Subject: Re: Size of the universe?
From: "Bruce C. Fielder"
Date: 18 Jan 1997 22:03:13 -0800
Another way of looking at this may be to picture our universe in
10^10^10^(or so) years, when all the available energy is evenly
distributed across what's left.
A quantum disturbance will inevitably arise which includes so much
energy that the recreation of our type of universe will occur. Pretty
much by definition, anyone who arises from the "new" universe won't be
able to see "outside". Of course, the formation of this "new" universe
will be preceeded by 10^(a BIG number) of smaller quantum fluctuations
from which no one will ever evolve to question why, but we canm discount
these, again by definition (if there's no one around to see it, it might
as well not exist).
This still begs the question of what is "outside", (you can't know so
don't ask), but is internally self consistent.
Also can't be proved or disproved, so mabye this thread should be
continued under "philosophy".
Subject: ** structure of reality ** article 3
From: gary.forbat@hlos.com.au (Gary Forbat)
Date: 19 Jan 97 19:10:29
31-12-96
revised 1-1-97
Notes on the structure of reality - article 3
(first draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (c) G. Forbat 1996
It may now be convenient to extend and qualify some of the main
concepts derived from the theory. In the previous essays I described
a process of material formation which provides the basis for the
observed material reality. The process operates through a building
procedure which involves a relationship between the physical
magnitudes of structures, that is, the volume they occupy, and the
rapidity of their internal cycles. Moreover, the process is universal,
ranging over an infinity of scale tranformations from the most
miniscule sizes to the most gigantic imaginable, in fact infinite in
both directions.
But it is not a single dimensional process involving only scale. What
is peculiar about the sequence is that the smaller structures of
the micro world are highly dynamic due to an extremely rapid internal
cycle operating to hold it together, and the smaller the structure,
the more dynamic it is. Dynamics refers to the rapidity of the
cyclical pulse. As particles break down to the cyclical funtion of a
number of smaller components, those components will have a
significantly more rapid internal cyclical rate than those of the
larger structure they contribute to forming. The atomic structure,
for instance, comes into being due to the cyclical function of the
electron in relation to the nucleus. The composition of the electron
has not yet been penetrated, but the possibilities are few. Either it
is composed of a very large number of tiny parts, or maybe fewer but
of a much higher dynamicity. The nucleus, on the other hand, is known
to break down to combinations of smaller, but much more dynamic parts
known as 'quarks'. Quarks themselves must reduce to even smaller
components, with cyclical rates of increasingly more rapidity. The
many qualities of quarks testify to a variance of configurations.
The quantum proportions testify to this very nature. With the
process of reduction infinite, so with it is the increase in
dynamicity.
We are fortunate enough to be able to observe two vastly different
aspect of the material process. The micro scales of phenomena present
an integrated view of average behaviour over many billions of cycles.
Imagine how the solar system would look if billions of planetary
cycles were pressed into a single second. Theoretically at least, it
would be possible to simulate the effect by taking a long term video
of the solar system in motion over many billions of years, and then
replaying the tape over a matter of seconds. Undoubtedly we could
make computer image simulations of it much more easily.
Then there is the almost static view of the process presented
by the structures of the large scale in their 'real time' cyclical
movements. Our viewpoint of stellar formations is fashioned from the
workings of the atomic structure, and compared to the speed and
capacity of the functioning of our instruments and sensing apparatus,
the stellar structures are both extremely large and so slowly evolving
as to be almost static. But now, let's venture to reconstruct in its
broadest principles the consequences of this infinite sequence of
structuring, not only to determine the status of our own viewpoint
within it, but to attempt to discover general principles that may be
directly affecting us and we are not yet aware of. Firstly, going up
or down in scale, the specific attributes of structure types that
occur depend on the interactive possibilities afforded on each
particular scale. Solar systems of one type or another, whether
binary or planetary are the almost exclusive forms that may be found
at the scale of the direct interaction between the most massive
atomic conglomerations. At this scale of consideration the universe
can be seen to be interspersed with stellar and planetary matter in
mutual interaction as solar systems. But we know that solar systems,
in turn, almost exclusively congregate in the larger massive
formations of galaxies, occuring in a small number of types. Galaxies
themseves form clusters with unique characteristics types of their own.
On the galactic scale of consideration the universe can be seen as
interspersed almost exclusively by galactic formations. Certainly they
are the only long term stable forms to be found at this scale.
In fact we can apply this principle at any level of magnitude. Thus
the universe is interspersed by atoms at the atomic scale of
consideration but with planetary/stellar matter on a larger scale.
So then, as the process builds to infinity, with each structure type
occuring in forms and attributes appropriate to interaction and
formation possibilities at that scale, each transformation produces
unique structure types, and there is certainly no likelyhood of the
same structure type occuring at different levels either in the micro
and macro scales.
Both the reduction and its reverse process of expansion runs to infinity,
with the roots of each or any structure traceable in infinite steps
toward smaller scales. But this does not work in the reverse toward the
macro. The reason is that not all structures continue to build outward
forever. Large sections of it terminate at a certain level, as in the
case of the structures that intersperse in our seemingly empty spatial
regions. My findings are that these regions are far from empty.
The entire spatiality in fact contains a fine invisible mist of matter,
structured at its highest level to an interactive fabric to form
a micro infrastructure which sets the framework for the workings of
our atomic based material environment. But only those elements
which participate in further building processes to form the atomic
base can get through to build outward to form structures on larger
scales. The rest, indeed a very large portion of micro material,
is lost to further structuring. In this infinite chain of
expansions it should be expected that terminal stages are reached
from time to time. Nevertheless, what remains after each of these
mass terminations is still adequate to reconstruct other equally
thickly populated levels of structures on much larger scales.
