|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message...
. rogers.com... Painius wrote: Suit yourself... State for everyone here without beating around the bush. Does gravity demonstrate a tidal force or not? Quid pro quo... ....you answer mine, then i'll answer yours. you said-- The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity' is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon limited understanding of the spaceship universe. I asked you to expound. Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo... If not, then fly away, flit flit flit. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Stardust in the solar wind... all that is or ever been. all we see and all we sin... stardust in the solar wind. Paine Ellsworth |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message... . rogers.com... Painius wrote: Suit yourself... State for everyone here without beating around the bush. Does gravity demonstrate a tidal force or not? Quid pro quo... ...you answer mine, then i'll answer yours. you said-- The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity' is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon limited understanding of the spaceship universe. I asked you to expound. Our universe meaning our galaxy is just another cog in a very big wheel. In other words our universe is the bottom of all the universes. We are on the bottom, so how can we understand the higher dimensions without seeing them from above? We can't. Thus our math is more of a retrograde or back-engineering ideology. We blow up particles in order to understand them for example. Each galaxy is an energy 'molecule' that has not only temperature constants, but also gravitity and electron constants. Gravity is a super potentional electromagnetic force and no physicist will contradict that. But gravity is just another constant among many. Physicists must begin to use a language of color in order to comprehend the many electromagnetic spectrums. This just means that the math needs updating, not discarding. Until this is accomplished, I guess we will forever have no explanation for why stars appear in only invisible spectrums. And the data received from our super telescopes will also remain a mystery. The Higher Intelligence combine known frequencies of optical and radio wavelengths to communicate throughout the galaxy. There methods of interstellar communication are also reciprical in that the interstellar medium is used for both receiving and sending signals. In fact we have already seen those frequencies, we just don't understand the science in order to decode those signals for example. Another example I could 'prove' is how when we look at Sagittarius A* and resolve the black hole core in the center of the Milky Way, we aren't really seeing the black hole, but the 'memory' of the black hole, because Sag A* is a mirror also known as a 'recorder cell' which is also magnetic in nature. I think from a purely philosophical point of view that gravity is a 'mirror' and anti-gravitational forces must employ a sets of pulsed frequencies as a 'mirror' in order overcome gravity. Kind of like using radiations of color and sound to overcome the direction of wavelengths and even to overcome magnetic resistance spanning electromagnetic sinks or points of gravitational collapse. Our science currently tackles those forces head on when we see for example the Space Shuttle leaving orbit and reentering the earth's gravity pull. The surface heats up and would destroy the vehicle in an instant without the protective heat shielding. This 'attitude' (no pun intended) is no different than smashing atoms in order to see what the constituent nature is. I never once in my entire life said the math used is complete crap, just unique forms of crap. Thus I see no problem with gravity waves also being connected with a tidal force. In other words gravity waves must have a center, because they move in chiral fashion - that is left handed and right handed motions. This could account for the process of low and high tides. Gravity is what causes the human form to have two eyes, two ears, a left and right hemisphere to the brain for example, and gravity in fact explains why DNA is a double helix. So even though the universe may have begun as a singularity, it ultimately 'spiraled' through the forces of chiral gravity. Take a look at all the galaxies resolved through our telescopes, and for the most part they all demonstrate 'twin' sides, much in resemblance to the out-stretched arms of an eagle. It is the forces of electromagnetic waves (the light cone) which gives the illusion of three (3) dimensionality. This shows us the direction our science must take in order to make a great leap forward in to a whole new 'space' age. Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo... If not, then fly away, flit flit flit. Truly horrendous character to quote from. happy days and... starry starry nights! |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote:
[snip] At first, this seems like good reason to believe that gravity is still only a pull force, and that there is no flowing-space field to be distorted by radiation and particle pressures from our Sun. To explain why this is not so, we must remember that these flowing-space fields are postulated to be sub-Planck in lambda/wavelength. Therefore their particle-natures would be far more prominent than their wave-natures. So these specialized tiny bundles of energy, which i believe to be the elusive gravitons, are energetic enough *not* to be affected by the lower-energy radiation photons and particles of the Solar wind. Odysseus, i would be more than honored by your thoughts on this as well as those you may have regarding astronomical aberration effects on gravitons. I have no particular insights on this question; I don't understand the "Standard Model" well enough as it is, let alone being able to extend it into the 'sub-Planck realm'. As for gravitons, I find the warped-spacetime image of gravity easier to visualize (in a reduced number of dimensions) than that involving exchanges of messenger particles, so I won't be of much help there either. My main question about the flowing-space ideas under discussion takes a somewhat different tack: if "space" is flowing, what is it flowing in or through? -- Odysseus |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you, Mad, for expounding...
