Let's face it, all us physicists, scientists, chemists e.t.c. are all trying to find explanations to several events with the logic and natural way and not the para-logic or paranormal way.
My theory is far beyond the human brains understanding, therefor I'll try to put it in a stupidly simple way so that we can get on the same page.
The universe as we know it, starts from the smallest particles, up to atoms, organisms, ecosystem, atmosphere, earth, galaxy and ends up with the word universe.
What is beyond this word? Universe... it sounds pretty infinite and undetermined.
Now let picture this and try to change our mind perception of the universe we live in.
What if... (All theories start this way) our universe understanding has a limit. Then there should be other universes to keep the story going. What if we humans are part of a larger living organism. I know this sounds a bit extraordinary tremendously big but bare with me for a sec.
Lets start from atoms or even cells. Several cells make an organism. such as a lemon, water, a leaf or even a human body. Now all of us living organisms are located on a spherical object called herein "Earth"
Several other planets are located within gravitational distance and thus keeping together what we call our galaxy. Let me ask you this then, what keeps these cells together. or even let go down to atoms. They have their own gravitational attraction and thus keeping together to form bigger objects.
Let's get further. There are what we call good cells and bad cells. Good ones are those which produce good, while bad are those who destroy while producing.
Let's get on the same page. Now try to imagine yourselves being to "someone", as tiny as an atom seems to you. Get the idea?
If this is the case, why are all the near by planet (Cells) empty and with no life. This leads to several other theories based on this one. Are we good cells or are we a virus who is destroying something? Are we here to cure an illness of our greater host or are we the decease?
Of course there is no scientific way (Yet) to prove this theory except a theoretical one.
Here goes: We know of a tool known as the telescope. This brings far things closer to the eye. We also know the so-called microscope which magnifies small items. The only tool that could prove this theory is a tool that could do the exact opposite of the 2 above mentioned. Only if we could see with the bear eye instead of the far things close, to see the close things far, and then minify them to see the whole picture from the outside. We would then have to point this tool through a clear path through all the other "cells" to be able to reach the "Outer world" and see as in this miniature that we are living in.
That's all for now and i hope i managed to put this in an understandable way.
I'll be expecting your theories on this one and your comments or suggestions.
Bullshit. Atoms don't expanding so much like universe. Atoms have rules and universe is like sand... This organism can be but if it is not alive 
It seems as though you're obviously looking at the big picture. Scientists thought for years the universe was slowing down expansion as it gradually cooled after the big bang (if you believe that theory). It's now being seen that it's rapidly speeding up in expansion. I think you need to look a little further into basic chemistry and physics concepts of atoms, molecules, and cells interacting to form something more stable and with lower energy, basically simple diffusion processes. Theoretically your talking about being part of a much larger picture. It brings in mind the very end of the first Men in Black movie where the earth is seen as a marble on a much greater level. I think it would be benefical to you to look at antimatter concepts from Dirac or Carl Anderson and look a little further into the little information published on dark matter. Look at symmetry within the universe and understand how a world derived of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons and neutrons) would not be like our own while keeping in mind similarities between subatomic processes (electrons moving around a nucleus of protons/ neutrons/ and other particles) and how they compare to larger processes such as our galaxy (planets moving in discrete levels around a sun). If your really interested in this type of concept, however outlandish it may sound, I hope this may provide some starting point.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
The Big Bang is a theory and the ad hoc ideas that support the BBT are aslo on weak foundations.
To many papers start with the assumtion that the Big Bang is a fact than proceed to fit the data to that model.
What is the Big Bang?
Did it occur in one spot?
What is expansion?
Is it really a distance expansion or a theoretical space/time thing.
The Big Bang is a theory and the ad hoc ideas that support the BBT are aslo on weak foundations.
To many papers start with the assumtion that the Big Bang is a fact than proceed to fit the data to that model.
What is the Big Bang?
Did it occur in one spot?
What is expansion?
Is it really a distance expansion or a theoretical space/time thing.
QUOTE (exevior+Jun 23 2008, 03:01 PM)
Let's face it, all us physicists, scientists, chemists e.t.c. are all trying to find explanations to several events with the logic and natural way and not the para-logic or paranormal way.
My theory is far beyond the human brains understanding, therefor I'll try to put it in a stupidly simple way so that we can get on the same page.
The universe as we know it, starts from the smallest particles, up to atoms, organisms, ecosystem, atmosphere, earth, galaxy and ends up with the word universe.
What is beyond this word? Universe... it sounds pretty infinite and undetermined.
Now let picture this and try to change our mind perception of the universe we live in.
What if... (All theories start this way) our universe understanding has a limit. Then there should be other universes to keep the story going. What if we humans are part of a larger living organism. I know this sounds a bit extraordinary tremendously big but bare with me for a sec.