So what is the status of our material system amid this infinity of
transformation levels ? On the micro end we observe the process through
a very high integration, but on the macro end it tends toward static.
With the two directions reflecting merely different aspects of a
single process, our observational access results from the circumstances
of our evolution as sensing beings and our relation to the material
interaction that brought it about. We are a direct product of our
micro infrastructure and the atomic base. The question remains
whether ours is the only material environment possible or whether
there may be others ? Perhaps other configurational circumstances can
exist among an infinity of types which produces alternative material
bases.
We need firstly to examine the general circumstances which must be
present for a material environment. Obviously the most evident
is the versatility of our atomic structure. It is extremely stable
and durable with a systematic regularity as well as being greatly
variable in chemical combination. It is truly like a wonder particle
which goes on to create a tremendously varied and interactive world
of material activity to which we all bear witness. Surely it would
be fairly rare to find a scale level of structuring where such a
useful type of particle is found. Nevertheless it stands to reason
that in a infinite chain of transformations other similarly efficient
structure types are bound to occur. some may indeed be even more
flexible than the atom, or perhaps somewhat less so, but still able
to generate a causal evolution in its conglomerate forms to create an
alternative material environment rivalling ours. Of course on the micro
scales a funtional world would evolve extremely rapidly compared to
ours, and on the macro scales the events would take on gigantic
proportions, evolving very slowly by our way of looking at it.
G. Forbat
to be continued in the next article
Subject: ** structure of reality ** article 1
From: gary.forbat@hlos.com.au (Gary Forbat)
Date: 19 Jan 97 19:11:49
Notes on the Structure of Reality. article 1.
(1st draft)
by Gary Forbat
Copyright (C) G. Forbat 1996
In these times of constant change and rapid development it is not often
that we have time to reflect on the fundamental questions about reality.
Descartes had long ago brought attention to our personal consciousness
as the first evidence for reality. We find ourselves in a world of
perceptions, and the phenomena we become aware of, as presented by the
senses, indicates some sort of regularity in the world that appears
on the outside of this introspection. As we now know, there is a huge
gap between Descartes' proposition and the 'outer' reality. To arrive
at some sort of plausible affirmation of an objective material world
outside our consciousness requires one to follow a fairly long and
sometimes arduous sequence of arguments, with serious challenges along
the way posed by sceptics who criticise the validity of our methodology
and logical approach, phenomenalist who reject the 'outer' world
altogether, and others among who are those who claim that whilst an
'outer' reality exists, our images of it represent something quite
unlike what they seem at face value to be. At this stage I will not get
involved in these debates other than to mention that after having
considered all these contrary views and the arguments put forth to
support them, I duly dismissed them in favour of the scientific realism
I espouse.
My aim at present is to provide a fairly conscise outline of a theory
of reality which can deal with most of the deeper questions that have
so far eluded us. The starting point I choose is where the philosophical
enquiry leaves off: with the affirmation of the existence of the physical
world, that is, a reality on the outside of consciousness exists and
our sense impressions of it bears a close representative correspondence
to the way things are in it. These may be said to be the initial
presuppositions of the theory, though I emphasise again to have already
critically evaluated them. Apart from this beginning I wish to make no
further assumptions, and will continue onward and draw all further
conclusions from well established observational premises.
As things stand, there is so far only an affirmation of the material
world of physicality, but there is nothing yet derived about its
specific nature. The first task would be to find its most general
features. At this stage we are looking for the broadest parameters.
Fortunately nowadays there is a sizeable body of scientifically
established observational evidence we may draw on to establish the
common features apparent in all. It is important though to treat this
evidence in its 'raw' state, free from theoretical presuppositions
other than those involved in the establishment of the fact of the
observation. If it is not clear enough as to what this 'uninterpreted'
state of the evidence consists of, it should become obvious as I
proceed.
In considering the entire body of observational evidence, perhaps the
first and most obvious common feature is the presence of three
dimensionality. A little thought about its continuity and endurance
can add the fourth time dimension in fusion with it. I am well aware
of debates on dimensionality, and shall have the opportuninty to deal
with it in the due course of the debate when difficulties of
interpretation of more specific evidence arises, but for the moment
there occurs no such problem. With this in mind, the tentative
impression of the evidence is clear in affirming the existence of an
enduring three dimensionality. But as we further examine the evidence,
we find two types of configuration sharing in these time/dimensional
features. One is the occurence of space without matter, the other is
matter itself. The existence of energy and its status is not
immediately evident, though a solution presents itself on further
examination. For the moment let's examine the two main factors of
space and matter. We have so far established the universality of
three-dimension/time factor. Some regions of this three dimensionality
contains what appears as an emptiness, whilst others contain what
appears as matter. It is obvious enough that only some regions contain
matter, but it is not at all clear whether space also underlies these
regions or whether space is actually displaced where matter exists.
If space did underlay these regions then matter does not 'displace',
but rather 'occupies' space. This would mean that spatiality is a more
general feature than matter, with matter dependent on space but space
not being dependent on matter. Intuitively this may seem obvious enough,
but nowadays the very mention of the word 'intuition' creates an
impression of triviality. Indeed, the present generation has sunk so
deep into the web of abstraction that it will be difficult to extricate
it from its entrenched confusions.
We have now arrived at a seemingly viable definition of space as a three
dimensional enduring and extended room in which material events occur.
