Re: What is Gravity? Why/How does it work?
Jim S wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:35:23 -0700, sdr wrote:
>
> I was going with that until you said
> "BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion"
> 'because of'? Jim S
Yes. "BECAUSE OF"
START QUOTE FROM:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html
Newton's Three Laws of Motion
Let us begin our explanation of how Newton changed our
understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three
Laws of Motion.
Newton's First Law of Motion:
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends
to remain in that state of motion unless an
external force is applied to it.
This we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of
inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of
Inertia".
Newton's Second Law of Motion:
II. The relationship between an object's mass
m, its acceleration a, and the applied force
F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are
vectors (as indicated by their symbols being
displayed in slant bold font); in this law
the direction of the force vector is the same
as the direction of the acceleration vector.
This is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws,
because it allows quantitative calculations of
dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are
applied. Notice the fundamental difference between
Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle:
according to Newton, a force causes only a change in
velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the
velocity as Aristotle held.
This is sometimes summarized by saying that under
Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is
the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is
only a velocity if there is a force, but according to
Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains
that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an
acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As
we have noted earlier in conjunction with the
discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be
more in accord with common sense, but that is because
of a failure to appreciate the role played by
frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces
acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of
Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found
to be in accord with the observations.
Newton's Third Law of Motion:
III. For every action there is an equal and
opposite reaction.
This law is exemplified by what happens if we step off
a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the
direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the
opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water,
if we aren't careful!).
END QUOTE
>> Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
>> land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
>> there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
>> towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
>> because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
>> only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
>> universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
>> tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
>> all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
>> "Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
>> than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
>> have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
>> because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
>> have eventually become our universe (the concentration
>> of so many, many somethings). SEE:
>>
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
The UNIVERSE' breeding area (the "more tenuous spot"
above) would have been perfectly surrounded by "denser
material" which would have crashed towards its center:
Note that, in response to this motion {Law 3} a
growing greater volume of that "denser area" would
have "become less dense" ... as its "material" moved
towards "the more tenuous spot," [the "area" from
which "the material" was moving would have spread
outwards BECAUSE OF Newton's Laws of Motion].
Additionally, the "thermodynamic flow" would have
crashed towards the "center" of the less dense spot.
And, necessarily, all the material flowing there from
the surrounding areas would have had only itself to
crash against (or, "to wind itself up unto itself"
might be a more appropriate way of putting it): An
effect which continues even unto this very day "there"
--or "here," since "there" is the entirety of the/our
visible universe (in other words, the universe of
"matter" which has coalesce into "us").
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
RE:
>> On Sep 4, 3:08 pm, "Timothy Golden
>> BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS
>>
>>>> Ha! Those are by Mozart.
>>>> Last time "I" wrote a piano
>>>> sonata it caused such hysterics
>>>> (of laughter) that I
>>>> was briefly held on a charge
>>>> of attempted homicide
>>>> (of my listeners).
>>>
>>> Sorry... interpretation...
>>>
>>>>> I wish we could discuss the relation of
>>>>> thermodynamics and gravity.
>>
>> VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:
>>
>> Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
>> land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
>> there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
>> towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
>> because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
>> only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
>> universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
>> tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
>> all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
>> "Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
>> than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
>> have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
>> because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
>> have eventually become our universe (the concentration
>> of so many, many somethings). SEE:
>>
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
>> "shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
>> is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
>> "singularities" are physically impossible in our
>> reality--all you need do is look around you).
>>
>> Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
>> compare "the size" of the universe... it will
>> "always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
>> matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.
>>
>> Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
>> of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
>> shrinking may actually be).
>>
>> Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
>> is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
>> drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.
>> You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
>> which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
>> away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:
>>
>> Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2
>> above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
>> earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of
>> "free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
>> to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the
>> falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it
>> hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it
>> accelerate at all?
>>
>> The reason for this acceleration is that the
>> "shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
>> engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
>> hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
>> angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
>> sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]
>>
>> The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
>> growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
>> to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
>> entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
>> merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
>> "faster" it grows smaller... forever.
>>
>> This is the reason why for a dozen or more
>> years before astronomers finally discovered
>> that the universe's "expansion" was
>> accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
>> the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
>> to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.
>>
>> If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual
>> black hole star, its acceleration would almost
>> certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
>> of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
>> only just "nearly."
>>
>> This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
>> point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
>> (above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
>> dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in
>> place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
>> And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
>> as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
>> earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole
>> star's. Why?
>>
>> Because this effect/interaction is one which is
>> strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:
>>
>> In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
>> identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
>> in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
>> "universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
>> unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
>> as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
>> not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
>> words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
>> Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's
>> floor and vice versa.
>>
>> And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
>> the center of the universe ["down" is strictly only a
>> "relative" term], it is "the sum centers of mass" that
>> are the "points" toward which the surrounding mass
>> is/are "shrinking" (i.e. obviously, "space" plays no
>> part whatsoever in "shrinking" ... and therefore the
>> "illusion" of weaker/stronger "gravitational fields").
>>
>> The "distance" between two nearby bodies will
>> diminish more than/long before the "distance"
>> between them and bodies farther afield" (because
>> all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]
>> towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and
>> therefore away from everything else "outside" them.
>>
>> There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely
>> that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit
>> under consideration" that, to all practical effects...
>> every such bit of the universe can be described as its
>> "center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"
>> towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale
>> towards its whatever singular sum center.]
>>
>> Individual stars, planets ... and related/very
>> close but "untouching" conglomerations will be
>> "shrinking" into a point "in space" which is the
>> center of the sum of their added mass: the
>> earth/moon system, as well as solar systems,
>> galaxies, galaxy groups, et al ... and so forth
>> outwards with every surrounding and
>> correspondingly independent conglomeration of
>> mass/energy from the smallest subparticle to the
>> entire universe itself (which you may choose to
>> call "gravitational systems" if you still believe
>> in gravitons).
>>
>> As one continues to pull back one will always observe
>> all whatever groupings of such conglomerations to be
>> behaving as if they were independently "associated
>> super-conglomerations" BECAUSE they will always be
>> "shrinking" towards the center of the sum of their
>> total mass. And so it will continue (as you "pull
>> back") until the entire universe itself will be "seen"
>> as behaving as if it were one single "associated
>> conglomeration," [not a "singularity" of course].
>>
>> The effect can be "observed to be" extremely
>> subtle or extremely pronounced (depending on the
>> amount of mass, and its organization, whether
>> more compact or more spread out/insubstantial.
>> The crucial factor being the amount of mass in a
>> given volume observed, and not necessarily how it is
>> distributed across that volume... again, because
>> what matters always is "how much mass/matter is
>> falling towards the sum of its mass' center, or
>> [see above] the closer a sum of mass/energy is to
>> itself, the more it will be moving away from
>> everything else afield.
