it emerge from a far more basic level of constructions?
Have you ever read my 1965 book, The Nature of Matter and
Energy? If not, would you like a slightly mildewed copy? Have you
ever glanced at my web page? If not, take a gander.
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Keith Stein
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:16:20 +0100
In article <323AE1FD.749C@ix.netcom.com>, tsar@ix.netcom.com writes
>David L Evens wrote:
>
>> Which is, of course, something that can only happen when the rate of time
>> flow changes.
>>
>
>Really? So if you take a pendulum clock into a spacecraft and use it to time
>your journey, whatever readings you get from the pendulum clock are indicative
>of the flow of time locally?
Pendulum clocks are a rather special case tsar, and were specifically
excluded in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
> The premise that what clocks do time must do is
>not only unconfirmed, but ridiculously wrong for obvious cases.
But if atoms and atomic processes do really slow down, in a way in which
we could not detect from within,as predicted in SR, then it would not be
unreasonable to say with David Evans"the rate of flow of time changes",
but i don't really beleive that myself tsar. Sure i could be wrong !,
but i don't think i am,and i have studied the evidence more than most:-)
--
Keith Stein
Subject: Re: Physics & Astronomy Say God Likely Exists
From: "J. Ross"
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:10:56 -0700
Carmen Toledo wrote:
>
> In david ford
> writes:
> >
> >On 11 Sep 1996, Ralph Boerke wrote:
> >
> >> Physics and Astronomy do not say God exists or doesn't exist.
> >> These are sciences which like all other sciences try to get FACTS
> >> about the real world through assumption, experimentation,
> >> observation and finally validation/verification.
> >>
> >> If it can't be verified, then it is not a FACT.
>
> How do you verify the existence of a supernatural being like God?
>
> >> God is by definition a creation of FAITH which has NOTHING to do
> >> with FACTS.
>
> If God told everyone how to communicate with Him (John 3:1-21),
> then is God a creation of FAITH?
>
>
> >> I have a BSc in Physics and love Astronomy and have a keen interest
> >> in both. That is why I couldn't let ths Title go unanswered.
> >
> >You make an excellent point. Science is about answering the question
> >"how?" Science doesn't say anything. It is the job of philosophy to
> >ask the question "why?"
> >
>
> >> Cosmology and the ultimate beginnings of the universe currently
> >> describe the big bang as a quantum fluxuation which expanded into
> >> space and time started 'at this time' (I know its a hard concept).
> >
> >Quantum mechanics requires space, and space is very different than
> >nothing. It makes no sense for something that requires space to
> >expand into space, as is suggested above. The universe was created
> >out of absolutely nothing in the big bang.
>
> How do you know that the universe was created out of absolutely
> nothing? Were you there at the beginning? Perhaps, it was created out
> of invisible particles or strings in higher dimensions.
>
> >> 'Before' this there was no time and therefore no before and
> >> 'outside' this there was/is no space and therefore no outside.
>
> How do you know that there was 'no time' ever? Is time linear?
> What does eternity mean?
>
> >> If the Universe were random we can only be happy we are here to
> >> observe it and take part in it as if any of the random elements were
> >> not set as they are we would not be here. ie. Gravitaional
> >> constant, speed of light, mass of an electron,.... if any of these
> >> were different the universe would not work as it does.
> >
> >You are here referring to the anthropic principle, which was discussed
> >in my essay. The anthropic principle is basically a design argument
> >for God's existence.
> >
>
> You mean that there is a designer behind the design?
>
> >> The universe evolved and we can into being after BILLIONS of years
> >> of stellar, planetary, and biological evolution.
> >> So Physics and Astronomy DO NOT SAY GOD EXISTS! In fact God had no
> >> part in any of it; from all of my studies there was no 'hand of god'
> >> in any of it.
>
> Does 'all of your studies' include the supernatural? Have you ever
> had an out-of-body experience? Do you know everything, including that
> which is invisible to the eyes of men (e.g., 2 Kings 6:8-23)?