"Mad Scientist" wrote... The reason the world doesn't actually understand what a 'singularity' is, is because they have a limited science. Faulty math based upon limited understanding of the spaceship universe. Our universe meaning our galaxy is just another cog in a very big wheel. In other words our universe is the bottom of all the universes. We are on the bottom, so how can we understand the higher dimensions without seeing them from above? We can't. Thus our math is more of a retrograde or back-engineering ideology. We blow up particles in order to understand them for example. Each galaxy is an energy 'molecule' that has not only temperature constants, but also gravitity and electron constants. Gravity is a super potentional electromagnetic force I agree with this. If you have been following the articles about flowing space models, then you know that i consider the graviton to be a specialized photon, very tiny yet chock full of energy. It is the flow of gravitons which makes up space itself. and no physicist will contradict that. But gravity is just another constant among many. Physicists must begin to use a language of color in order to comprehend the many electromagnetic spectrums. This just means that the math needs updating, not discarding. Until this is accomplished, I guess we will forever have no explanation for why stars appear in only invisible spectrums. This i do not understand. Why do you say "only invisible" when most of the stars we see with our eyes, our visible sensors? And the data received from our super telescopes will also remain a mystery. The Higher Intelligence combine known frequencies of optical and radio wavelengths to communicate throughout the galaxy. There methods of interstellar communication are also reciprical in that the interstellar medium is used for both receiving and sending signals. In fact we have already seen those frequencies, we just don't understand the science in order to decode those signals for example. I've often wondered about that. Another example I could 'prove' is how when we look at Sagittarius A* and resolve the black hole core in the center of the Milky Way, we aren't really seeing the black hole, but the 'memory' of the black hole, because Sag A* is a mirror also known as a 'recorder cell' which is also magnetic in nature. How could you 'prove' this? I think from a purely philosophical point of view that gravity is a 'mirror' and anti-gravitational forces must employ a sets of pulsed frequencies as a 'mirror' in order overcome gravity. Kind of like using radiations of color and sound to overcome the direction of wavelengths and even to overcome magnetic resistance spanning electromagnetic sinks or points of gravitational collapse. Our science currently tackles those forces head on when we see for example the Space Shuttle leaving orbit and reentering the earth's gravity pull. The surface heats up and would destroy the vehicle in an instant without the protective heat shielding. This 'attitude' (no pun intended) is no different than smashing atoms in order to see what the constituent nature is. I never once in my entire life said the math used is complete crap, just unique forms of crap. Thus I see no problem with gravity waves also being connected with a tidal force. In other words gravity waves must have a center, because they move in chiral fashion - that is left handed and right handed motions. This could account for the process of low and high tides. Gravity is what causes the human form to have two eyes, two ears, a left and right hemisphere to the brain for example, and gravity in fact explains why DNA is a double helix. So even though the universe may have begun as a singularity, it ultimately 'spiraled' through the forces of chiral gravity. Take a look at all the galaxies resolved through our telescopes, and for the most part they all demonstrate 'twin' sides, much in resemblance to the out-stretched arms of an eagle. It is the forces of electromagnetic waves (the light cone) which gives the illusion of three (3) dimensionality. This shows us the direction our science must take in order to make a great leap forward in to a whole new 'space' age. Science could certainly *use* a great leap or two! Quid pro quo, my little Starling, quid pro quo... If not, then fly away, flit flit flit. Truly horrendous character to quote from. Clarice? Is that you? You've got mail... goody goody. Byezie byezie... see you around. (Anthony Hopkins "in character" on AOL) -- happy days and... starry starry nights! Paine |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... I have no particular insights on this question; I don't understand the "Standard Model" well enough as it is, let alone being able to extend it into the 'sub-Planck realm'. As for gravitons, I find the warped-spacetime image of gravity easier to visualize (in a reduced number of dimensions) than that involving exchanges of messenger particles, so I won't be of much help there either. Odysseus, thank you for this. I've been reading your articles here for a long time and have spent long hours thinking about and trying to understand many of the things you write about. Perhaps, as in the past, you and i can grab some insights as a result of discussion. My main question about the flowing-space ideas under discussion takes a somewhat different tack: if "space" is flowing, what is it flowing in or through? -- Odysseus At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts... 1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing into and through, 2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver. We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from their source to their ultimate destination. We can see what the water flows into and through, however i am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is, we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist for a long time by our standards. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Stardust in the solar wind... all that is or ever been. all we see and all we sin... stardust in the solar wind. Paine Ellsworth |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Painius wrote:
At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts... 1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing into and through, Not necessarily, I don't think. I can just as easily picture our spacetime as self-contained; whatever (if anything) the surrounding 'hypospace' may consist of could just as well be excluded from the universe as pervade it. I should think that anything outside the universe is unknowable, pretty much by definition, so the only possible answers to the question of what surrounds it would be better classified as metaphysical speculation than as science. Therefore it might be more productive to focus on questions that are decidable, at least in principle. 2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver. We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from their source to their ultimate destination. We can see what the water flows into and through, however i am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is, we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist for a long time by our standards. I do think that much of the problem has to do with the inadequacy of our senses for dealing with the aspects of the world whose scale is much greater or smaller than ours. Marvellous though they may be, our faculties evolved in an environment wherein cosmological and quantum considerations are irrelevant, and it's only in the most recent 0.01% of our existence as a species that we -- actually a pretty small fraction of the population -- have developed a material and intellectual culture sufficient to begin exploring these realms. Our intuition balks at absorbing the implications of what abstract models and indirect observations tell us, whether the seeming unreality concerns wave-particle duality on the smallest scales, or a finite but boundless, multidimensional manifold on the largest. It's all too easy to seize on analogies from direct experience without recognizing that they're only suggestive 'props' to understanding, and that they can't be stretched very far without leading to false inferences. Although this may all sound rather pessimistic, I treasure the sense of awe that contemplating these questions can evoke, and the strange beauty of the mathematical language that has been so successful at describing them (if not at satisfactorily 'bringing them home'). I like to think that with such inspiration it's possible for anyone to gain some insight into what really goes on, glimpsed "through a glass darkly" though it may be. And I believe that exchanges of ideas with others -- at whatever level -- can help any of us develop a better understanding, as long as we recognize that those who have struggled with the issues will have found different routes through them; as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, each of us can benefit from trying to take in others' perspectives. -- Odysseus |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ... Painius wrote: At first, this looked to me like the question as to whether space is a void with sub-Planck energy flowing through it, or is space itself comprised of energy, IOW is space itself a field. Then almost immediately i latched onto two thoughts... 1) What exactly did the Universe "erupt" into as a result of the Big Bang, for whatever that is, it is what space would be flowing into and through, Not necessarily, I don't think. I can just as easily picture our spacetime as self-contained; whatever (if anything) the surrounding 'hypospace' may consist of could just as well be excluded from the universe as pervade it. I should think that anything outside the universe is unknowable, pretty much by definition, so the only possible answers to the question of what surrounds it would be better classified as metaphysical speculation than as science. Therefore it might be more productive to focus on questions that are decidable, at least in principle. Yes, my wording was too... arrogant?... "It is what space *might* be flowing into and/or through." And perhaps the road to the large answers is paved with questions that are decidable. Do you think that the questions of gravity and the understanding of it using both relativity *and* quantum physics are decidable? 2) maybe the whole question of void space vs. space as field is unnecessary. Take water, for example, as it flows downriver. We can see the river as the medium, or we can see the water as millions of water molecules being rushed through "space" from their source to their ultimate destination. We can see what the water flows into and through, however i am fairly certain that we may never know the answer to your question. It could be a void, or it could be a gel-like substance that space-as-field expands outwardly against. Whatever it is, we only "know" that it must be something that would allow our Universe to come into being and to grow very large and exist for a long time by our standards. I do think that much of the problem has to do with the inadequacy of our senses for dealing with the aspects of the world whose scale is much greater or smaller than ours. Marvellous though they may be, our faculties evolved in an environment wherein cosmological and quantum considerations are irrelevant, and it's only in the most recent 0.01% of our existence as a species that we -- actually a pretty small fraction of the population -- have developed a material and intellectual culture sufficient to begin exploring these realms. Our intuition balks at absorbing the implications of what abstract models and indirect observations tell us, whether the seeming unreality concerns wave-particle duality on the smallest scales, or a finite but boundless, multidimensional manifold on the largest. It's all too easy to seize on analogies from direct experience without recognizing that they're only suggestive 'props' to understanding, and that they can't be stretched very far without leading to false inferences. And yet it is never easy to step out from our direct experiences and to use our imaginations. All too often, whether something is true or not, if it be the result of our imaginings then it is sluffed off as metaphysical speculation. Intuition, a "nose for news," our feelings and our speculations are trustworthy only to the extent that they have been successful in the past. Although this may all sound rather pessimistic, I treasure the sense of awe that contemplating these questions can evoke, and the strange beauty of the mathematical language that has been so successful at describing them (if not at satisfactorily 'bringing them home'). I like to think that with such inspiration it's possible for anyone to gain some insight into what really goes on, glimpsed "through a glass darkly" though it may be. And I believe that exchanges of ideas with others -- at whatever level -- can help any of us develop a better understanding, as long as we recognize that those who have struggled with the issues will have found different routes through them; as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, each of us can benefit from trying to take in others' perspectives. -- Odysseus I share your sense of awe, and i did not take anything you said as pessimistic, but realistic. I sometimes like to see a mind soar, but sooner or later comes the time for landing and for facing reality. That which we bring back with us from our soarings and which stands the tests of reality, serves to raise our levels of consciousness. It seems truly... magical! Paine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Information to Can Leave A Black Hole | flamestar | Science | 2 | December 12th 03 11:12 PM |
information can leave a black hole | James Briggs | Science | 0 | December 6th 03 01:15 AM |
Chandra 'Hears' A Black Hole | Ron Baalke | Misc | 30 | October 4th 03 06:22 PM |
Black hole mass-sigma correlation | Hans Aberg | Research | 44 | October 1st 03 11:39 PM |
Universe Born in Black Hole Explosion? | Klaatu | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | September 21st 03 12:12 AM |