>>
>> As the independent conglomerations "shrink into
>> themselves" the distance between them will naturally
>> increase ... subtly with proximity and increasing with
>> distance so that very distant galaxies will seem to be
>> speeding away from each other at nearly the speed of
>> light (there is no natural law against something
>> moving faster than the speed of light,* but "catching
>> sight of something moving away faster than the speed
>> of light" is always problematical, even if only
>> philosophically).
>>
>> * Einstein's restriction comes from his assumption
>> that the "Fitzgerald contraction" (that all matter
>> contracts in the direction of its motion) was true
>> [as truly a whoppingly moronic explanation of why
>> the speed of light is constant as is "dark energy"
>> to explain why the universe's "apparent expansion"
>> is accelerating]. But having assumed that, Einstein
>> was left with the fact that this moronic assumption
>> demanded that matter could only contract "so much"
>> and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a
>> reflection of his state of mind, I imagine). ergo:
>> The "numbers" told him that at 7/8th the speed of
>> light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,
>> and so forth, until at the speed of light his ruler
>> would have contracted to zero--And, as a ruler can
>> then contract no further, Einstein left himself no
>> wiggle-room to imagine any speed greater than that
>> of light. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein,
>> smart as he was, the "facts" upon which he built his
>> Grand Temple were rotten and, eventually, it shall
>> all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be able to
>> tell when this is happening by the number of rats
>> leaving the edifice ... and whether they will be
>> sauntering out, or scrambling like ... rats).
>>
>> Of course, the actual distance between galaxies, as
>> measured by a yardstick outside the universe, will
>> actually be "shrinking." But, since we can only
>> measure such distances with our own "shrinking"
>> galactic yardsticks... such distances must therefore
>> forever appear to us to be increasing! An effect which
>> is clearly discernible to us as the "illusion" that
>> the galaxies are everywhere moving away from each
>> other at rates of speed "surprisingly" related to how
>> "distant" they are from each other.
>>
>> Needless to say, any silly goose first coming upon
>> this peculiar motion of the galaxies away from each
>> other ... with a brain empty of the knowledge I have
>> just outlined above must inevitably conclude that THE
>> UNIVERSE MUST OBVIOUSLY BE EXPANDING (as if
>> it were ... oh, I don't know, the result of an ancient
>> explosion, a really "big bang"). And so, imagine the
>> surprise of all such "empty brains" when astronomers
>> suddenly discovered (in 1997 or so) that their
>> UNIVERSAL EXPANSION IS ACTUALLY ACCELERATING!
>> (Obviously, a physical impossibility for the remnants
>> of an explosion.) Oh, I don't know, I suppose they
>> might be made loopy enough to even grow to imagine
>> that this inexplicable/completely unpredictable (in a
>> big bang universe) acceleration HAD TO BE due to some
>> invisible and undetectable mystical/magical kind of
>> "dark" energy or something. No, really, don't laugh:
>> Billions of dollars being dropped down this particular
>> black hole is more something to cry about.
>>
>> But that is how man's knowledge advances across the
>> stumbling nature of his history... from blind guess to
>> blind guess, I guess.
>>
>> There, now I've written it so that even a fly can
>> understand it. But, have I not said all this before?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.writing/browse_frm/thread/6f0a645f3396d26c/d78cefd3fac75ed8?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=10&hl=en#d78cefd3fac75ed8
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/ff7ec99ec1b81be1/40929f9de7c2c691?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=3&hl=en#40929f9de7c2c691
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.philosophy.misc/browse_frm/thread/a091392fffc54754/a838a80c4ae977f8?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=12&hl=en#a838a80c4ae977f8
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math.recreational/browse_frm/thread/6e5d492b144e459d/8a19d4d38299b031?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=13&hl=en#8a19d4d38299b031
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/browse_frm/thread/17ffea174afdf1f8/010994cc894b662a?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22+rodrian&rnum=15&hl=en#010994cc894b662a
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.prose/browse_frm/thread/6f0a645f3396d26c/ec8b8841a9ee4081?lnk=st&q=%22What+is+gravity+really.%22&rnum=5&hl=en#ec8b8841a9ee4081
>>
>> Yep. Thought I did ...
>>
>>>> If you wish to plunge into the lighter side of
>>>> humanity visit:http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
>>>
>>> Unfortunately your poem is as long as your treatise
>>> on gravity and thermodynamics.
>>
>> And people have forgotten how to read. I know.
>>
>>> By the time I get a bit of the way through I am
>>> tired and wish that you could compress the rhetoric
>>> down to a simplistic construction.
>>
>> A kind of Dick and Jane Reader for physicists... yes.
>>
>>> Then there could be a real discussion.
>>
>> O yeah--yeah--O yeah--yeah--O yeah. Been there.
>>
>>> I do not wish to be light. You would like to goof
>>> around a bit and it is your right to do so.
>>
>> What else can one do around goofballs?
>>
>>> You say you are old.
>>
>> My bones concur. As well as the last two brain cells
>> still alive and echoing back & forth to each other in
>> the otherwise Brain Cells Mausoleum of my mind.
>>
>>> Will your idea of unifying gravity and
>>> thermodynamics die with you?
>>
>> The instant I die the universe shall be swallowed by
>> eternal oblivion. I should be better off worrying
>> about keeping a smile on until that instant, don't you
>> think. Well, perhaps you don't. But that's no skin off
>> my nose either.
>>
>>> Is there even anything substantial there?
>>
>> For whom?
>>
>>> Why then would you attempt to force your reader
>>> through such a long roundabout path?
>>
>> Thank me for my least effort. And then move on!
>> I shall be thankful for your thanks (I do not intend
>> to take anything with me to oblivion.)
>>
>>> The direct approach is much more efficient. When
>>> you have someone offering to be a student why
>>> would you throw them away?
>>
>> So that, hopefully, a real teacher might catch them.
>> I am not a teacher but an observer. This is an
>> interesting planet.
>>
>>> I suppose you are a man of great variations with
>>> little basis.
>>
>> Ah! You have been to:
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/BACH_ART_OF_THE_VARIATION
>>
>>> I challenge you to present your theory of
>>> gravitation and thermodynamics in as compact
>>> a form as possible.
>>
>> I have news or you, my boy: It will never be compact
>> enough for someone or other. Otherwise they would have
>> surely stopped running the 100-yard dash long ago.
>>
>> Those who truly wish to understand ... will.
>>
>>> I have a brief theory that predicts that large solid
>>> objects cannot achieve low temperature.
>>
>> I think my fridge disproves it already...
>>
>>> By a natural tendency of matter to cohere as it
>>> oscillates such a tendency can be intuited.
>>
>> Now, think about why matter "coheres" and one day
>> you may yet come to understand that the universe is
>> imploding!
>>
>>> I admit that my own theory is infantile
>>> and it needs work. I
>>> encourage you to present even just such
>>> a starting point as a kernel
>>> of development.
>>
>> Can't: My ancient digestive system can no longer
>> take corn.
>>
>>> Operating by declaration is necessary but the
>>> quality of the declarations are an open problem.
>>
>> Isn't that a declaration!
>>
>>> All human knowledge is
>>> constructed and as such is suspect
>>> and therefor open to development.
>>
>> Another declaration? Will it never end?