In fact it may be seen as a superfluity, since the former definition
of three dimensionality itself already implies just that. But if that
is the case, then space (or rather 'spatiality' if the time dimension
is included) is benign, that is, not interactive, but merely and simply
'room', or rather, a domain of emptiness. Within this domain exists
tangible matter as well as energy. If spatiality is just room, it cannot
interact with either the matter or the energy that occupies it, for it
has no qualities other than time/dimensionality. Yet matter and energy
are interactive, in fact interchangeable, so that these two aspects
form a single entity in various formats. If I may, for the sake of
clarity, call tangible matter as 'matter' and non tangible sources such
as energy its 'processes'. So then, we have matter and its processes
operating within the spatiality provided. Of course, we have hardly
touched upon either of these issues. Spatiality and matter should be
subject of separate analysis, with space taking precedence as the
most general factor.
( During 1995 I published an essay on spatiality. I will now refer the
reader to it and will post this article below. Article two of this
series will assume familiarity with this essay )
G. Forbat
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: Ian Robert Walker
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 08:35:50 +0000
In article <32ddf066.1015272@news.hkstar.com>, Alex Tsui
writes
>I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
>from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
>long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted.
You can not have such a rod in SR.
> if 1 of the
>person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
>away immediately sense the change? IF he was able to do that, then
>wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
The pull or push on one end of the rod could only propagate along it
slower that the speed of light, in fact a lot slower. When you push it
the atoms at the end would be displaced, this displacement can only
effect the next atoms after the displacement has propagated to it, and
this tales time.
--
Ian Walker G8ILZ on packet as G8ILZ@GB7SRC
I have an IQ of 6 million, | How will it end? | Mostly | Out of cheese
or was it 6? | In fire. | harmless | error
Subject: Re: Help Me
From: Mike Lepore
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:38:58 -0500
STindle428 wrote:
>
> I am a six grade student and I need to know about Newton's Third Law in
> plain English please. I would also like to know how it applies to bouncy
> balls.
When a bouncing ball hits the floor, it get partially squashed
flat. It has a tendency to return to its original round shape,
which is called restoring force. The ball applies this force
to the floor. By Newton's 3rd, there must be a force by the
floor on the ball, equal to the force by the ball on the floor.
That force which the floor applies to the ball is what makes the
bounce back up.
Similar thing when you walk. Your foot pushes against the
ground. Since foot pushes on ground, by Newton's 3rd, the ground
must also push on foot. The second one, the force of the ground
against your foot, makes you take a step forward.
--
Mike Lepore
To email me, please use this link:
Subject: Re: Mach's Paradox?
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 1997 12:06:42 GMT
Im Artikel <32e1489c.13746656@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, ericf@central.co.nz
(Eric Flesch) schreibt:
>(in plain English, what's the difference between a
>spinning top and one which does not spin).
Well, thanks, got that :-)
>Mach does this by noting that the non-spinning state does not move
>with respect to the distant stars. He jumps from this to the
>conclusion that the distant stars *control* the inertial state by some
>mysterious controlling force. This force is dubbed "Mach's
>Principle".
Isn't that the same as Newton's bucket?
>The problem with Mach's Principle is that the force cannot be
>detected. While gravity decreases from its source by the inverse
>square (g = function(1/r^2)), Mach's principle requires that the
>distant stars exert their influence by no less than the straight
>inverse ( F = function(1/r)), otherwise the stars cannot do the job.
>No conveyance, or any theoretical mechanism for this mysterious force,
>has ever been formulated or observed.
Now here comes a real dummy argument :-)
Wherever we are in the Universe, there's gravity. Which means that we find
a certain structure of space, geodesics (which I envision a bit like those
photographs of an air channel with those smoke lines bending around
objects etc.). And any object in free fall is moving 'along' these lines,
thus from the view of the object, the local structure is at a standstill.
Any rotation would mean, that the parts of this given object (molecules,
whatever) are moving / accelerated WRT this structure.
Thus I'm forced to define rotation as being relative to the given null
geodesic at this part of space.
Mmmh. If this is a valid definition, I can derive a prediction, which is
testable: as the earth is rotating wrt it's geodesic, a gyro should show
this. Well it does, as we all know (Foucaults pendulum). Now comes the
tricky thing: the same gyro showing the daily rotation (i.e. the rotation
WRT the earth's null geodesic around the sun) should not react to the
yearly rotation around the sun, as my definition tells him, that it's at a
standstill wrt the null geodesic path, although an outward observer would
see it following a huge circle. Thus the axle pointing in direction of the
path around the sun should remain parallel (tangential) to this big
circle. But Mach's principle would tell us, that the gyro should stay
directed at the fixed stars, thus make exactly one turn WRT the earth's
path. That should have been subject to measurement long ago, thus someone
should be able to tell me about it :-)
(Just thought that a satellite is to the earth, what the earth is to the
sun, what the sun is to the galaxy etc! Thus a gyro in a satellite
following its null geodesic around the earth whould have to stay pointing
at e.g the Cassiopeia all the way round the earth, if Mach is right. If
instead it's longitudinal axis follows the satellites path - well.....)
>The bottom line is that Mach's Principle is ridiculous, but modern
>Physics clings to it as it is a foundation of General Relativity,
where is the link? How is GR based on Mach's principle?
Thanks for bothering.
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 1997 12:06:45 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>>>Anyway, lots of physicists get involved
>>>with nonsense when they get older.
>>
>>This unfortunately is not only true for physicists.
