Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

From Painius:

..the WNF (weak nuclear force),
additively with the WNF's of other atoms, "reaches out" and appears to
us as...
gravity.

In the spirit of friendly picayunishness, just what is the mechanism by
which the WF 'reaches out'? And for that matter (since nothing can
propagate faster than light), how does gravity 'get out' of a BH's event
horizon, apparently with total ease and with zero attenuation?
Does not gravity, by all its observed effects and
behavior, appear to be a center-ward, accelerating, pressure-driven flow
of 'Something'? And what's the objection to surmising that it just
*might* be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as? oc

Painius wrote:

Whenever i think this small, i remember back when long ago i read
about how there is sooo much space between a nucleus and its
accompanying electrons. And sooo much space between atoms,
and how "ghostly" reality seems to be. And i try and try, but i can't
even *imagine* what this "space" is they're talking about. When i
was a kid i just thought it was "air." But *that* can't be.

So what is it? Nothing? (...and what the heck is *that*?)

g see what you get for boggling my meager mind?

Even Einstein found the idea of "action at a distance" to be
"spooky". Even more counterintuitive (to my at-least-as-meagre mind,
at least) is the notion of space being quantized into 'bits of
nothing' of finite size.

--
Odysseus

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Ody:

If we try to picture electrons as little tops or other spinning
macrocosmic objects
we can easily be misled.... electron spin
is quantized s=+/-1/2, either "up" or
"down" but never in between.

Without the aid of math, W gave a very straightforward conceptualization
of electron spin (mentioned a few times previously). First, picture the
(ground state) hydrogen atom as a modified sphere; it's somewhat oblate
and 'dimpled in' at the poles. It's the most primal planform in nature,
and common to all rotating systems it displays two hemispheres and a
common equator rotating on a polar axis. But in addition to this
circumferal spin, there is *axial* spin as the hemispheres roll out from
the equator and back in thru the poles.

Except that (as I've pointed out more than once before) the electron
orbital of hydrogen in the ground state is spherically symmetrical,
having no inherent pole, equator, or orientation whatsoever. In other
words, when the quantum number n = 1 the orbital has zero angular
momentum: l = 0. AFAIK this is not 'mere theory' but is borne out by experiment.

Note that the quantum number l is *not* the same as the s I mentioned
above, which describes the angular momentum possessed by individual
electrons. Even in "excited" states (where n 1) allowing a few
'degrees of freedom' in which the orbitals can have various
orientations and non-zero angular momentum (i.e. l 0), the electron
spin, being quite independent, remains restricted to only the two
values. (According to the Pauli exclusion principle only one of each
can occupy the same orbital, but that doesn't come into play in the
hydrogen atom.) So you seem to be confusing properties of an electron
itself with those of the atom in which it is bound. The 'rolling
toroid' picture you paint might suit the former -- about whose
internal structure current theories have nothing to say AFAICT -- but
seems to be quite at odds with known properties of the latter.

Of course in the H atom there's a third 'spinner', which I don't
recall having been mentioned yet in this thread: the nucleus,
comprising a proton with an up-or-down angular momentum of its own.
Considering that's where almost all the mass is found, "dustbunny"
though it may be, it might make a better focus for your modelling
efforts than the (even more ephemeral) electronic structure does.

--
Odysseus

nightbat wrote

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Painius:

..the WNF (weak nuclear force),
additively with the WNF's of other atoms, "reaches out" and appears to
us as...
gravity.

In the spirit of friendly picayunishness, just what is the mechanism by
which the WF 'reaches out'? And for that matter (since nothing can
propagate faster than light), how does gravity 'get out' of a BH's event
horizon, apparently with total ease and with zero attenuation?
Does not gravity, by all its observed effects and
behavior, appear to be a center-ward, accelerating, pressure-driven flow
of 'Something'? And what's the objection to surmising that it just
*might* be exactly what it appears to be and behaves as? oc

nightbat

Humble Maverick horse speaks to present lead herding one. Oc,
sometimes exactly what it appears to be or behaves as is misleading for
actually causation. Clue for the rest, ponder in terms of oc's drain
premise flow principle. Not particularly limited to concentrated matter
flow propensity but to the entire field dynamics. That the cause of
gravity is not a true force but a renomalization counter group ground
effect of the base micro field in present non equilibrium or disturbed
state. That the fine structure mentioned is nothing more then the
attempt at return to base uniform motion. And the outer neighborhood
universities of chaotic particle states is one of continuum flow to
neutral or base state but with no instant parity available without equal
opposing outside force whether affine or metrically gravitationally
defined.

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...opolophys.html

The proposed (Wolter-oc) macro micro group flow is pointing naturally
towards the sub micro dimensional base unified state and not
particularly where the equalizable none violation of atomic electron
super state is maintained but further condensable and not restX-Mozilla-Status: 0009nstants of the torsion being expected to coincide with the
gravitational constant. (Under Strong Gravity State Neighborhood)


the nightbat

To Ody:
Yeah, as you mentioned we've batted this stuff around
before about spins, orbitals etc. But such minutiae are incidental to
the weighty questions at hand like What is space? and What is gravity?
oc

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
To Ody:
Yeah, as you mentioned we've batted this stuff around
before about spins, orbitals etc. But such minutiae are incidental to
the weighty questions at hand like What is space? and What is gravity?
oc

I've never had much use for "Big Picture" men.