>>
>>> Unfortunately your declarations are
>>> either nonexistent or lay buried.
>>
>> Declaration or mere opinion, or both?
>>
>>> Perhaps you should bury your hard drive
>>> with you. Or will you be incinerated?
>>
>> Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.
>>
>>> Either way your state is presently grim.
>>
>> Don't be too sure: I seem to suffer from incurable
>> happiness. I think it's genetic. From my father's
>> side. The curious thing is that I grew up with my
>> mother's family, grim apes the lot of them... and here
>> was this jolly kid always having a grand ole time
>> living among them). It must have infuriated them no
>> end (something always rather hilarious to me).
>>
>>> It seems you need this reflected.
>>
>> I own several mirrors. Albeit I have them all covered
>> up now so that I can still live the illusion that I am
>> seven years old! I'll uncover one of them ... last
>> time I uncovered them was last time I had visitors (on
>> account of some time ago other visitors accused me of
>> being Dracula, and I had AN AWFUL time proving to
>> everybody that I wasn't): Monkeys, can't live with'em-
>>
>>> -Tim (with more retort below)
>>>
>>>> There are no atheists in the human species. Anyone
>>>> sez he's an atheist who then prays/prays and prays
>>>> that he gets the job is a mere hypocrite (at best).
>>>
>>> I am an atheist.
>>
>> Hello: You are a hypocrite. Again you weren't reading!
>>
>>> This merely means that I do not believe in God.
>>
>> NOTE that you did not say "there is no God."
>> Trust me: "hypocrite."
>>
>>> Prayer is closer to thought and intention
>>
>> When you propose something only God can affect,
>> you are proposing God. USE YOUR BRAIN, sometime.
>>
>>> and may not be far from meditation.
>>
>> When you meditate on things God does,
>> how could you possibly think you are NOT
>> medicating [sic] on God?!?
>>
>>> These concepts are not directly tied to the
>>> three letter word.
>>
>> When you use a metaphor that can only be alluding
>> to God, it is to God you're alluding. How much more so
>> when you directly allude to God's very name!
>>
>>> If you wish to define an abstract God we may
>>> come to some resolution
>>
>> Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself
>> --first.
>>
>>> but I will prefer the word reality to such a misuse
>>> of the old egotistical construction.
>>
>>>>> The Abrahamic religions are false belief systems.
>>>> Do these religious principles really require that
>>>> they
>>>> be correct? I mean, after all: Didn't the Maya keep
>>>> the world from coming to an end for a thousand
>>>> years
>>>> by ripping the still beating hearts out of the
>>>> breasts
>>>> of their countless sacrificial victims? These
>>>> things work.
>>>
>>> But do they work well?
>>
>> Hello! Kept the entire WORLD from coming to an end:
>> ALL religions are saving Mankind, saving the universe,
>> preserving existence itself... what more do you want?!
>>
>>> The current situation may be dismissed as
>>> purely political,
>>
>> You mean this post?
>>
>>> but are the greivances of the Islamic
>>> fundamentalists valid?
>>
>> You mean that non-Muslims are stubbornly refusing to
>> join the blood-thirsty cult? Sure. Their religion says
>> that people who refuse to join should be killed,
>> man, woman, or child. It's the Maya all over again.
>> Oh no, wait, the Maya only sacrificed enemy warriors:
>> Islam is a much more primitive sort of barbarism.
>>
>>> Their unified mixture of tribal culture,
>>> religion, and government is old and strong.
>>> The American attention
>>> deficit disorder does not allow for such
>>> consideration.
>>
>> You should know: You can't even read a collection of
>> old jokes....
>>
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
>>
>>> The maturity
>>> of American politics is suspect, especially when
>>> the leader preaches
>>> that God is on his side.
>>
>> That's true. I think the President's poll numbers
>> might improve if he started preaching that he's a
>> Satan-worshipper instead...
>>
>>>>> Perhaps the situation for the individual is of
>>>>> multiple identities.
>>>> Don't woik:
>>>> Multiple identifies = multiple taxation.
>>
>>> Yes. We already have multiple taxation: town, state,
>>> nation ...
>>
>> But obviously you don't have a good tax consultant.
>> You must be one of "the little people."
>>
>>>>> So I cannot rule out the media completely.
>>>> Yeah! Nasty bastards all, who are always bending
>>>> backwards to try to be unbiased and report only the
>>>> facts when they should properly be the instruments
>>>> of
>>>> OUR propaganda/the voices of our biases/the petards
>>>> of our prejudices! But, nooooooo!
>>>
>>> How often is it mentioned in the media that the US
>>> is facing a long term foreign policy crisis?
>>
>> Like: EVERY TIME. You gotta stop commenting on things
>> you never see/hear/read about/watch/know the least of!
>>
>>> Are we ever reminded that we helped to build the
>>>Taliban?
>>
>> Every Democrat and independent commentator I ever
>> saw on every news show repeats it. It's like, "You do
>> know that bread is made with flour, don't you" Yeah--
>>
>>> That the US and GB armed Saddam Hussein?
>>
>> I have not heard "we've got ants" mentioned more!
>> (Green Bay armed Saddam Hussein--? Holy--!)
>>
>>>> A financial crisis looms and dithering from
>>>>> external
>>>>> forces along with
>>>>> another terrorist attack are a plausible end.
>>
>> Are you even on planet earth? Prove it: Explain
>> to me what cows are.
>>
>>>>> It's
>>>>> not going to be
>>>>> pretty, but it is perhaps the right thing in terms
>>>>> of global justice.
>>
>> Global justice is what justifies local injustices.
>> Old as time.
>>
>>>> Yes. Well, it's a good thing Russia, China and Iran
>>>> are there to pick up the slack if the United States
>>>> falters in this world, no? Ho! Ho! Ho!
>>>
>>> The USA has played a large part in how these
>>> countries that you
>>> mention have come to be what they are.
>>
>> Then they are right to hate us. They're shit.
>>
>>> Your own sense of hostility is
>>> exactly the tension of which I have spoken
>>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Elsewhere I have spoken of ducks, and of chickens,
>> and of ping pong playing wombats...
>>
>>>>> Of course, the US could stand down, join the ICC,
>>>>> stop twisting the
>>>>> rest of humanity around its interests...
>>>> And implode into the most monumental economic crash
>>>> ever seen on this earth since The Flood (which I'm
>>>> sure won't even blow away a single leaf in the rest
>>>> of the planet)... Ha! Ha! Ha!
>>>
>>> We'll see won't we? At some level we just watch
>>> and see what unfolds.
>>
>> We do that at every level, the world is a colossal
>> Colosseum, ain't it.
>>
>>>>> Morality has been a puzzle for philosophers yet it
>>>>> is clear to me that
>>>>> symmetry plays a fundamental role in the supply
>>>>> of moral values.
>>>> The more criminals that arise/the more cops we
>>>> gotta hire: Yes, I'm beginning to see the symmetry
>>>> of human behavior.
>>>
>>> No. I do accept that there are asymmetries in our
>>> behavior.