Lets start from atoms or even cells. Several cells make an organism. such as a lemon, water, a leaf or even a human body. Now all of us living organisms are located on a spherical object called herein "Earth"
Several other planets are located within gravitational distance and thus keeping together what we call our galaxy. Let me ask you this then, what keeps these cells together. or even let go down to atoms. They have their own gravitational attraction and thus keeping together to form bigger objects.
Let's get further. There are what we call good cells and bad cells. Good ones are those which produce good, while bad are those who destroy while producing.
Let's get on the same page. Now try to imagine yourselves being to "someone", as tiny as an atom seems to you. Get the idea?
If this is the case, why are all the near by planet (Cells) empty and with no life. This leads to several other theories based on this one. Are we good cells or are we a virus who is destroying something? Are we here to cure an illness of our greater host or are we the decease?
Of course there is no scientific way (Yet) to prove this theory except a theoretical one.
Here goes: We know of a tool known as the telescope. This brings far things closer to the eye. We also know the so-called microscope which magnifies small items. The only tool that could prove this theory is a tool that could do the exact opposite of the 2 above mentioned. Only if we could see with the bear eye instead of the far things close, to see the close things far, and then minify them to see the whole picture from the outside. We would then have to point this tool through a clear path through all the other "cells" to be able to reach the "Outer world" and see as in this miniature that we are living in.
That's all for now and i hope i managed to put this in an understandable way.
I'll be expecting your theories on this one and your comments or suggestions.
In some ways my thoughts are similar, though from a different perspective. The universe is how we interprete events that are a subset of "existance" on a broader scale, which doesn't necessarily have any specific form but likely could be anything and everything (including things that we'd be unable to comprehend and possibly things that would even appear illogical, paradoxical or impossible).
So if you take "all of this" and then filter out what parts of it we could have a hope of interacting coherently with, and from the context of science as a social institution regarding the prediction of events, we additionally need to be able to communicate these experiences/phenomenon in a bidirectional manner and need them to be predictable events as well. So we need manners in which to observe things in common and communicate about properties that are observed in common regarding these etc.
Once you've nailed down the perspective that the social institution of science has on what "everything" would look like, you've isolated a very small subset of it that ends up appearing to have properties much like physics.
Of course individuals can see things beyond science because we have senses that aren't objectively communicable, there are also events that can only occur a limited number of times and aren't predictable in that sense (these lie on the boundaries of uncertainty for science).
There should also be thing beyond that, that would simply be experiences without determinable causes even for solely the individual experiencing them and beyond that you could have events that are experiencable but likely not memorable outside the context in which they occured (much like forgetting a dream) as they would not be coherently related to events outside their occurance and then you'd likely have events beyond that that would simply be incomprehensible and effectively not even seen as any experience (memorable or not) simply because they'd have no continuity from moment to moment.
Also notice that people would likely find most forms of complexity beyond themselves to be imcomprehensible - when we look around at other life on Earth it appears they're all simple in most respects (in fact the information content of the DNA appears less as it's redundant or smaller), but consider that this would be a natural observation made in a system with a very large range of intelligences - every "level" would likely only see lower levels as representing intelligence. The fact that we appear to be most intelligent things around in many ways implies that there are more complex intelligences or objects that we don't recognize because we see a distribution that could appear "downward" in intelligence.
Also notice that if our initial physical "hooks" into the universe are due to DNA, then we should see significant correlations between this structure and the physical properties of the universe (there are some quite unique properties that organic materials have that other materials don't appear to possess and this could likely appear to be the case simply because we primarily use the properties of these to interact with space and so it's once again a biased perspective in some ways).
Another thing to consider is that it may not be that the fundamental units are actually atoms or subatomic particles but instead that we interact with properties on more human scales and that atomic properties can appear difficult to decipher in a manner similar to the difficulties in untangling the properties of objects in deep space - both scales are extremes that are distance from a more natural human scale. (I don't know if this is a very valid or useful view, but it's an interesting one to consider in any case)
So it appears to me that it's just as important to understand what's "here" as it is to understand what's "there" as they both influence our experiences and the better you can determine the specifics of how you interact with and understand the "rest of it", the better you can determine what's a product of what you are versus what's beyond that.
My theory is far beyond the human brains understanding, therefor I'll try to put it in a stupidly simple way so that we can get on the same page.
The universe as we know it, starts from the smallest particles, up to atoms, organisms, ecosystem, atmosphere, earth, galaxy and ends up with the word universe.
What is beyond this word? Universe... it sounds pretty infinite and undetermined.
Now let picture this and try to change our mind perception of the universe we live in.