>
> >
> >Q: Did the universe, or did it not, come into existence in the _ex
> >nihilo_ creation event called the big bang?
> >
>
> >> A believer could say its all part of God's plan.
> >> But I torment you to prove it.
> >> Prove that God did something that was not a random event in the
> >> universe!!!
>
> A prophecy of Isaiah starts as: "The virgin will be with child and
> will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel, which means 'God
> with us' (Isaiah 7:14).
> Centuries later, Matthew records the birth of Jesus Christ: "All
> this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
> 'The virgin will be with child ...' (Matthew 1:22-23).
I don't understand why people keep quoting the bible as an arguement
for the existence of god. If the bible had any unique properties about it
that could not be defined by science, or if it defied all attempts and
definition, then it would make more sense. But it doesn't. It is a book,
like any other of the millions of books that people have written. PEOPLE
have written, I stress. God didn't even bother to sign it. By citing a
work wholly without remarkability within the scientific world and that
can be easily and obviously identified as a very ordinary and human
creation (thoughts conveyed in a written language), you are really
discrediting your own beliefs. There is nothing any less human or
scientific about the bible than there is any other book, so there seems
to be no theological connection to it, and therefore no reason to use it
as an arguement for the existence of God.
-J Ross
--
http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html
Subject: Re: The Concept of TIME
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 00:04:48
In article <1996Sep14.011711.11131@msi.com> Jan Bielawski wrote:
>
>I agree.
Einstein: "[We will] introduce another postulate ... namely, that
light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body."
>"Clock synchronisation" and "relative simultaneity" are defined
>notions -- they do not in fact form a part of SR per se and are
>not needed to define it.
Einstein: "The following relexions are based on the principle of
relativity [postulate 1] and on the constancy of the velocity of
light [postulate 2]. These two principles we now define as
follows:-- ...
"2. Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' [i.e. moving]
system of co-ordinates with the DETERMINED!!! velocity c,
whether the ray be emitted by a stationary [meaning stationary,
without quotation marks] or by a moving body. Hence
velocity = (light path)/(time interval)
WHERE TIME INTERVAL IS TO BE TAKEN
IN THE SENSE OF THE DEFINITION IN #1."
In #1 he presented his method of using light signals to set clocks
of a given system. IF they measure the one way relative speed of
light as c, they are "synchronous". If they do NOT, we adjust
clocks B accordingly. Once THAT has been done, his second light
principle kicks in. IT (the offset "synchronous" clocks is the sine
qui non not only of relativity, but of ALL relativistic equations.
Unless, as Jan seems to imply, the premises, definitions and
principles of the theory "do not in fact form a part of SR per se
and are not needed to define it". I find that rather wierd.
>
> Thus no amount of complaining about these two *definitions* can
>ever "hurt" SR.
Einstein and anyone else has a right to define his terms. We have
the option of adopting the defined methods or adopting Newton's
classical measuring tools: constant units of length in all
directions and all systems, constant units of time everywhere, and
clocks with identical settings everywhere. That we have no way to
set real clocks that way is no different from the fact that it is
physically impossible to set an infinite number of real clocks to
obey Einstein's defined method.
The Painted Pony not only accepts every postulate, definition and
assumption Einstein set forth, it USES them and measures their
results, in order for the single system to internally calculate its
own "absolute velocity" in empty space.
The issue isn't that the "definitions" are "wrong". It's that the
Minkyites don't understand, or don't wish to admit that they do
understand, the underlying PHYSical requirements that permit the
definitions to apply.
In the case of "synchronism" and thus his light "principle"
(which is NOT the same as his light "postulate"), both of them
require real and physical local offsets of -vx/c² seconds per
successive clock of the given "stationary" system, in which v is
the absolute velocity of the system in empty space, x is the
distance between any two such clocks as measured by this system
itself, and c is the speed of light in empty space, independently
of the state of motion of its source.