>>
>> Where do you get asymmetries from symmetries?
>> Are you a mathematician?
>>
>>> But in a
>>> search for moral principles which we accept as
>>> ideal symmetry would be
>>> observed.
>>
>> Because if something makes us feel good, it is
>> "obviously" good. We are bastards all, yes.
>>
>>> It is also a grave mistake to presume that others
>>> operate exactly as ones self.
>>
>> I don't know. Medicine is based on that assumption.
>>
>>>>> We must exist in a
>>>>> culture of false assumptions
>>>> Who did you say made this unchallengeable judgment?
>>>
>>> Me.
>>
>> I thought as much, since it is a false assumption!
>>
>>> You are of course free to challenge it.
>>
>> Okay: "Coke is better than Pepsi." There! I win.
>>
>>> It is tiring to preface
>>> everything with
>>> 'I think/believe/...'
>>
>>>From now on use: "Fuck you/Bite me/..."
>> They'll pay more attention to you. They might
>> even throw you in jail (which is like the highest
>> amount of attention society can pay you).
>>
>>> So before everything I write you can just insert
>>> this preface universally.
>>
>> You can insert my preface (above) before everything
>> you write too: I even think it sounds funnier. And
>> I like that.
>>
>>>> Yes. And I know which parts too, but, because by
>>>> almost universal agreement, we term those parts
>>>> "dirty," as a gentleman of the old school (in fact,
>>>> I believe it's been torn down & carted away): I
>>>> refuse to mention such terms.
>>>
>>> This is cryptic
>>
>> Some people just aren't equipt to discern the funny
>> parts. Sometimes that can be rather funny too.
>>
>>> but I suppose there is a lack of tabboo in current
>>> culture that you find distasteful.
>>
>> The only thing I find universally distasteful any more
>> is cheese: I've eaten too much of it.
>>
>>> Still the open paradigm is strong
>>> especially here on this medium which you choose
>>> to use.
>>
>> She is a good medium. I have already spoken to
>> everybody I know who's dead (brain dead).
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
>> RE:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob
>> <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no
>>> magic is required you need to
>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning,
>>> i.e. how something evolved from
>>> nothing. -- Rob
>>
>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>> yourself must realize: "If Existence had to
>> have had "a" beginning it could not exist."
>>
>> In a very real sense: There was always
>> "something." AND/OR what now exists is
>> another version/variation of Nothingness
>> --Something which some scientists and
>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear
>> is the case:
>>
>> SEE http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>> universe to continue "conserving" the energy
>> of which it is made from larger/slower to
>> smaller/faster ... for all eternity.
>>
>> We do not notice this eternal conservation
>> of energy, of course. Except for the "force"
>> we call "gravity."
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
>> *****************************************
>>
>> On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson
>> <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> You try to force the Universe to conform
>>> with the limitations of your
>>> imagination, rather than trying to
>>> expand your ideas to encompass the
>>> reality of the Universe.
>>
>> Pardon me for thinking.
>>
>>> I suspect the Universe is far different,
>>> and far more interesting, than
>>> the form you attempt to define
>>> with your philosophy.
>>
>> EVOLUTION
>>
>> Horatio, believe Einstein (a very smart
>> fellow) when he assures you that is it
>> unlikely the universe began from complexity
>> and more likely it began BECAUSE of ONE
>> very simple principle... from which it
>> evolved to the present level of complexity.
>>
>>> What came "before",
>>> or whether any such concept as "before"
>>> even has meaning, is currently
>>> beyond our ability to know. When
>>> that question is answered, however, it
>>> will be by science (not philosophy)-
>>> and it's perfectly possible that
>>> the answer will be that there truly was nothing-
>>> in any sense- before the BB. Chris L Peterson
>>
>> Dear Horatio, the very essence of
>> analytical thinking is directly involved
>> with understanding "what came before"
>> FROM the study of "what exists now."
>> (Ask your local police detectives & such.)
>>
>> ... Just as, hopefully, studying present
>> conditions will tell us what's coming next:
>> Which is, in sum, why the brain evolved
>> --aside its body maintenance duties--
>> in the first place: that is, to predict the
>> future. "If I jump in the creek the gator
>> will eat me!"
>>
>> Even BigBangers understand that "something
>> can not come out of nothing" and have
>> thought up all sorts of sci-fy scenarios in
>> which, for the most part, the Big Bang erupts
>> (is, in fact, a puncture) from some other
>> dimension/universe when hanging bedsheets
>> (banes) "blowin' in the wind" touch the
>> prick point (Big Bang!) through which it all
>> then came to fill up our universe! Complexity
>> creates the universe--Einstein sez, "Nix!"
>>
>> Unfortunately for them, this marvelous scenario
>> better than anything I could possibly come up
>> with (with all my wit), exemplifies the ancient
>> circular argument against those who claim that
>> God created the world: That, if God created
>> the world, then the business of "origins" is no
>> longer about the world's origin but about God's.
>>
>> The Big Bangers have themselves made the Big
>> Bang as irrelevant as the God proponents have
>> made the world. Please hand out the straitjackets
>> so we can start arguing which God created God
>> and which dimension created which dimension
>> worlds without end. "Simplicity is the essence
>> of elegance."
>>
>> Look. Let's be reasonable about this. And let's
>> try to reduce it to its simplest and most logical
>> (sanity): The nature of matter speaks about it
>> being (speaking too poetically perhaps) "a mere
>> swirl of energy." Everywhere we look into the
>> subatomic world we "see" horrific/enormous
>> amounts of energy "bound" in tiny swirls. And
>> when we look out to the greater universe we
>> see the unmistakable evolution of "the universe
>> of stars" into "tighter swirls" called "black holes."
>>
>> SEE? ... One can look at "matter" as EITHER
>> Something OR Nothing. Nothing could be simpler:
>>
>> After there are no more stars (atoms) there will
>> be no more us. But there will be a universe (of
>> black holes). In such a universe there may yet
>> arise intelligent life--since we do not know the
>> ultimate limitations of life... and it may be very
>> difficult for those beings, perhaps, to imagine
>> life (their forms of life, of course) possible in
>> the universe of atoms/stars which existed before
>> them. And they will know about our universe
>>
>> BECAUSE
>>
>> They will create monstrously powerful machines
>> which will crash black holes (or tear them apart)
>> until showers of galaxies pour out. In human
>> lifetimes, these out-pouring galaxies will live for
>> billions and billions of our years. But for the black
>> hole physicists they will wink out perhaps after
>> only a flash of one of their moments.
>>
>> Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is
>> reading http://physics.sdrodrian.com and thinking:
>> "How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy
>> "shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"
>>
>> And then after all is said & done, perhaps only
>> Dr. Seuss's philosophy (from amongst all that
>> have peopled this noble race of ours) will have
>> any truth/meaning left at all. Albeit, I doubt
>> seriously there will be even one "black hole
>> physicist" named Horton among the lot of'em.
>>
>> Look for beauty where it exists, Horatio. Close not
>> your eyes to it and but curse the blackness.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
>>
>> RE:
>>
>>
>> On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur
>> (Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@d55g2000hsg.
>> googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:
>>>sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Existence is absolutely deterministic.
>>>
>>> Physicists have determined otherwise.
>>> --
>>> Bobby Bryant
>>> Reno, Nevada
>>
>> Don't bet on it, Bobby.
>>
>> Or, before you place that bet, at least consider
>> THE SORT of "physicists" who have made
>> the "claim" that there is a portion of existence
>> where the laws of physics (i.e. determinism)
>> do not apply. In essence, Quanta Theory is
>> statistical analysis (it is BOUND to produce
>> the most informed guess, but it is NEVER looking
>> directly and absolutely at its subject in its
>> totality). This explains its many (and continuing)
>> successes; and why it ought to have no say
>> --whatsoever-- in any discussion trying to settle
>> the question of the nature of existence in its sum
>> total. [You cannot have someone who is but guessing
>> about exactly what it is he/she is looking at being
>> the final arbiter of that thing's description--and no
>> matter how well such a guess works in the meantime.]
>>
>> START QUOTE
>>
>> mccarthy@ writes:
>>
>> Mr. S D Rodrian,
>>
>> I have been reading scientific articles
>> (i.e. space.com, nature.com,
>> etc) and following the mainstream
>> thinking (BB, string theory, QM,
>> QP, extra dimensions, etc.) for
>> the last 8-10 years and not
>> understanding what all the fudge
>> factors (dark energy, dark matter,
>> etc.) are all about and why they
>> were so illogical.
>>
>> With great difficulty, I managed to
>> wrap my head around most of it
>> except that in spite of all I read,
>> I could never ever comprehend
>> where a single photon emitted from
>> a candle gets its insane energy
>> and acceleration to travel that "fast"
>> ( in all 3 dimensions ) and
>> always regain its speed after being
>> slowed down by some medium.
>> It never occurred to me that a
>> photon is created, suspended in
>> 'place' while everything else is
>> collapsing (imploding) towards,
>> from, away or past this photon -
>> depending on one's reference point.
>>
>> Your explanation clicked something
>> I can understand and comprehend
>> now in laymen's terms; and as you
>> said, it should be simple enough
>> for me to see everything from
>> hereon out on my own.
>>
>> much appreciated,
>> -eric
>>
>> ******************************************
>>
>> eric,
>>
>> Thank you for your note. I was just now
>> thinking about the implosion vs expansion
>> (Big Bang, et al) dichotomy. And contemplating
>> the endless number of nonsense required for
>> the expansion model to "work" (not to mention
>> all the things which actually put it into question)...
>> while at the same time realizing that I have yet
>> to find a single objection to my own implosion
>> "viewpoint."
>>
>> I am more than willing to admit that if ever
>> there is ANY objection (even the slightest), my
>> entire theory would collapse--and I would be
>> more than glad to admit it: If but a paperclip
>> were to cast a doubt on it, that would be enough
>> for me. And I would let others fight it out from
>> here on out.
>>
>> But I have not yet run across even a paperclip
>> objecting to it. And so I will continue to believe
>> that the implosion model describes the universe
>> --And that THAT is why everything appears to
>> agree with it. Reality agrees with itself.
>>
>> I believe the world (of men) will slowly but
>> eventually come around--One can only ignore
>> the Sun in the sky so long.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>>
>> ******************************************
>>
>> mccarthy@ wrote:
>> To S D Rodrian:
>>
>> ...and I appreciate your reply.
>> I am sure you get enough email to
>> make it impossible to answer all of them.
>>
>> I am not a mathematician, physicist
>> etc., just a plain M.Sc. from a
>> canadian university. I have been
>> trying to find some model that
>> would explain the world around me
>> for years now. Since "everybody"
>> was so excited and united wrt the
>> BBang, strings, "branes" concept,
>> it appeared they just "must" be correct
>> even though my logic couldn't
>> get around all the complexities and
>> hiccups involved in the BB model.
>>
>> This may sound silly, however, since
>> I couldn't possibly get my head
>> around the BB concept with crashing
>> branes, multi-dimensions, etc. in
>> its entirety, I had started
>> compensating for the lack of logical
>> flow in the BB th. by thinking about
>> our universe as a computer
>> generated, recursive, virtual reality
>> simulation. The BBang being
>> "somebody" throwing the switch
>> and all the inconsistencies and
>> contradictions in the model being
>> programming mistakes. I thought of
>> it all as a universe within universe(s)
>> with time as such being
>> relative and irrelevant.
>>
>> Right or wrong, your theory/explanation
>> via imploding universe using
>> laws of thermo-dynamics clicked with
>> me and the logic of universe
>> finally flows for me. It just makes
>> plain sense. The fact I can now
>> understand why photon behaves the
>> way it behaves was well worth the 5-
>> 6 hours it took me to read your
>> material and absorb it. Great stuff.
>> You certainly gave me a lot to think
>> about...in a different light.
>>
>> thanks again,
>> -eric
>>
>> ********************************************
>>
>> mccarthy@ wrote:
>> Hi, S D Rodrian:
>>
>> can this double-slit experiment:
>>
>> http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html
>>
>> be explained by the imploding universe model?
>>
>> How can a photon pass
>> through two holes at the same time?
>>
>> thanks,
>> -eric
>>
>> *********************************************
>>
>> eric,
>>
>> I have sometimes thought it very well may. It might,
>> were the photon to not only not "move" but also not
>> "shrink" (however, this is self-evidently not the
>> case, or light could never be "aimed"). But I have
>> also had to admit that the double-slit experiment is
>> too subject to interpretation for a slick answer (it's
>> not just a matter of: ask a child what he/she is
>> seeing and of course you'll never get the QM answer
>> ... but that it also depends on a large number of
>> assumptions about the nature of the photon, et al,
>> going back to Thomas Young's 1803 version of the
>> double-slit experiment and Newton's even older
>> interpretations on the nature of light, all of which
>> have to be absolutely correct): The QM interpretation
>> is just that, one interpretation of the light
>> refraction. And none of the QM interpretations HAVE
>> TO BE correct: If they are ALL correct, however, then
>> the answer is either indeed the imploding universe
>> OR we are all insane. Hard to come up with a third
>> alternative:
>>
>> Take the following quote from the article as the
>> perfect hint of what quantum fundamentalists
>> (extremists) are carried away with:
>>
>> "and ... nothing existing until it is observed,
>> these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
>> reality that are consistent with the experiments
>> and observations."
>>
>> Every child understand that the answer to the ancient
>> question of whether a falling tree really makes a
>> noise if there is no one there to hear it fall is that
>> YES IT DOES. But QM fundamentalists have not yet
>> grown up even to the level of children (apparently).
>> That's saying a lot.
>>
>> It is merely/purely/only/simply a display of the
>> heights of human arrogance to claim that if WE cannot
>> "measure" something "it cannot be measured." And yet
>> we have made such a claim, as you can see!