What if... (All theories start this way) our universe understanding has a limit. Then there should be other universes to keep the story going. What if we humans are part of a larger living organism. I know this sounds a bit extraordinary tremendously big but bare with me for a sec.
Lets start from atoms or even cells. Several cells make an organism. such as a lemon, water, a leaf or even a human body. Now all of us living organisms are located on a spherical object called herein "Earth"
Several other planets are located within gravitational distance and thus keeping together what we call our galaxy. Let me ask you this then, what keeps these cells together. or even let go down to atoms. They have their own gravitational attraction and thus keeping together to form bigger objects.
Let's get further. There are what we call good cells and bad cells. Good ones are those which produce good, while bad are those who destroy while producing.
Let's get on the same page. Now try to imagine yourselves being to "someone", as tiny as an atom seems to you. Get the idea?
If this is the case, why are all the near by planet (Cells) empty and with no life. This leads to several other theories based on this one. Are we good cells or are we a virus who is destroying something? Are we here to cure an illness of our greater host or are we the decease?
Of course there is no scientific way (Yet) to prove this theory except a theoretical one.
Here goes: We know of a tool known as the telescope. This brings far things closer to the eye. We also know the so-called microscope which magnifies small items. The only tool that could prove this theory is a tool that could do the exact opposite of the 2 above mentioned. Only if we could see with the bear eye instead of the far things close, to see the close things far, and then minify them to see the whole picture from the outside. We would then have to point this tool through a clear path through all the other "cells" to be able to reach the "Outer world" and see as in this miniature that we are living in.
That's all for now and i hope i managed to put this in an understandable way.
I'll be expecting your theories on this one and your comments or suggestions.
In some ways my thoughts are similar, though from a different perspective. The universe is how we interprete events that are a subset of "existance" on a broader scale, which doesn't necessarily have any specific form but likely could be anything and everything (including things that we'd be unable to comprehend and possibly things that would even appear illogical, paradoxical or impossible).
So if you take "all of this" and then filter out what parts of it we could have a hope of interacting coherently with, and from the context of science as a social institution regarding the prediction of events, we additionally need to be able to communicate these experiences/phenomenon in a bidirectional manner and need them to be predictable events as well. So we need manners in which to observe things in common and communicate about properties that are observed in common regarding these etc.
Once you've nailed down the perspective that the social institution of science has on what "everything" would look like, you've isolated a very small subset of it that ends up appearing to have properties much like physics.
Of course individuals can see things beyond science because we have senses that aren't objectively communicable, there are also events that can only occur a limited number of times and aren't predictable in that sense (these lie on the boundaries of uncertainty for science).
There should also be thing beyond that, that would simply be experiences without determinable causes even for solely the individual experiencing them and beyond that you could have events that are experiencable but likely not memorable outside the context in which they occured (much like forgetting a dream) as they would not be coherently related to events outside their occurance and then you'd likely have events beyond that that would simply be incomprehensible and effectively not even seen as any experience (memorable or not) simply because they'd have no continuity from moment to moment.
Also notice that people would likely find most forms of complexity beyond themselves to be imcomprehensible - when we look around at other life on Earth it appears they're all simple in most respects (in fact the information content of the DNA appears less as it's redundant or smaller), but consider that this would be a natural observation made in a system with a very large range of intelligences - every "level" would likely only see lower levels as representing intelligence. The fact that we appear to be most intelligent things around in many ways implies that there are more complex intelligences or objects that we don't recognize because we see a distribution that could appear "downward" in intelligence.
Also notice that if our initial physical "hooks" into the universe are due to DNA, then we should see significant correlations between this structure and the physical properties of the universe (there are some quite unique properties that organic materials have that other materials don't appear to possess and this could likely appear to be the case simply because we primarily use the properties of these to interact with space and so it's once again a biased perspective in some ways).
Another thing to consider is that it may not be that the fundamental units are actually atoms or subatomic particles but instead that we interact with properties on more human scales and that atomic properties can appear difficult to decipher in a manner similar to the difficulties in untangling the properties of objects in deep space - both scales are extremes that are distance from a more natural human scale. (I don't know if this is a very valid or useful view, but it's an interesting one to consider in any case)
So it appears to me that it's just as important to understand what's "here" as it is to understand what's "there" as they both influence our experiences and the better you can determine the specifics of how you interact with and understand the "rest of it", the better you can determine what's a product of what you are versus what's beyond that.
exevior wrote:
“ Let's face it, all us physicists, scientists, chemists e.t.c.
are all trying to find explanations to several events with
the logic and natural way and not the para-logic or paranormal way.”
==================================.
The Universe starts from the Nothingness.
The Universe is infinite.