>>Quantum back-action at work?
>>
>Didn't think about it, but it sounds like an likely
>explanation. Shall we ask Sarfatti ?-)
No way. If it's true, it's yet at work, which makes it false, thus ....,
ha! A new paradox! The SMM-Paradox! (Wondering what MM stands for ? ;-)
Cheerio
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 1997 12:06:49 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>Multiculturalism is just an updated version of what the Romans called
>"divide and conquer". That's why politicos love it.
This way the roman empire would have gone to pieces in a few generations.
First it says: "Divide et impera", meaning "divide and RULE". That is
after you _conquered, and says you should divide the power between
different placeholders to keep it at a balance and thus rule with the
slightest effort.
Second: It most probably is not an antique Roman proverb, but just the
latin form of a saying ascribed to Louis XI. of France by Prosper Merimee
"Diviser pour regner" meaning rather "Divide TO rule...". It sometimes is
wrongly ascribed to Machiavelli too.
Third: The good Roman rule was to leave the people their cultural
behaviour completely without touching it (think of Pilatus leaving it to
the locals to decide). This is very different to the american practise to
overrun foreign cultures with coke, chewing gum, fast food and Hollywood
movies. I do not say that they do it on purpose, but unfortunately it is
even more effective. One day someone will start to blow up McDonalds,
advertising agencies and commercial TV stations....
BTW: Karadcicz's PhD is in psychology (someone asked for it).
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: A case against nuclear energy?
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 19 Jan 1997 12:06:55 GMT
Im Artikel , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
schreibt:
>If I would be a military planner, at that time, I would definitely
>give industrial sites a higher priority. But, as a side remark,
>most of the gas chambers were in Eastern Europe which was
>out of the reach of allied bombers till very late in the war.
Just look at air photographs around Dachau taken by RAF: the (Siemens?)
industrial site completely demolished, the ovens and gas chamber just one
mile away very well detectable and intact. It would have taken 1/10th of
the bomb load to destroy these just the same. In 1944 IIRC. I only argue,
that if the Allies had wanted to save some hundred thousand to million
souls, they could have. The german death machinery had it's highest rates
in 1944, when air attacks on civilian targets were well under way. And it
also is well known that the British command knew all about it.
That doesn't excuse the slaughterers in any way. It's only that I despise
bystanders just the same - and not only yesterday: why is this
slaughterer Mladic still free? And Saddam Hussein? I just _cannot_
understand it.
Sorry to disagree.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: Michael Bonnes
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:26:59 GMT
p.com.au> <01bc04af$33191140$5b027ecc@jgoulden.snu.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"John D. Goulden" wrote:
>
>> Alex Tsui wrote:
>> >
>> > I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
>> > from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
>> > long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted. if 1 of the
>> > person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
>> > away immediately sense the change? IF he was able to do that, then
>> > wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
>
>Surprised no one has caught this. Your rod is mostly empty space; the
>interactions between neighboring atoms is governed by their electromagnetic
>fields, which propogate at c. A signal that betins at one end of the rod
>will require ten years to traverse the rod. This would be true even if the
>rod was made of some exotic material like neutronium.
>
Actually, the interactions between neighboring atoms is governed
by their interconnecting electronic bonds -- the spring analogy.
If you push on the rod, a phonon of mechanical energy moves down the
rod at a velocity considerably less than that of c. -- Mike
Subject: Re: Brain Locuses theory, not singular
From: the_lab@vvm.com (Upsilon)
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:53:04 GMT
On 18 Jan 1997 22:31:19 GMT, Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> And another experience that happened two days ago. I was walking to
>the computer building and the winter sun was out and it was a bright
>day and a lot of activity was going on around me, people walking and
>cars moving. And I made a quick glance at a person in the distance
>walking away, so very quickly and I thought I detected not cold breath
>but a slight bit of smoke. And I wanted to see if my hunch was correct
>that it was not a cold breath but a smoke. And sure enough a few
>seconds later I could see that it was smoke and not breath on a winter
>day. And I thought to myself, are photons the ultimate information
>givers in the world around us. That is, with so much activity going on
>in the world, are their any other particles that can give us so much
>information in such a rapid order as photons? Not even electrons can do
>as good a job of information giving as photons.
He was smoking.
How do you know it was smoke, and why would this corroborate your
theory? How would these photons induce an oxidation-reduction
reaction of such significant proportion to allow your cognizance?
Upsilon
Upsilon
the_lab@vvm.com
http://www.vvm.com/~sluepke/upsipage.htm
,,Everyone can't be right, but everyone decides -- compromise"
-- Upsilon
Subject: Re: FTL Comm
From: Andromeda
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:29:32 -0500
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Alex Tsui wrote:
> >
> > I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
> > from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
> > long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted. if 1 of the
> > person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
> > away immediately sense the change? IF he was able to do that, then
> > wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
Considering this was possible, concrete thinking would say yes, they
would feel it immediatley. However concrete thinking, while seems
logical, isn't always so. When you have something that stretches such a
distance, quantum physics are bound to show up. I'm not a quantum
physisist, however I think the person on the other end would not feel the
movement immediatley. My reason, the movement would probably manifest
itself as a shockwave, and as we know, shockwaves take time to travel. If
this shockwave were to last for 10 light years distance, and make it to
the other end, I would think that somewhere along the rod there would be
some kind of time/space disturbance. The again I could be completely
wrong and am open to any other suggestions:)
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Andromeda
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:33:16 -0500
Michael Cubstead wrote:
>
> In article <5bpb1b$ofu@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Hibnar
> wrote:
>
> > In article <32ddf066.1015272@news.hkstar.com> Alex Tsui,
> > alextsui@hkstar.com writes:
> > >I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
> > >from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
> > >long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted. if 1 of the
> > >person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
> > >away immediately sense the change? IF he was able to do that, then
> > >wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
> >
> > A ³rod² 10 LY long would most likly have more mass then any 2 planets.