>>
>> The point that "one cannot measure something so
>> frail/delicate without the very act of measuring it
>> changing its character/nature/displacement" is
>> absolutely reasonable. But when one jumps from such
>> reasonableness to the idea that "something does not
>> have a definite position at a definite time--and ONLY
>> the measurement/observation GIVES it that." Then one
>> are talking logical insanity. One needs a doctor, not
>> a science journal editor.
>>
>> Dr. Heisenberg wrote, "Some physicist would prefer
>> to come back to the idea of an objective real
>> world whose smallest parts exist objectively in
>> the same sense as stones or trees exist
>> independently of whether we observe them. This
>> however is impossible."
>>
>> Quanta theory is one of the greatest mathematical
>> tools ever devised to "peer" into the realms of things
>> which will never be observed directly. But it is
>> merely a form of statistical analysis. Period. The
>> problem is that when QM theoreticians start "looking"
>> into the world that can NEVER be seen, they start
>> "seeing" everything in their heads there. And people's
>> heads are teeming with squirming eecky nightmares.
>>
>> "Reality is absolutely deterministic." If ever you
>> hear that "an experiment" has proven this wrong, you
>> can be just as certain that it is the experiment that
>> is wrong as if you had heard that the real Santa Claus
>> was recently interviewed by Katie Curic. And no matter
>> how much you trust the integrity of Katie Curic.
>>
>> "There are many ways we could go now in
>> examining quantum results. If conscious
>> observation is needed for the creation of an
>> electron (this is one aspect of the Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, the most popular version of
>> quantum physics interpretations), then ideas
>> about the origin of consciousness must be
>> revised. If electrons in the brain create
>> consciousness, but electrons require
>> consciousness to exist, one is apparently caught
>> in circular reasoning at best."
>>
>> The paragraph above is obviously a man struggling with
>> his sanity. This is not science, this is psychology.
>>
>> Trust Einstein in this at least: The world is sane,
>> period. When the "wise-ass kids" who came up with
>> the "uncertainly principle" and other insanities by
>> taking Quanta theory to its logical extremes were
>> being lionized for saying things nobody even bothered
>> to analyze in the light of day, all Einstein could say
>> was that "God didn't pray dice." In his quaint way,
>> what he was saying was that "reality is
>> deterministic." The alternative is "magic" (as
>> described in extremist QM) and "utter insanity"
>> (again, as described in extremist QM).
>>
>> Quantum mechanics, as statistical analysis, will
>> always produce predictions which will bear out--It's
>> what statistical analysis does: wear down the numbers
>> to the most probable results.
>>
>> NOTE, above all (or, if nothing else) this crucial
>> passage:
>>
>> "The answer is that each individual photon must -
>> in order to have produced an interference pattern
>> -- have gone through both slits! This, the
>> simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has
>> been the basis of many of the unintuitive
>> interpretations of quantum physics."
>>
>> And there you have one of the greatest examples of how
>> just one very probably wrongly-interpreted experiment
>> can lead an entire mob of zebu-people utterly crazy.
>>
>> The answer is NOT that the universe is magical and
>> utterly insane. The answer is more likely that there
>> is a simpler (and sane) explanation, after all.
>>
>> As I said above, it's very possible that what we are
>> seeing is the photon acting very normally in an
>> imploding universe, but I just don't have the time now
>> to diagram all the steps. If you would like to, more
>> power to you! It's (probably) very simple--and people
>> shall laugh at why people should have thought it so
>> difficult (as people have done since the dawn of time).
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>>
>> **************************************************
>>
>> mccarthy@ wrote:
>> Hi, S D Rodrian:
>>
>> you wrote:
>>
>>>> imploding universe, but I just don't
>>>> have the time now
>>>> to diagram all the steps.
>>>> If you would like to, more
>>>> that's fine; I just wondered if
>>>> there is some simple
>>>> explanation using a model we know
>>>> - perhaps your analogy with cork, helium
>>>> balloons, drag and so forth...
>>
>> Also, perhaps the experiment itself is flawed in
>> some way i.e. how and when the photon is created,
>> how it (photon) reacts with the medium through
>> which it travels, what forces (el.magn.) iterfere with
>> it when the size of the slits and the material itself
>> is considered, etc. Anyway, I'd hate to speculate
>> about something that I cant competently defend.
>>
>> thanks anyway; perhaps we'll know the answer
>> in our lifetime...
>> -eric
>>
>> *************************************************
>>
>> eric,
>>
>> I actually saw the experiment carried out when I was
>> very young. (It's actually something of a requirement.)
>> Einstein was familiar with it too, and I don't wonder
>> it might have been the reason he never came out more
>> forcefully against the crazier QM claims. (Apparently,
>> Einstein's confidence in Reality was only "relative,"
>> whereas my confidence in Reality is ... absolute.)
>>
>> I was rather impressed by it myself. And had (have)
>> no explanation for it (not that I have even given it
>> any serious time): However, not much later I watched
>> a lady being sawed in half and was equally baffled.
>> (And much more impressed... there were screams,
>> and a gush of blood... and if I'd had a gun with me
>> I don't know whether I might not have taken a shot
>> at the bastard doing the sawing.)
>>
>> Was it all magic? The ONLY difference between the
>> two "tricks" is that the magician sawing the lady in
>> half only claimed his "magic" was real in jest. But,
>> I assume, those who "perform" the double-slit
>> experiment actually always believe in its "magic."
>>
>> Ah! Some time later some TV magician explained
>> how the lady was sawed in half (and was later glued
>> back up with no apparent ill effects to her health).
>> And the whole thing was, rather quite embarrassingly,
>> very childishly simple.
>>
>> I always regretted Einstein didn't attend that lady-
>> sawing performance--What might his mind have made
>> of it!
>>
>> Will the explanation for the double-slit trick (I mean
>> "experiment") turn out to be as childishly simple? Who
>> knows? (I don't.) But, this is certain:
>>
>> I think I'll wait (until they perform the experiment
>> inside a Bose-Einstein condensate with the photon
>> travelling at a few inches per hour or so ... so we
>> can "see" it go through the two different slits at the
>> same time and then bounce! against itself) before I
>> make any real attempt to "explain" an "experiment"
>> which (like the sawing-the-lady-in-half experiment)
>> just doesn't seem to square with reality. And reality
>> is the thing I am more inclined to trust, frankly.
>>
>> THINK: Were the answer, say, that the photon quanta
>> is not inviolate and two photons are produced by
>> the experiment, then a most marvelous violation of
>> the conservation-of-energy laws would occur, and
>> by merely forcing a single photon through infinitely
>> doubling double-slit experiments... we could produce
>> enough energy to blow up the whole universe if
>> necessary!
>>
>> PLEASE always remember: When you insist to someone
>> (who asks you whether a tree falling in the forest
>> without anybody being there to hear it fall makes a
>> noise) that, yes, it does and he/she then inevitably
>> asks you: "How do YOU know?!" Don't be shy about
>> pointing out that "identical conditions produce
>> identical results" (and that millions of trees have
>> fallen while people were present--and ALL of them
>> made a noise of falling). So there!
