Big Bang Busted in Science Classes for High Schools

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
Painius to John Boy:

As much as i respect your ideas, your
posts do sometimes indicate that you
have a difficult time seeing the forest for
the trees. And this post of yours tells me
why...

I would res[ect his ideas too, if he HAD any ideas. So far all he's been
able to present is rote recitation and some semi-good natured
snottiness. oc

The task you set for me is impossible to perform to your satisfaction.

First off, I would not presume to be able to come up with a truly original
explanation of why c is constant. The standard explanation are quite
sufficient for me. I do not understand why they are insufficient for you.

Secondly, if I did manage to come up with something original, judging from
past experience, you would simply dismiss it out of hand as being contrived
from within the "Void Space Para-dig-um"

Why on Earth should I even attempt to carry on a civil conversation with
you???

For now I am quite content to poke you with a stick from the sidelines every
now and again.

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Not an attack, John, just an observation...

There are some instances where 1+1= something other than 2.
And these are valid examples where 1+1=2 does not "hold."

Well I don't know about that, but under the assumption that we are using
"1+1" as an analogy for "other things" it will never be the case that
"1+1=2" and "1+1=/=2" both hold in the same self consistent system.


And we are all "Big Picture" people, aren't we John? After all,
one molecule of H2O would go unnoticed by us, while an ocean
is hard to miss.

As much as i respect your ideas, your posts do sometimes
indicate that you have a difficult time seeing the forest for the
trees. And this post of yours tells me why...

I would argue that Bill (and maybe you to a certain extent) are completely
ignoring the trees.


You have no use for forests,
You only like the trees,
One tree on fire is not so bad,
Blazing forests? tragedies.

--
happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Painius

From JB (John Boy)

I would not presume to be able to come
up with a truly original explanation of
why c is constant.

Well then brainiac, maybe you can explain the literal mechanism of
gravity under the void-space para-dijjum (same invitation still extends
to OG).

Why on Earth should I even attempt to
carry on a civil conversation with you???

Beats me.

For now I am quite content to poke you
with a stick from the sidelines every now and again.

Well then expect to get poked back every now and then. oc

Hi oc and Painius. Maybe the blackhole is showing us that the graviton
is a particle that goes faster than the photon.(Newton would like that)
We don't have any idea of the graviton's speed. Maybe its field and
force wave only goes from equator to its poles. Much like the Earth's
magnetisim goes from pole to pole. How far the blackhole's gravity wave
goes out would come under the inverse square law as to its strength from
points away from its center. I'm sorry oc I can't see the energy
of space creating the push force that ends up pushing gravitons back
into the interior of a blackhole. A French Astronomer went with
this theory about 200 years ago,and had to give it up. The reason was it
created more problems than it solved. It is little better than GR curved
space. Quantum gravity tied into the string theory are two closer
to reality(my thoughts) Bert

Painius wrote:
"Odysseus" wrote...
in message ...

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.

"Space between a nucleus and electrons"? Your making it seem like an
electron is a particle going around, its not. Its a wave guided by
pilot waves, it has a most probable location, but its not guaranteed and
is all probabilistic.

Also you are talking about such a vast area, but remember in finite
structure that the nucleus has an EM field, the electron has an EM field
(because of its movement) and the elctrons with eachother have an EM
field. Its not as "empty" as you think.

Space is pretty full of particles of all kinds The "Space" between
stars is pretty immaginable when you think about it. Pluto's orbit is
11892000000 km in diameter, so 11892000000000 meters. Light travels at
2.997E8m/s in a vaccume (lets assume vaccume) so it crosses the whole
pluto diameter in orbit at 39 666.4443 light-seconds, or 0.459102365 days.

39666.4443 light seconds is 0.00125698062 light years.

Alpha Centauri is what 4Lyr away?

That means its 3175.0915339 times farther away then the diameter of pluto.

I used google for the calculations so like "x years in days" etc. I
am not too sure about its precision but i could do the calculations with
errors if you want, or the validity of it (since i only have 4 hours sleep).

But thats roughly the distance between us and alpha centauri. needless
to say, for the time being, we aint goin' nowhere.





--
Odysseus


Sounds as if you tend to think of space as being made of
something rather than being nothing. What do *you* think
space is?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:

Hi oc and Painius. Maybe the blackhole is showing us that the graviton
is a particle that goes faster than the photon.