We are not rejecting the definition (even tho such clocks aren't
truly synchronous), we are trying to get the Minky fraternity
(which evidently includes everyone taught relativity in present
colleges) to understand what their own equations actually mean,
what they rest on and what makes them work.
glird
Subject: Comments. Was Re: Einstein Quotes v.5
From: glird@gnn.com (glird)
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 00:05:45
In article <51eina$c2t@orm.southern.co.nz> Colin Douthwaite wrote:
>"The really valuable thing is the Intuition. The intellect has
>little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in
>consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, and the
>solution comes to you and you don't know how or why."
> -- Albert Einstein
I call it a "bimp" (Peter Sellers for bump.) One analyzes a
problem and starts to construct a logical explanation or equation
that solves the problem. Knowing the result he wishes to reach and
the place from which to start, he begins from the start and moves
toward the desired conclusion. There comes a time when he gets
blocked. The "next step" doesn't logically follow. So he starts
from the desired conclusion (perhaps an equation) and works
backward, logical step by step. Just before he reaches the stopping
point, he gets stopped again. By an act of "intuition" he "bridges"
the gap. (What he really did is splice the two pieces together.)
Another analyst comes along and examines the logical proof. He
gets to the stopping point and continues to the end. A vague sense
of discomfort remains, however. He goes back and forth over the
logical steps and there comes a time when he "feels" the invisible
bimp. And almost always, when he studies down fine enough, he
discovers that the two pieces don't accurately fit each other, they
were soldered. Under very close scrutiny, the solder melts and the
pieces spring away from one another as tho snakebit.
An intuitive flash of discovery is a joy and a wonder. It solves
many problems. It opens new ways for others to think. It is almost
ALways wrong!! It has happened to me many times. That's why I'm
forever reviewing and feeling the woven strands of my own
logical-constructions, searching for possible bimps. That's why I'm
grateful to anyone that can find one I left in; so it can be
corrected and the overall theory thereby improved.
>Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.
Relativity is the collection of misconceptions acquired later.
>What does a fish know about the water in which he swims all his
>life ?
Unlike a physicist, it knows that water really exists and
completely fills the space through which it swims.
>The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
The most joyful thing we can experience is solving it. {The joy
is for the sake of Mankind, so to speak.}
>The most beautiful thing we can have is the mysterious.
A *little* knowlege is a dangerous thing! {As Physics has
demonstrated.}
>" I want to know God's thought,..... the rest are details.."
"Jerry! Let matter be compressible."
The rest IS details. I call them "constructions". there are a lot
of details. the hard part is getting the Devil out of them.
>When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the
>conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than any
>talent for abstract, positive thinking .- Albert Einstein
Well, he sure was right about that. One would have thought that
by now Physics would have come out of his fantasy land, tho.
>As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
>certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
>reality. -- Albert Einstein
He WAS an expert on Relativity, after all.
>The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday
>thinking.
Relativistic physics says common sense and human logic cannot be
trusted.
>The aim of science is, on the one hand, to achieve a complete as
>possible comprehension of the connections between sense experience
>and reality, and, on the other hand, the attainment of this aim by
>the use of a minimum number of primary concepts and relations
>(Seeking, as far as possible, logical unity in the world picture,
>i.e., paucity of logical elements).
THAT subject is Metaphysics. Modern physics rejects it. It is now
claimed that "reality" is a product of our measurements and how we
perform them.
>Of two theoretical systems, both of which are in agreement with
>experience, the one to be preferred is the one which, from the
>point of view of differential calculus, is the simpler and more
>transparent.
The one to be preferred is the one that fits common sense and
human logic, independently of any mathematics at all. Even
mathematicians and physicists often don't understand what their own
equations are saying. {"Calculating" and "understanding" are two
entirely different things.}
>The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
>comprehensible.
The most incomprehensible thing about Physics is that it still
can't understand the universe. {It never rethinks its roots.}
>"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from
>mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not
>thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and
>courageously uses his intelligence."
There is no such thing as a human "genius". Some of us are just
more persistent than others. Some of us refuse to accept "mystery"
as an answer.
>A table, a chair, a bowl of fruit and a violin; what else does a
>man need to be happy.