> > safe bet they would move first
>
> An interesting thought, would the bar have enough strucual ridgity ( I cant
> spell tonight) to with stand it's on gravidy, or would it fold up from it's
> own gravity drawing the end toward the middle?
It would probably fold up on itself, however I think he was implying, for
arguments sake, that it did have enough structual ridgity:)
Subject: Re: Resonance re: Thought Experiment
From: gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu (Timothy Ronald Volk)
Date: 19 Jan 1997 08:57:14 -0500
In article <5boa6u$mtb@suba01.suba.com>,
Ronald M. Carrier wrote:
>
>>But I'd never heard that soldiers on a bridge were expected to randomize
>>their steps. Can anybody who has been to boot camp verify that?
Sure can. The most valid reason I've heard is that in-step marching on
permanent bridges can be detected much further away and the relative size
easily determined (company, battalion, ...). Also, portable (temporary)
bridges are not the most stable and marching across them is a sure way to
cause someone to lose his or her balance. Then, there is always the wear
and tear caused by marching as well.
--
Not your average CS major from Georgia Tech...
--
Tim Volk gt2623a@prism.gatech.edu | AS w/Honors, Nuclear Engineering
USMC Vet Rock Musician Objectivist | Future Ga Tech grad, or bust...
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: Chris Marriott
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 10:15:56 +0000
In article <32e0b0a4.5197858@news.crosslink.net>, Bob Casanova
writes
>What the hell is a Biro?
A plastic ball-point pen, immensely popular in the UK. Many people use
the word "Biro" to mean "Pen", rather like you Americans tend to use the
word "Xerox" when we'd say "photocopy".
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, U.K. e-mail: chris@skymap.com
Creators of fine astronomy software for Windows.
For full details, visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all? (A slight deviation)
From: "John DeHaven"
Date: 19 Jan 1997 11:46:22 GMT
Christopher Hillman wrote in article
<5bpurr$2u3@nntp1.u.washington.edu>...
> On the other hand, according to the same model, if we stopped
> hovering and allowed ourselves to fall radially into the hole,
> we would pass through the horizon without noticing anything
> particular and quickly find the gravitational forces (radially
> expansive and tangentially compressive) increasing without limit,
> and in finite time what was left of our corporeal remains would
> impact the singularity. If we tried to avoid this fate after
> passing through the horizon, we could only DECREASE the time
> until our deaths (since by not resisting the fall, we follow
> a geodesic, the path of longest "length", whereas by accellerating
> away from this geodesic we are following a SHORTER world line
> which cannot avoid eventually striking the singularity.
--
What an interesting thread! Makes me want to ask some related questions.
1) The point of view of almost everyone in almost every non-suicidal
situation is for sure "outside" the S-radius of a black hole, and hovering
isn't necessary. Looking thru a telescope would be good enough to observe
it. If I understand this thread right, it is hard to see how a black hole
would seem ever to "grow" from this viewpoint. Time would "stop" (from our
viewpoint) for the thing the instant the developing black hole condensed
enough to "close up" and form an S-radius. This would seem to imply that
every black hole is some kind of fossil of the instant of its creation.
(Being really simplistic about it and excluding Hawking radiation, etc.)
Infalling matter (from our point of view) wouldn't _reach_ the radius. And
if time (from our point of view) has stopped at the radius, it necessarily
would be (from our point of view) changeless. That means it could not
expand (from our point of view). But it does (from our point of view), or
so they say. How?
2) And for that matter I don't understand Hawking radiation. Stop me if I'm
wrong, but it boils down to some occasional quantum virtual particle pairs
forming near the surface _just so_ that they don't recombine again, but one
of the pair is captured by the hole and the other escapes. But if, in such
an event, one particle _enters_ the hole, it would seem that it should
_increase_ the mass and the hole would _grow_ instead of shrink as a result
of Hawking radiation! Net gain for the universe: a more massive hole and
more radiation outside the hole! An interesting effect, if true, but I'm
sure this is wrong somehow. I even think I knew why once, but right now
I've forgotten.
3) Everyone talks about the singularity at the middle, of zero size, and
the very much non-zero S-radius that defines the "surface." What's in
between? If we managed to dive through, we surely could not cover that
distance instantly, FTL-wise. What _would_ our (or some godlike-being's)
experience be as we (or it) fell further towards that singularity? What is
the spacetime picture inside the hole? _Is_ there even any "distance?" Why
_isn't_ the volume between the singularity and the S-radius populated with
falling stuff? Or would it be?
4) I am skeptical (at the moment) about singularities, at least as they are
usually characterized. A singularity is a purely relativistic idea. But as
a blob of stuff collapses towards a limiting size of zero, it seems to me
that it must (eventually) collapse through epochs where _quantum_ spacetime
effects completely overwhelm relativistic spacetime effects. I don't think
you can even speak coherently about a "point in space" in quantum spacetime
at very small scales. Is that right? If so, then there would be some
super-intense, and very "singular," quantum-foam thingamajig at the center
of a black hole, but it would not be a dimensionless point.