C is the fastest speed in the universe. photon or no photon. The only
thing that goes faster than light are pilot waves which are
complex-domain and aren't observable in our universe.

I do whole heartedly believe that the graviton is a particle. Now if we
could only devise an experiment that would make gravitons interfere .
Can anyone suggest one? I need bonus points for my modern physics
course . From what i hear gravitrons are thought to have spin of 2,
which would mean a symmetric wave func.


(Newton would like that)

I think any physicist will tell you that particles can't go faster than
c in the real domain.

We don't have any idea of the graviton's speed. Maybe its field and
force wave only goes from equator to its poles. Much like the Earth's
magnetisim goes from pole to pole. How far the blackhole's gravity wave
goes out would come under the inverse square law as to its strength from
points away from its center.

I would think that in a black hole's event horizon, quantum effects
would be more pronounced, especially quantization of gravity which is
totally unobservable by us but if i remember in class we calculated it
to be 1E-12m or the like.

But i'me not a phisycist, i just have to take modern physics courses for
school.

I'm sorry oc I can't see the energy
of space creating the push force that ends up pushing gravitons back
into the interior of a blackhole. A French Astronomer went with
this theory about 200 years ago,and had to give it up. The reason was it
created more problems than it solved. It is little better than GR curved
space. Quantum gravity tied into the string theory are two closer
to reality(my thoughts) Bert

I whole heartedly agree, though i'me sceptical about string theory (or
"M-theory" to be more precise since there are like 4 string theories,
and one big theory containing all of them called M-theory. If i
remember correctly.

The 11 possible dimensions kinda freak me out But it is totally
possible, and maby just unobservable.

Remember 100 years ago the idea of an electron tunelling through an
engergy barrier was totally rediculous, Now we design with this in
mind, low enough that me little Software Engineering undergrad sees it
in his physics courses.

Anyway my 0.02$ CAD.

From Bert:

I'm sorry.. I can't see the energy of
space creating the push force that ends
up pushing gravitons back into the
interior of a blackhole.

Well Bert, under the flowing-space model and its 'push force', you don't
need any "gravitons" (or any other 'magical messengers' for that
matter). oc =A0 =A0 =A0

Hi Yoyoma Seems the M-theory put life back into the string theory. As
Brian Greene puts it it unites the previous five superstring theories
within a single overarching framework. M-theory to work it has to have
eleven spacetime dimensions. I wonder how many people understand how
these dimensions are used. I know Edward Witten understands it.
B ert

Painius wrote:

Sounds as if you tend to think of space as being made of
something rather than being nothing. What do *you* think
space is?

To paraphrase a famous remark about time, it's what keeps everything
from being in the same place.

--
Odysseus

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Hi Yoyoma Seems the M-theory put life back into the string theory. As
Brian Greene puts it it unites the previous five superstring theories
within a single overarching framework. M-theory to work it has to have
eleven spacetime dimensions. I wonder how many people understand how
these dimensions are used. I know Edward Witten understands it.
B ert

From what i understand its just because they can't factor out some
terms so they become dimensions. We all heard it like "Demensional
equivelence" when you have like for example schrodigner's eqn

(where Y = phi, hbar = h bar, h/2pi, and d for simplicity is the partial
"del" and U(x,y,z,t) is the function for potential energy)

if Y(x,y,z,t) would be the position of the wave in 4d, the equation is
(i*hbar)dY/dt = (-hbar²/2m)(d²Y/dx² + d²Y/dy² + d²Y/dz² ) + U(x,y,z,t)

Now if you are expecint U(x,y,z,t) but when solving the PDE you end up
having a Right-hand term that depends on U(x,y,z,t,a) and a PE that
depends on U(x,y,z,t,a) pretty good chance that you are missing a
dimension. because Y(x,y,z,t) != Y(x,y,z,t,a)

anyway thats my understanding of it anyway. Some of the dimensions can
be curbed in on themselves from what i understand, they could also be
very, very, very small like i heard you would see the difference at like
0.05 Angstroms. Pretty small indeed.

Anyway thats just waht i heard, like i said. I'me not a physics major
this is only my 2nd university physics course hehehe (ok i did 2 in
college but bleh). They throw us into a full year of modern physics as
a cruel way of making us suffer i think hihihi.