The Internet. ;-}
> Never lose a holy curiosity.
Never lose a holy skepticism re the basic theories of Physics.
>... learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm
>of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the
>community to which your later work belongs.
The latter IS the reason for the intense "joy" mentioned above.
>If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the
>tailor.
If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the
mathematical physicists.
>Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
>and I'm not sure about the former.
Nor I, the latter.
>The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe.
Wrong again, Albert.
>"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a
>faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the
>servant and has forgotten the gift."
We have created Physics, the insubordinate servant of Metaphysics.
>"It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern
>methods of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy
>curiosity of inquiry;"
Alas, under the influence of you and Minkowski, the miracle has
ended. {Not quite! ;}
>When the solution is simple, God is answering.
oh well
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
"Complexity is but the many faces of simplicity.
The road to complexity consists of just a bunch of simple steps.
They only look enormous if you skip the littlest ones."
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: "J. Ross"
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:00:50 -0700
Edward L. Mincher wrote:
>
> soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>
> >I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
> >find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
> >well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
> >not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
> >protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
>
> He is able. Have you ask?
> Eddy
How the hell do you know he is able? Did he tell you? I agree with the
former opinion. When you read the bible, if you keep in mind the mindset
of society at the time, and the social and philisophical standards of the
period, it makes perfect sense-- as a work of fiction. The bible was
written by several different people who opted to include their two cents
on what they thought God ought to be and how man ought to live. It is
impossible to disprove that, and it seems a very simple conclusion to
draw and is by far the most obvious. Since then, because of their
inherent need to explain what they cannot understand, humans have taken
to interpreting the bible not as a man-made thing but as work of divinity
by an all-powerful, infinite being who simply thought we ought to know
what the deal was before we died and spent eternity in burning flames. I
can see why, in an age where science was infantile and understanding of
the world was very limited, it would be possible to logically lend some
credence to this notion. But that was 2000 years ago, and we no longer
think the world is flat. So why do we hold on to our security blanket?
Because man has a basic need to believe that everything will turn out
okay. The bible provides man with a step-by-step guide to assure that
such will be the case. Seems simple enough...
>
> Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
> that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
> every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
> Heaven." (Didymos Judas Thomas)
Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
-J Ross
--
http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution (or science Vs religion)
From: "J. Ross"
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 23:00:16 -0700
Edward L. Mincher wrote:
>
> soliver@capecod.net (Suzane Oliver) wrote:
>
> >I am sorry, but I find this a total non-sequitur. I have read the bible, I
> >find it full of nonsense, and frequently full of viciousness and stupidity as
> >well. The bible is not the proof I require. The god of your bible clearly does
> >not care about everyone in this world. He is either non-existent, too weak to
> >protect his creations from things like ebola and hurricanes, or indifferent.
>
> He is able. Have you ask?
> Eddy
How the hell do you know he is able? Did he tell you? I agree with the
former opinion. When you read the bible, if you keep in mind the mindset
of society at the time, and the social and philisophical standards of the
period, it makes perfect sense-- as a work of fiction. The bible was
written by several different people who opted to include their two cents
on what they thought God ought to be and how man ought to live. It is
impossible to disprove that, and it seems a very simple conclusion to
draw and is by far the most obvious. Since then, because of their
inherent need to explain what they cannot understand, humans have taken
to interpreting the bible not as a man-made thing but as work of divinity
by an all-powerful, infinite being who simply thought we ought to know
what the deal was before we died and spent eternity in burning flames. I
can see why, in an age where science was infantile and understanding of
the world was very limited, it would be possible to logically lend some
credence to this notion. But that was 2000 years ago, and we no longer
think the world is flat. So why do we hold on to our security blanket?
Because man has a basic need to believe that everything will turn out
okay. The bible provides man with a step-by-step guide to assure that
such will be the case. Seems simple enough...
>
> Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so
> that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For
> every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of
> Heaven." (Didymos Judas Thomas)
Did you intend for that to be an example of biblical sexism?
-J Ross
--
http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/Nivejworld/index.html