My header has been modified to attempt to foil junk-mail robots.
johnd@mozart.inet.co.th
Subject: Re: What is the Cause of Time Dilation?
From: ljgier@kdsi.net
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:36:13 GMT
Wave motion along the radial axis.
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 07:14:29 GMT, savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis
Savain) wrote:
>In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
>Kennelly) wrote:
>
>[Reposting via new server. Sorry if double post]
>
>>In article <32cfba51.456049@Pubnews.demon.co.uk>,
>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>In article , briank@ibm.net (Brian
>>>Kennelly) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <32cdd17f.3188322@news.pacificnet.net>,
>>>>savainl@pacificnet.net (Louis Savain) wrote:
>>>>>In article <32C9407F.39E9@cdc.com>, Dave Monroe
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Gilham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm moving along the time axis at about 1 second per second. How
>>>>>>> about you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It all depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes a second is gone all
>>>>>>too quickly, other times it seems to drag on . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not depend on anything. There is no motion along the time
>>>>>axis for the simple reason that the time axis does not exist and the
>>>>>time axis does not exist because it is a entirely circular concept. It
>>>>>should be used only in an abstract fashion for the convenience of
>>>>>visualization. Sorry if the spacetime physicists forget to mention
>>>>>that obvious fact in their books. The glaring circularity of motion
>>>>>along the time axis notwithstanding, an awful lot of people cannot
>>>>>seem to grasp it. Could it be that the teachers themselves didn't see
>>>>>fit to mention it because they themselves never saw it. Such a waste
>>>>>of minds! Wake up folks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I do not agree that the time axis does not exist. In what sense is a time
>>>>axis a circular concept?
>>>
>>> As long as the time axis is used as a mere visualization or mapping
>>>tool, there is no problem. That is exactly what it should be used
>>>for. The time axis becomes circular when it is reified, i.e., made
>>>part of reality. Once you do that, then you must explain the motion
>>>of bodies along the time axis since obviously they cannot stay at one
>>>point in spacetime. I've already given a simple irrefutable proof for
>>>why it is impossible or illogical to move along the time axis. Read
>>>it again.
>>
>>I've not seen such a proof.
>
> You're not looking hard enough. Could it be because you don't want
>to find it? You even responded to the post where I wrote it. Denial
>mode eh?
>
>>It seems much more illogical to not move along the time axis than to move
>>along it.
>
> It may seem so to you because you apparently have been raised and
>nurtured on spacetime. Too bad. It remains that nothing can move
>along either a time axis or in spacetime. Denying this truth will not
>make it go away. It is as strong and immovable as the rock of
>Gibraltar. Stronger, as a matter of fact.
>
>>If your argument is that motion along the time axis is impossible because the
>>time axis doesn't exist, you will have to give a rationale.
>
> That is not my argument at all. My argument is simply that the time
>axis cannot exist in reality because nothing can move along the time
>axis, contrary to what one would normally expect if such an axis
>existed. Why the obvious attempt at misrepresenting my position?
>
>>> The problem for GR physicists is that their standard explanation of
>>>gravity as a physical effect of spacetime curvature becomes highly
>>>suspect if spacetime is abstract and non-existent. GR physicists
>>>should stop preaching their "spacetime geometry causes gravity" gospel
>>>because it makes them look bad. Gravity is not the result of
>>>spacetime geometry because, again, spacetime is an abstract collection
>>>of events. Concepts like geodesics and inertial paths in spacetime
>>>are simply dumb. Very dumb. And no amount of rationalization or
>>>obfuscation is going to change that. Too bad some of you are having
>>>trouble grasping this. And also, too bad if some of you take offense.
>>
>>I don't take offense, but I disagree with you strongly.
>
> You have chosen poorly which side of the argument to be on. You
>have chosen the loosing side.
>
>> The assertion that
>>spacetime is non-existent appears to be false, so the rest of your argument
>>doesn't matter.
>
> It only *appears* to be false but it is as true as the fact that you
>are reading these lines. Spacetime is not just non-existent. It is
>non-existent because it involves a glaringly illogical concept called
>"motion along the time axis." One day you'll see it. Right now, you
>are just blinded by your training.
>
>>> It's important here to say a few words about time. Time is a simple
>>>abstract ratio as seen in t = d/v. This is not just an equation. It
>>>is an identity. Time is inversely proportional to motion or change.
>>>If one chooses one's units of measurement properly, one can change the
>>>equation for time to be simply t = 1/v. Time is then merely the
>>>inverse of velocity. I like to look at it as the inverse of change.
>>>Time does not exist separately from change. It is an abstract concept
>>>obtained mathematically from change. If there is no change, there is
>>>no time. Of the two, only change or velocity is observed to exist.
>>>That is all one needs in order to get 1/v.
>>
>>Various kinds of change and different motions occur at different rates, but
>>they can be described by a single concept of time.
>
> So? Time is always derived by applying the equation t = d/v. As
>much as you would want to change that fact, it is not going to happen.
>You can scream till you are blue in the face that time is obtained
>from clocks, but it still remains that t = d/v. Only motion is
>measured. Motion is fundamental. Time is derived. The amazing thing
>here is that, here we have a clear case of something (time) that is
>never observed, and all the while the physicists who would normally
>rail against the existence of absolute motion, are willing to go
>against their own edict, by assuming its (that of time) existence.
>Strange thing, this physics. Politics as usual, I guess.
>
>> Time would seem to be
>>more fundamental even if the measurement of time requires the observation
>>of change.
>
> I fail to see how that follows from the above premise. Besides,
>this argument is moot since the time axis is illogical to start with.
