What If

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darla"
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 6:56 PM
Subject: 'Darla' agrees. Ho ho ho (Was 'What if'...)


"Greysky" wrote in message
om...


Well, 'appearances' can be decieving. At the least, a riddle: What looks
FTL, gets you to where you want to go FTL, but doesn't invalidate
relativity? It's been my contention for some time now that the universe
will
break every rule we know, violate every directive, ridicule every law,
just
so it can keep in touch with itself. Of course, if it appears to be a
rule
breaker, it is only because we aren't aware of every rule there is, or
just
aren't wrapping the ol' grey matter around the concept the right way, to
see
the to problem for the solution it contains. Einstein was a good old
duffer,
but I hope his rules don't make it too hard for us to become galatic
tourists. On the same note, mind me asking in all your millenia as an
explorer, have you not found a better way to go FTL than hitching a ride
on
an exotic matter plasma jet? It seems... rather limiting in that you can
only go where the jet goes, if I am reading things correctly. I would
rather
have a self powered starship that has a self contained FTL propulsion
source - a star drive - so you can experience dynamical FTL propulsion.
Using your current method, there must be many places you can't get to.



Actually, the waiting periods are short, and the streams get us to where
we
are going every time.
Manipulation of a stream, once you are inside, is possible and quite easy.
Other types of drives are needed when traveling within galactic arms, but
to
get from one arm to another, nothing beats a stream.


This is why Balance is so crucial.
For when the circle is Broken.
In some ways, Nothingness seems very much akin to Death.
It is unknown and therefore tremulously feared.


Ah... but it is where the truly interestings happen! Truly, everything
comes
from nothing :-0

Greysky



And how can this Be, Greysky?
It is the very assumption that you cannot get something from nothing that
breaks your physics down in the first few moments of your Big Bang theory.
Your statement goes against your science laws regarding energy being
created/destroyed.
So how can this be?

Darla


Yeah, it does seem at first glance to be a bit strange, I admit. But The
Universe doesn't seem to care that it is 'breaking the laws of physics' -
and it is only an assumption that only nothing comes from nothing. As I
earlier said, and as an alien with a starship you of course know this
already, if the universe appears to be breaking the rules, it is either
because there is a higher order law in operation you know nothing about, or
you haven't applied the laws you do know about in a sufficiently creative
way to explain what it is you are observing. A nice example that ties in
with energy is how virtual / imaginary particles can interact with real
particles to produce real work. Now, if an imaginary particle pops into
existance and bounces into a real particle before it pops back into
nothingness, we can see the real particle move - work is done since a real
motion has been observed. I have on occasion used the rather graphical
example of someone being hit over the head with an imaginary baseball bat...
if afterwards the imaginary particles that make up the substance of the bat
disappear -poof!- even though it is imaginary the very smashed skull that
was once intact is testament to the very real work the imaginary baseball
bat has left behind. This doesn't really make sense from the limiting
perspective of energy-energy interactions that define a work function.
Imaginary particles should do imaginary work, which we shouldn't be able to
see. (This is an 'apparant' violation of the conservation of energy
law-remember what I said earlier?) So in a way, nothingness has done some
useful work and affected a change in the cosmos. The are only two ways this
can be interpreted: A) The universe cannot distinguish between real work and
imaginary work, or, B) There is some other, more fundamental 'thing', than
energy that can cause work to be done. Of course, this is old stuff to you ,
but to my people, the fact that energy is not the fundamental mover it has
for centuries been thought to be is still unsettling. As you alluded to in
your most recent reply in this thread to Bill Sheppard, Einstein's maths
have shown us the limits to which 'energy' can take us, and it ain't far. So
I suspect, after a bit of a retrenchment, others will also come to the same
conclusions as I have and science will once more, march forward. So, which
of the above two interpretations do I subscribe to? The answer is......C)
Both A and B are true!

So what is more fundamental than energy? If you have finished reading my
humble web site, you already know what I think But Einstein turns out to
be be just as good a prophet as he was a scientist when he said "Nothing Can
Go Faster Than Light!" It can.

Greysky

www.allocations.cc
Learn how to build a FTL radio.

Hi Darla I have a theory of inertia,and out of my theory is the fastest
humans can move through space is at 94% of light speed. Like most of my
theories at this spacetime I have only the Cern accelerator to help show
my theories are realistic. What do you think? I do use the knowledge
the Cern accelerator gives us as the heart of my inertia theory. I
always have the interesting thought in back of my mind that Einstien had
to say. A spaceship traveling through space at light speed will have no
speed left for motion through time. That is very profound. It takes away
the passage of time for all objects going at 186,000 mps. Bert

What if astronomers are afraid to theorize inside a blackhole the same
way they will not theorize a condition before the big bang? These to me
are relative thoughts. I have no fear to think and theorize about them.
I have posted in the past that that inside a blackhole there are no
moving parts I have posted in the past what conditions were present to
create the big bang. Inside a blackhole there can be no energy(no
motion) When photons pass through the event horizon they lose all their
energy.(motion).that is another reason they can't escape(no 186,000 mps)
Electrons inside a blackhole do not spin anymore. Quarks,and gluons fuse
together so strongly that they take up almost infinite tiny space,but
they do hold the event horizon from crushing into the singularity,until
gravity in time over comes this last remaining force. That is the last
phase,and in the end the blackhole becomes massless. It has no event
horizon Has lost its positive charge It has lost its spin. It now
is only a thought in my mind that ties in with "What was there before
the big bang." Big bang,and blackholes are two sides to the same coin.
They are equivelent in so many ways Bert

From 'Darla'-

How many hundreds (thousands?) of
years did your Ptolemy's math "proving"
geocentrism limit the imaginations of
science?