>>
>> Similarly, when they ask you whether Schrodinger's
>> cat is alive or dead. You ask how long it's been in
>> the box. And if it's been in there a year ... that cat
>> is dead, baby: "You can bury the box now." And without
>> having to look inside, either. Some magic tricks are
>> just easier to figure out than others.
>>
>> Please forgive me for not having given the double-slit
>> experiment more thought. But perhaps now you
>> understand why I never did.
>>
>> Good luck,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
>> END QUOTE
>>
>> "Experiments which produce verifiable results can
>> not be ignored, as they are the foundation and
>> sustenance of science. But this does not mean that
>> our immediate interpretations of those experiments
>> are and will always be the correct ones." --SDR
>>
>>
>> Finally: NOTE that the very fact that the double-slit
>> experiment ALWAYS produces the same results
>> (and does not merely have a propensity to do so)
>> is evidence of the deterministic nature of existence
>> regardless of whatever explanations we may prefer
>> to give for the results: "Identical conditions always
>> produce identical results." Period. Modern science
>> is based on verifiable (reproducible) results.
>>
>> Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
>> *************************************************
>>
>> Here is the text of the articles in question:
>>
>> Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment
>> By Laurance R. Doyle
>> SETI Institute posted: 11 November 2004
>>
>> This is a series of four articles each with a separate
>> explanation of different quantum phenomena. Each of
>> the four articles is a piece of a mosaic and so every
>> one is needed to understand the final explanation of
>> the quantum astronomy experiment we propose, possibly
>> using the Allen Array Telescope and the narrow-band
>> radio-wave detectors being build by the SETI Institute
>> and the University of California, Berkeley.
>>
>> With the success of recent movies such as "What the
>> &$@# Do We Know?" and the ongoing -- and continuously
>> surprising -- revelations of the unexpected nature of
>> underlying reality that have been unfolding in quantum
>> physics for three-quarters of a century now, it may
>> not be particularly surprising that the quantum nature
>> of the universe may actually now be making in-roads
>> into what has previously been considered classical
>> observational astronomy. Quantum physics has been
>> applied for decades to cosmology, and the strange
>> "singularity" physics of black holes. It is also
>> applicable to macroscopic effects such as
>> Einstein-Bose condensates (extremely cold
>> conglomerations of material that behave in
>> non-classical ways) as well as neutron stars and even
>> white dwarfs (which are kept from collapse, not by
>> nuclear fusion explosions but by the Pauli Exclusion
>> Principle - a process whereby no two elementary
>> particles can have the same quantum state and
>> therefore, in a sense, not collapse into each other).
>>
>> Well, congratulations if you have gotten through the
>> first paragraph of this essay. I can't honestly tell
>> you that things will get better, but I can say that to
>> the intrepid reader things should get even more
>> interesting. The famous quantum physicist Richard
>> Feynmann once said essentially that anyone who thought
>> he understood quantum physics did not understand it
>> enough to understand that he did not actually
>> understand it! In other words, no classical
>> interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one.
>> Parallel evolving universes (one being created every
>> time a quantum-level choice is made),
>> faster-than-light interconnectedness underlying
>> everything, nothing existing until it is observed,
>> these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
>> reality that are consistent with the experiments and
>> observations.
>>
>> There are many ways we could go now in examining
>> quantum results. If conscious observation is needed
>> for the creation of an electron (this is one aspect of
>> the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most popular
>> version of quantum physics interpretations), then
>> ideas about the origin of consciousness must be
>> revised. If electrons in the brain create
>> consciousness, but electrons require consciousness to
>> exist, one is apparently caught in circular reasoning
>> at best. But for this essay, we shall not discuss
>> quantum biology. Another path we might go down would
>> be the application of quantum physics to cosmology --
>> either the Inflationary origin of the universe, or the
>> Hawking evaporation of black holes, as examples. But
>> our essay is not about this vast field either. Today
>> we will discuss the scaling of the simple double-slit
>> laboratory experiment to cosmic distances, what can
>> truly be called, "quantum astronomy."
>>
>> The laboratory double-slit experiment contains a lot
>> of the best aspects of the weirdness of quantum
>> physics. It can involve various kinds of elementary
>> particles, but for today's discussion we will be
>> talking solely about light - the particle nature of
>> which is called the "photon." A light shining through
>> a small hole or slit (like in a pinhole camera)
>> creates a spot of light on the screen (or film, or
>> detector). However, light shown through two slits that
>> are close together creates not two spots on the
>> screen, but rather a series of alternating bright and
>> dark lines with the brightest line in the exact middle
>> of this interference pattern. This shows that light is
>> a wave since such a pattern results from the
>> interference of the waves coming from slit one (which
>> we shall call "A") with the waves coming from slit two
>> (which we shall call "B"). When peaks of waves from
>> light source A meet peaks from light source B, they
>> add and the bright lines are produced. Not far to the
>> left and right of this brightness peak, however, peaks
>> from A meet troughs from B (because the crests of the
>> light waves are no longer aligned) and a dark line is
>> produced. This alternates on either side until the
>> visibility of the lines fades out. This pattern is
>> simply called an "interference pattern" and Thomas
>> Young used this experiment to demonstrate the wave
>> nature of light in the early 19th Century.
>>
>> However, in the year 1900 physicist Max Planck showed
>> that certain other effects in physics could only be
>> explained by light being a particle. Many experiments
>> followed to also show that light was indeed also a
>> particle (a "photon") and Albert Einstein was awarded
>> the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for his work
>> showing that the particle nature of light could
>> explain the "photoelectric effect." This was an
>> experiment whereby low energy (red) light, when
>> shining onto a photoelectric material, caused the
>> material to emit low energy (slow moving) electrons,
>> while high energy (blue) light caused the same
>> material to emit high energy (fast moving) electrons.
>> However, lots of red light only ever produced more low
>> energy electrons, never any high-energy electrons. In
>> other words, the energy could not be "saved up" but
>> rather must be absorbed by the electrons in the
>> photoelectric material individually. The conclusion
>> was that light came in packets, little quantities, and
>> behaved thus as a particle as well as a wave.
>>
>> So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of
>> unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally
>> weird. But the double slit experiment had another
>> trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or
>> "quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time,
>> with a sufficiently long interval in between, and
>> eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the
>> one produced when a very intense (many photons) light
>> was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing
>> happened. When one sends a single photon at a time
>> (waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward
>> the screen when both slits are open, rather than two
>> spots eventually building up opposite the two slit
>> openings, what eventually builds up is the
>> interference pattern of alternating bright and dark
>> lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was
>> sent through the apparatus at a time?
>>
>> The answer is that each individual photon must - in
>> order to have produced an interference pattern -- have
>> gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum
>> weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of
>> the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We
>> can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for
>> example, that a particle of light is not a particle
>> until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that
>> the particle of light is rather a wave before it is
>> measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave
>> sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns
>> out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That
>> is, the elementary particles making up the trees,
>> people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are
>> apparently just distributions of likelihood until they
>> are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much
>> for the Victorian view of solid matter!