>Here a new concept for you: There is only the "now". Well, it is not
>so new after all.
>
>>> So why does one sense the existence passage of time even if one is
>>>not moving spatially in any of the 3 dimensions. Well since time
>>>cannot be divorced from motion or change, and since the time axis is
>>>illogical, one must look for change elsewhere. To explain this
>>>intuitive notion of time, I postulate the existence of a fourth
>>>*spatial* dimension along which the entire known universe is moving.
>>
>>So, you replace the time dimension with an unobservable spatial dimension?
>>How does that improve things?
>
> I am not replacing the time dimension at all. The time axis is not
>only *not* observable, it cannot logically exist. A spatial dimension
>would be a monumental improvement because, unlike the time axis, it is
>logically consistent.
>
>>> How did time get to be given a separate existence of its own even in
>>>the face of an unforgiving circularity, is one of those curiosities of
>>>science that future historians and psychologists will probably study
>>>and debate for centuries to come.
>>
>>The concept of the separate existence of time is (at least) as old as Man,
>>and does not involve circularity.
>
> So say you but the circularity is there for a lot of people to see
>including your fellow physicists. I don't see you contradicting them.
>Why pick on me alone? Pick also on those physicists who have had the
>courage to acknowledge that nothing can move in spacetime. My hat is
>off to them. Bravo! Sorry if you can't see it Mr. Kennelly. I pray
>that one day, the spacetime scales will fall from your eyes and that
>you too will see the illogic of spacetime. Believe me, it is a truly
>liberating experience. New wonderful vistas of progress and
>understanding suddenly open up out of the thick fog of a myriad
>obsolete ideas. It is akin to being lost in the wilderness for ages
>and then suddenly being found. It could be a Zen type thing. I don't
>know. :-)
>
>> What is new in this century is the unification of space and time.
>
> Which is the biggest nonsense to ever come out of science. Very sad
>when you think about the wasted minds and the wasted time.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Louis Savain
Subject: Re: Relativity & Time
From: ljgier@kdsi.net
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:36:17 GMT
Time is non-linear. There is no such thing in nature as an ertial
frame. There are no constant velocities. Furthermore, time is not
a true scalar quantity, it is a complex tensor quantity with
directional properties.
See my web site. http://www.kdsi.net/~ljgier/
On Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:27:21 +0100, Robert van Gulik
wrote:
>To Paiva wrote:
>>
>> I would like to make a question to somebody who knows something
>> about Relativity.
>>
>> Imagine an object running at a speed near to speed of the light.
>> Relatively to our reference point, its time is runnig slower than ours.
>>
>> On the other hand, relatively to its reference point, our time
>> is running slower than its time.
>>
>> How can these two facts occur at the same time?
>>
>> Am I thinking correctly?
>>
>> Thanks for your answer.
>>
>> topaiva@mail.telepac.pt
>
>You are right. observers in an inertial frame, moving with a constant
>velocity, do see the clocks of other inertial frames run slower!!!!!!!!!
>The trick is that you compare the time indicated on one clock in
>the moving inertial frame with the time different on TWO DIFFERENT
>clocks in your own rest frame........
>
>Please note that these statements are only true when comparing two
>inertial frames. If you don't take this in mind you would meet
>problems like the twin-paradox. For accelarating frames the
>transformation laws have to be adapted, but then we are
>talking about general relativity instead of special relativity.....
>
>.....
>
>Robert
>e-mail:gulik@lorentz.leidenuniv.nl
Subject: Re: EPR Solution 4D-Space!
From: ljgier@kdsi.net
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:36:20 GMT
Quantum mecahnics and relativity, along with modern physics and
classical physics are reconciled by the concept of variable
dimensionality. We live in an infinitely dimensioned space, universe.
On 15 Jan 1997 06:54:24 GMT, gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney)
wrote:
> A Solution to the Einstien-Podolsky Paradox. This is a solution based on 4D Space.If a Flatlander lived in his 2D universe which consisted of a flat plane and we intersected it with a circular ring which say was spring loaded so we
> could make it bigger or smaller at will.Now if we laid this rind flat on his plane,he would see a circle,if we now lift the ring out of his plane so it is inclined 90 degrees to his plane he would see two points (or dots),seperated by the dia of the ring
>.We then rotate the ring(say clockwise),perpendicular to the plane,he would observe them moving in unsion in his space,but not conected.He would conclude they obayed some law(such as a force between them that made them move in unsion).He then positons him
>self on one of the dots(lets say one is blue and the other red,he's on the blue dot).He can't visalize why they move together as he is in 2D-space.We then make the dia of the ring larger so the dots are further apart,he still can see both and that they ar
>e moving in unsion.Everytime the blue dot moves so dose the red dot.Then we slowly increase the dia so it's dia is 6x10^8M in dia(The speed of light in his universe is 3x10^8M/S,also we can rotate the ring as slowly as we like). We now reverse the rotatio
>n of the ring CCW and although he cant observe both the blue dot (which he is on),and the red dot simaltanesly he just knows that the red dot has also reversed it's direction.But he reasons how can this be since information can't travel between them at gr
>eater than the speed of light?? Note now that the flatlander now has a paradox the same as the Einstien-Podolsky paradox.Two pairs are communicating information(as QM would predict),but faster than the speed of light)??.Of course what he dont know is that
> the pairs are connected in 3D-Space.If he did he can conclude that Reletivity and Quantum Mech are not in violation of each other!!!.Thus we have a resolution of this paradox.The same would apply if we had this paradox in our 3D-Space and concluded that
>the pairs are connected in 4D Space. In working out this solution I also noticed a peculiar property of partical spin in 4 or higher dimensional spaces.It goes as follows:--- First lets discuss some aspects