And now you have Einstein's.

Heresy! There's nothing wrong with Einstein's math. With the possible
exception of that sidebar dealing with polarization of GWsg. the
correctness of his math has been proven over and over again.

What is "limiting the imaginations of science" is the religious
adherance to the 'no medium' premise (or VSP) and the unwillingness to
even consider a super energy-dense domain below the Planck scale as the
Primary Reality underlying the material universe.
Perfectly good math, applied by the best minds but rooted
in the VSP, is "limiting the imaginations of science". It muddles the
distinction between gravity and "gravity waves" as well as the
distinction between EM and GW radiation. And unification of gravity
under the VSP will forever amount to chasing the rainbow.
Old labrat (oc)

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From 'Darla'-

How many hundreds (thousands?) of
years did your Ptolemy's math "proving"
geocentrism limit the imaginations of
science?

And now you have Einstein's.

Heresy! There's nothing wrong with Einstein's math. With the possible
exception of that sidebar dealing with polarization of GWsg. the
correctness of his math has been proven over and over again.

What is "limiting the imaginations of science" is the religious
adherance to the 'no medium' premise (or VSP) and the unwillingness to
even consider a super energy-dense domain below the Planck scale as the
Primary Reality underlying the material universe.
Perfectly good math, applied by the best minds but rooted
in the VSP, is "limiting the imaginations of science". It muddles the
distinction between gravity and "gravity waves" as well as the
distinction between EM and GW radiation. And unification of gravity
under the VSP will forever amount to chasing the rainbow.
Old labrat (oc)


Agreed.
This is not to say that math is undesirable and should go unused.
This is only to say that human usage of math does not always take into
account the limitations of math.

SO, it would not be totally incorrect to say that Wolter's ideas are not
completely supported by math that is already in place via Einstein's
theories?
You have previously indicated that this is the case.
It would now appear that you have changed your mind, and that more math is
needed to support these interesting ideas?

Darla

Hi Darla As you know we live in an organic universe.,and it is only
fitting the universe would evolve intelligent life so it can see itself.
Darla it is like walking along a beach and looking at the vast ocean,and
knowing we came out of it. There has to be a very thin line
between organic life,and inorganic life. Both have molecules. Seems the
carbon atom is the key,for it unites with Hydrogen Bert

From 'Darla':

SO, it would not be totally incorrect to
say that Wolter's ideas are not
completely supported by math that is
already in place via Einstein's theories?
You have previously indicated that this is the case.

Specifically, the math in question concerns his 'c-dilation' curve, and
its juxtaposition with the time dilation curve in special relativity. In
the graph shown here, the curve remains fairly flat out to 70-80 precent
of c, then begins an ever-steepening climb up to c. Now if you turn the
graph end-for-end, the *density curve* of the spatial medium remains
fairly flat out to 70-80 percent the distance to the BB, then begins an
ever-accelerating climb back to the instant of emergence from the BB.
www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~phyteoe/gateway/dilation Wolter deemed this the
natural extension of SR, for which all the math is already in place. His
expanded model replaces the "void" with the medium (or SPED/VED) and its
cosmological density gradient.

In his flowing-space model of gravity, the "curvature of space" in
general relativity describes the acceleration-rate of inflow into a
gravitating mass. And all the math is already in place, courtesy of that
wry old elf, Uncle A. The flowing-space model explains the *literal*
mechanism of gravity that the "curvature" abstractly described. So the
flowing-space model is the natural extension of GR (under Wolter's
model).

It would now appear that you have
changed your mind, and that more math
is needed... ?

No, no more needed. What brought this up is Mr. Zinni's citing the
polarization of GWs. In this sidebar of GR, the mis-named "gravitational
waves" are deemed to be transverse rather than longitudinal, so the
'metric' was required to conform to the premise. This sidebar is not a
core issue of GR. oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From 'Darla':

It would now appear that you have
changed your mind, and that more math
is needed... ?

No, no more needed. What brought this up is Mr. Zinni's citing the
polarization of GWs. In this sidebar of GR, the mis-named "gravitational
waves" are deemed to be transverse rather than longitudinal, so the
'metric' was required to conform to the premise.

Once again ...
This argument simply does not hold water. If, as you say, there is a bias
toward finding no stretch-shrink effect in the z direction (assuming
propagation on the z-axis) simply because there is no ether, then that
argument would apply equally as well in the x and y directions, and yet
there is a predicted effect in these directions. No, the reason GR predicts
no effect in the z direction is because it is not supported by the
mathematics of the model.


This sidebar is not a
core issue of GR. oc

The predictions of the mathematical model of GR are indeed the core issue.

WUPPs. Make that http://www.physics.nus.edu.sg/~phyte.../dilation.html

Hey John,
On the issue of polarization of GWs, can you think of
any reason why a sound wave should be anything other than longitudinal?
Again, the 'no medium' premise dictates against an
analogy with sound, mandating a 'metric' forbidding longitudinal
propagation.
Once the reality of the medium is accepted, it dont't
take no steenkin' math or convoluted 'metric' to deduce the nature of
GWs as _spatial acoustic pressure waves_ exactly analogous to sound, but
propagating at c, and a GW antenna as a specialized acoustic microphone
to detect those _longitudinal_ waves. Since they are expected to overlap
the human auditory range, they would be "hearable" directly, without
downconversion as in radio. oc