You can have the most aesthetically pleasing theory in the world, but if in
your theory, minutiae such as 1+1=2 do not hold, you're screwed.

Thank you, John. Now how about that original treatise on why c is
constant if there is 'no medium' ???? And no hand-offs to old dog-eared
stuff. oc

(Bill Sheppard) wrote in message ...
From S.S.Shastry:

Most important is to know the existence
of an eternal innermost self around
which everything 'seems' to be cyclic.

As a late great friend and mentor of mine once said, IF there is a such
a central, perpetually running 'Engine' from which Creation proceeds and
is eventually re-ingested, such an 'Engine', if it had voice and could
speak, could rightly proclaim, "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning
and the end."


That is it. They are the familiar singularities which have been
approximated, avoided or simply ignored depending on the circumstances
under which they occur in physics and maths. However all these
singularities are essential and point to the same singularity which is
the essence of all there is, included as central to the observer.


If this astonishing knowledge which is
central to scriptures is not understood
then hardly anything substantial is
served by them.

My friend, being reared as a Mormon, got kicked out of the Mormon church
for the heresy of stating that God can be perceived directly, without
need of an intermediary (meaning the church elders).
Even in physics, singularity is that
eternal innermost self around which
everything 'seems' to be cyclic.

"Singularity" as a noun can refer to that dimensionless point of
infinite density and zero volume at the core of a black hole. There can
also be the _State_ of Singularity. My friend saw this as the natural
extension of quantum nonlocality (already proven in the lab BTW), and
called it 'non-pluralty' or the Law of One. It would correspond to David
Bohm's 'Implicate Order', the Primary Reality underlying the material
universe.


It may be improper to extrapolate saying that singularity is infinite
density at zero volume, for, no material can be said to be in zero
volume. It has to be nonmaterial like infinite consciousness which is
our innermost self around which everything seems to be cyclic.
Consequently, around this consciousness the whole universe is
nonlocal. However, this nonlocal universe can also be seen as local.


And so, while singularity is the truth the
universe has to be understood as it is,
illusory and not untruth.

Yeah, although the material universe is 'maya' or illusion, it is a very
REAL illusion (the tagalong 'dustbunny' as my friend called it).


When one is unaware of the existence of the this innermost self as the
real self, the body sees the universe as the real. This phenomenon of
illusion appearing as real is 'maya'

S S Shastry

From Nightbat:

..sometimes exactly what it appears to
be or behaves as is misleading for actual causation.

Well Night, in many instances it's more rational to simply let Occam's
Razor hold sway rather than complicating things unnecessarily. It's like
the iceberg principle (tongue in cheek of course); it's more rational to
believe the unseen part is more likely made of the same stuff as the
visible part, than not.
On the question of gravity, it's more rational (and
far less complicated) to simply accept it for exactly what it appears to
be and behaves as. O's Razor all the way. oc

nightbat

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From Nightbat:

..sometimes exactly what it appears to
be or behaves as is misleading for actual causation.

Well Night, in many instances it's more rational to simply let Occam's
Razor hold sway rather than complicating things unnecessarily. It's like
the iceberg principle (tongue in cheek of course); it's more rational to
believe the unseen part is more likely made of the same stuff as the
visible part, than not.
On the question of gravity, it's more rational (and
far less complicated) to simply accept it for exactly what it appears to
be and behaves as. O's Razor all the way. oc

nightbat

Too many men for instance are placed in prison based on pointing
circumstantial evidence and convicted instead of for actual causation.
In many cases it's not until the true responsible criminal sometimes
admits to the crime, or dna evidence is introduced, that the innocent is
absolved of the charges and freed.

In science the criteria for ascertaining truth is even more stringent,
for it goes beyond just show me, but, proof it. For at times, per above,
appearances can be deceiving. Also because of the sub micro quantum
reality and the cosmic distances, the back is on the clock. I agree, if
the model fits then why not run with it? Well, because the model may
work until you run across those anomalies that don't fit and then you
know relying on O's Razor won't help. (Big E's castle with no
foundation) A better model is needed to explain those anomalies least
you're back in left field. The natural flow is there whether detectable
medium or not. You know I only disagree with your friend Wolter's agreed
flow principle as to cause of flow, not whether there is one. Relying on
an around the bend unobservable immense cosmic donut like engine as the
cause of gravity is acceptable as innocent but profound for a
theoretical ad hoc explanation for what's driving the flow. And my
further knowing and understanding Wolter's relayed work background, one
inadvertently sometimes uses what is customary or known to self. Not
that the premise is wrong just how one interprets what is deduced.
Remaining observationally correct is probably why my " Black Comet " or
what they are commonly now calling gravastar is apparently a better fit
theoretically and observationally even to the mainstreamer's. That us
Mavericks have an impact in leading the herd is evident even without
dependence on your Wolter's original medium donut based insight. It's
the quantum flow principle oc and super position of Pauli states that is
important and the true basis of the infant GUT.

Ha, ha, I ran across this article about related gravastars where they
even speak about your internet thought experiment of fish relating the
ocean to their present understanding of zero space. Where did they hear
of these things first? Talk about two tired astronomy steeds pointing
the pack till the rest catch up. (:~)

See:http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...Fgravastars%2F


later oc,
the nightbat