>of an n-dimensional object intersecting an (N-1)-dimensional space. I'll do this by going back to the flatlander and our 3-space.In the flatlander's universe his circle is the same to him as our sphere(Keep this in mind) in that he can't enter his circle
>without breaking it's circumference(lets assume his circle is not solid inside like we would have if we shaded the circle inside).To us in 3-space we could step inside his circle without breaking the circumference due to the fact that we have access to 1
>more dimension than he has.His circle is the same as our 3D hollow sphere,we woudn't be able to enter our sphere without breaking it's surface but it could easily be done from 4D-space because in 4-space our 3D-sphere would be equivalent to their 4D circ
>le.Now if we inter- sect the 2d circle with out sphere perpendicular to and in the center of his circle passing the sphere down through the plane of the circle,if he were inside he would see a dot that would become a small circle that would get bigger in
>dia as we continued to pass the sphere through the 2D circle--- (let the dia of OUR sphere = the dia of his circle),midway through our sphere would form a concetric circle with his own,then start to decrease in size back to a point and finaly dissapear c
>ompletly!!.This would seem very odd to him as all he is observing are cross sectional pieces of our sphere at any one instant in time.It would be the same as if we saw an object suddenly appear in our 3-Space,continualy change shape and then dissapear.We
>can get even stranger effects if we intersect irregular shaped geometric objects from higher spaces into lower spaces.Of course the flatlander can't visualize our sphere due to his restriction of being confined to his 2D universe,however he can construct
>the laws of 3D-Space Geometry based on the cross sections that he seen of our 3D objects Similerly we can construct the laws of 4D-Space and N-Dimensional Spaces and their Geometries. Keepin
>g this in mind let's get to rotation or spin properties of 2D space and 3D space,then apply this to higher spaces.If we rotate the Flander's circle or if HE rotates what he considers to be his SPHERE it can only rotate in TWO directions(CC or CCW) or if y
>ou like it can rotate one way or the other[for the terms CC & CCW can interchange depending on where you view the rotation from in space].Now if we in 3-Space take the circle(----- his sphere)and rotate it down- ward(around it's dia) into the plane of his
> 2-Space and perpendicular to it we can rotate it in two more directions in our 3-space!!He would observe two points seperated by the dia of his sphere that would be stationary.Again he would not be able to visualize that the circle(his sphere) had TWO mo
>re modes of rotation or spin in 3D-Space!From this it follows that a sphere in our 3D-Space which has only 2 directions of spin would have MORE than 2 directions of spin in 4Space and even more in higher dimensional spaces.Like the Flander this goes again
>st our common sense(common sense being that layer of predudice layed down prior to the age of 16---I could'nt resist getting that in).Also we would not be able to mentaly visualize this.(unless we were Charles Hinton who claimed he could visualize 4D obj
>ects such as Hypercubes and so on). George Penney
>
>
>George Penney
>
>
Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: Andromeda
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 06:01:43 -0500
robert.koss@mail.snet.net wrote:
>
> On 1997-01-16 cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz(CliffPratt) said:
> >> Says who?
> >Says about 6 million experiments, the orbit of Mercury, etc, etc...
>
> The orbit of mercury does not make C a constant.
>
> 6 million experiments does not make C a constant.
>
> Never ever changing, now that would make C a constant.
>
> Please give a reference to one of Einsteins papers/books where he claims
> the velocity of light is a never changing constant.
>
> Be carefull not to mistake the laws of propogation of light for more than
> what they are.
>
> He states in places that, for instance, your measurement of the velocity
> of light will be the same as my measurement of it.
>
> Does that require C to be a constant over time?
>
> I think not.
>
> He also states that all light travels at the same speed, an apparent
> contradiction with the first statement, and the heart of relativity.
>
> This too does not require that speed to remain a constant over time.
>
> --: actions on the edge
>
> Net-Tamer V 1.08 Beta - Test Drive
Just a question on the subject here. If this constant thing were accurat,
would that be implying that the universe has a constant preset number of
particles, that can take any form, but no matter what, there will be no
less and no more?
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: "R. Alan Squire"
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 04:28:56 -0800
Peter Besenbruch wrote:
> While I think your idea regarding the need for a little faith when
> practicing science has merit, I think your definition of religion is a
> tad narrow. Granted, it resembles the the Random House definition
> closely, but to say it is "no more" than that is reductionistic.
It's interesting that you should say that; I've been having an
ongoing debate with a fellow newsposter who suggests that it is too
broad -- too encompassing. I did, however find a more professional
definition, which I then posted:
"If religion is taken in its widest sense, as a way of life
woven around a people's ultimate concerns... if religion is
taken in a narrower sense, as a concern to align humanity
with the transcendental ground of its existence..."
(Huston Smith, "The World's Religions")
Is science transcendental? Does it need to be in order to fit this
definition? Or is it enough that it contemplates transcendental
ideas? I find the possibility fascinating.
> Quite a
> number of people have approached religion from a sociological
> perspectice, or focused on the psychological experience. Others forcus
> on such things as myth, sacraments and symbols. While these may refer to
> core beliefs, I think the myths, sacraments and symbols often endure
> while the beliefs change.
>
> I think it would be fun to apply some of these approaches to the study
> of science: To treat it as something more than just a method of study.
I would have to agree.