>>
>> The shock of matter being largely empty space may have
>> been extreme enough -- if an atom were the size of a
>> huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust
>> particles floating around at all distances inside the
>> building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom,
>> would be smaller than a sugar cube. But with quantum
>> physics, even this tenuous result would be superseded
>> by the atom itself not really being anything that
>> exists until it is measured. One might rightly ask,
>> then, what does it mean to measure something? And this
>> brings us to the Uncertainly Principle first
>> discovered by Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Heisenberg wrote,
>> "Some physicist would prefer to come back to the idea
>> of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist
>> objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist
>> independently of whether we observe them. This however
>> is impossible."
>>
>> Perhaps that is enough to think about for now. So in
>> the next essay we will examine, in some detail, the
>> uncertainty principle as it relates to what is called
>> "the measurement problem" in quantum physics. We shall
>> find that the uncertainty principle will be the key to
>> performing the double-slit experiment over
>> astronomical distances, and demonstrating that quantum
>> effects are not just microscopic phenomena, but can be
>> extended across the cosmos.
>>
>> ************************************
>>
>> On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <th...@thought.com> wrote:
>>> Hello, SDR!
>>>
>>> Slight correction - gravity is as a result
>>> of the energy around us.
>>
>> Slight correction: Sweat is as a result
>> of the energy around us.
>>
>>> We are
>>> all part of the same 'mass' of energy that
>>> was blown apart at the point of
>>> the big bang.
>>
>> That is totally meaningless: You are saying:
>> "Look but do not think!" I hate that.
>>
>>> It's one of the basic laws, energy
>>> can not be created nor
>>> destroyed, it just changes it's state.
>>
>> The universe as a result of an explosion
>> is putting the horse before the cart. If you
>> tell me, the universe and THEN it explodes
>> it might be hard to imagine how, but at least
>> it would not be counter-intuitive.
>>
>>> As for nothingness, impossible.
>>
>> Ah! Yet another man who believes there has
>> always been death and taxes! (Me too!)
>>
>>> To
>>> measure nothingness involves some form of
>>> interaction, observer and event.
>>
>> Ha! You'd be surprised at how many people are even
>> now in government measuring nothingness.
>>
>>> Not possible as event = action and reaction, and
>>> in the event of nothingness
>>> the equation can not be completed as you can
>>> not oberve nothingness.
>>
>> Then what are all those strong-muscles gentlemen
>> who say they're bending space really up to?
>>
>>
>> ************************************
>>
>> On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 5 Aug, 12:14, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>>>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no magic is
>>>>> required you need to
>>>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning, i.e. how
>>>>> something evolved from nothing. -- Rob
>>
>> START QUOTE
>>
>> Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
>> land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
>> there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
>> towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
>> because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
>> only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
>> universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
>> tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
>> all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
>> "Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
>> than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
>> have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
>> because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
>> have eventually become our universe (the concentration
>> of so many, many somethings). SEE:
>>
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> END QUOTE
>>
>>>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>>>> yourself
>>>> must realize: "If Existence had to have had "a"
>>>> beginning
>>>> it could not exist."
>>>
>>>> In a very real sense: There was always "something."
>>>> AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation
>>>> of Nothingness--Something which some scientists
>>>> and
>>>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is
>>>> the case:
>>>
>>>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>>>> universe
>>>> to continue "conserving" the energy of which it
>>>> is made
>>>> from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all
>>>> eternity.
>>>
>>>> We do not notice this eternal conservation of
>>>> energy,
>>>> of course. Except for the "force" we call
>>>> "gravity."
>>>
>>> That, and the argument on your website, is a
>>> statement of belief.
>>
>> If I chose to believe in the laws of physics... let
>> them take me where they're going to take me.
>>
>>> To
>>> be a valid scientific theory it needs to propose
>>> explanations from
>>> which predictions can be made.
>>
>> Every prediction I have ever drawn from the
>> conclusion that the universe is in implosion
>> has proven true, from why the speed of light should
>> be constant, to what really causes inertia, to the
>> 1997 discovery that the universe is in acceleration,
>> and not (as a big bang universe predicts AND was
>> proven false) in deceleration. Further, an universe as
>> an implosion makes "dark energy" and "dark matter"
>> unnecessary. Use the model to come up with a thousand
>> predictions more, and then watch them all be proven
>> true. GO: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>>
>>> These predictions then need to be
>>> verified by independent, repeatable experiment.
>>
>> "No matter how you slice it an apple will ALWAYS
>> prove to be an apple." There will be (and have already
>> been) countless facts which will baffle/frustrate
>> people who still believe the universe is the result of
>> a big bang (no matter how many "proofs" they "find"
>> to support it). And there has not been nor can there
>> ever be even one substantial fact ever found which
>> will contradict that the universe is in implosion:
>> This is an absolutely black/white either/or matter.
>>
>> The universe is either the aftermath of a "big bang"
>> (which contradicts the laws of physics and countless
>> discoveries about how the universe works) or it is
>> in implosion, which instantly explains everything
>> about how it works & why it works that way... with
>> not a single contradiction.
>>
>> It is the difference between what is true and what
>> is not true.
>>
>> ****************************************
>>
>> On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ
>> <DontBot...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>>> In article <1186209867.957163.147...@
>> r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com says...
>>>
>>>> Otherwise, what you have there is A THING
>>>> brought into existence out of Nothingness. Or,
>>>> "created" by magic (with no connection whatever
>>>> to the laws of science, of nature, of physics).
>>>
>>> The big bang is magic?
>>
>> Strictly speaking, it is a myth.
>>
>> 1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly
>> historical events that serves to unfold part of the
>> world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,
>> or natural phenomenon
>> 2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up
>> around something or someone; especially: one
>> embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
>> or segment of society *seduced by the American
>> myth of individualism- Orde Coombs*
>> b: an unfounded or false notion
>>
>> It comes from observing that the galaxies are receding
>> from each other as if they were the gigantic remnants
>> of an ancient explosion. ERGO: "Run the film
>> backwards" and one HAD TO eventually end up at a
>> "point" where the "big bang" took place. And now you
>> know how the Big Bang Myth came about. I kid you not.
>>
>> "running the film backwards" is the experiment which
>> "proved" the "reality" of the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>> On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsrushin.'"
>> <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3 Aug, 03:53, SDR <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 21, 5:21 am, "'foolsrushin.'"
>> <dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> All religions are local.
>>>> Only science is universal.
>>>
>>>>> And, so, now, you are going to tell how, quite
>>>>> accidently, of course,
>>>>> you came to have your present opinions, God!
>>
>>>> Sure: I was in the wrong place
>>>> at the wrong time.
>>>
>>> Where should we move you to - to get the
>>> correct result?
>>
>> To the correct location.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> S D Rodrian
>> http://poems.sdrodrian.com
>> http://physics.sdrodrian.com
>> http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
>>
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>>
Fnews-brouse 1.9(20180406) -- by Mizuno, MWE <mwe@ccsf.jp>
GnuPG Key ID = ECC8A735
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 9BE6 B9E9 55A5 A499 CD51 946E 9BDC 7870 ECC8 A735