Now all of us, living organisms , are located on the planet "Earth"
How from Nothingness the Earth and all living organisms was created ?
My opinion.
FROM NON-BEING TO BEING.
FROM NOTHINGNESS TO NOT-NOTHINGNESS.
FROM VACUUM to the EARTH LIFE.
========.
I want to explain my position briefly.
There are only two Absolute constants in Universe:
T=0K and c=1.
And I explain the Existence using only
these two Absolute constants.
THE GENESIS.
1.
T = 0K.
There is only one Absolute Reference Frame
and it is Vacuum : T=0K .
And Quantum Theory says that T=0K is not dead space.
2.
QT says the " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum: T=0K.
These " virtual particles " have following parameters.
Geometrical form = C/D=pi ,
Potential energy = E=Mc^2,
Potential mass = R/N=k ,
Inner impulse = h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula = i^2=-1 .
Their condition is rest.
3.
Then these " virtual particles " have Planck's impulse (h=1)
(or Einstein's impulse h=kb=1) they move with constant speed c=1.
We call these particle " Quantum of Light".
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
Then these " virtual particles " have impulse
Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi) they became electrons
(E = hw, e^2 = hca ).
This situation described with " The Lorentz transformations."
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
So.
If these " virtual particles " have three conditions:
rest ( h=0), strait constant moving (c=1) and it can
rotate around its axis ( h=h/2pi) they are special particles.
And no other particles can reach their speed it means they
cannot have such ability as Light Quanta/ Electron has.
Therefore I say " Light Quanta/ Electron is privileged particle",
and it is possible to name Light Quanta/ Electron
as a " Spiritual, Conscious particle – Soul "
There is another question.
The " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum : T=0K.
The Vacuum created these "virtual, spiritual, conscious particles ".
So.
What is Vacuum? Who is Vacuum?
Silence. Amazement.
It is something Infinitely, Eternally, Consciously…..
……something higher our understatement.
" The DAO that can be expressed
is not eternal DAO. "
5.
Here I explain the process of " Star formation".
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
b) hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
As the result of star formation the Material particles
(protons) turn out well.
p ( Proton.)
7.
Here I explain the process of interaction between
Light Quanta/ Electron and Proton.
The process of evolution is one of main in Universe.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
The main laws in Universe.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Every theory must be testing logically and practically.
Testing.
a) Theory and practice.
===================..
#
" I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
/Einstein/
#
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' is hidden
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
=================....
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik./ Socratus.
“ Let's face it, all us physicists, scientists, chemists e.t.c.
are all trying to find explanations to several events with
the logic and natural way and not the para-logic or paranormal way.”
==================================.
The Universe starts from the Nothingness.
The Universe is infinite.
Now all of us, living organisms , are located on the planet "Earth"
How from Nothingness the Earth and all living organisms was created ?
My opinion.
FROM NON-BEING TO BEING.
FROM NOTHINGNESS TO NOT-NOTHINGNESS.
FROM VACUUM to the EARTH LIFE.
========.
I want to explain my position briefly.
There are only two Absolute constants in Universe:
T=0K and c=1.
And I explain the Existence using only
these two Absolute constants.
THE GENESIS.
1.
T = 0K.
There is only one Absolute Reference Frame
and it is Vacuum : T=0K .
And Quantum Theory says that T=0K is not dead space.
2.
QT says the " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum: T=0K.
These " virtual particles " have following parameters.
Geometrical form = C/D=pi ,
Potential energy = E=Mc^2,
Potential mass = R/N=k ,
Inner impulse = h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula = i^2=-1 .
Their condition is rest.
3.
Then these " virtual particles " have Planck's impulse (h=1)
(or Einstein's impulse h=kb=1) they move with constant speed c=1.
We call these particle " Quantum of Light".
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
Then these " virtual particles " have impulse
Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck (h=h/2pi) they became electrons
(E = hw, e^2 = hca ).
This situation described with " The Lorentz transformations."
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
So.
If these " virtual particles " have three conditions:
rest ( h=0), strait constant moving (c=1) and it can
rotate around its axis ( h=h/2pi) they are special particles.
And no other particles can reach their speed it means they
cannot have such ability as Light Quanta/ Electron has.
Therefore I say " Light Quanta/ Electron is privileged particle",
and it is possible to name Light Quanta/ Electron
as a " Spiritual, Conscious particle – Soul "
There is another question.
The " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum : T=0K.
The Vacuum created these "virtual, spiritual, conscious particles ".
So.
What is Vacuum? Who is Vacuum?
Silence. Amazement.
It is something Infinitely, Eternally, Consciously…..
……something higher our understatement.
" The DAO that can be expressed
is not eternal DAO. "
5.
Here I explain the process of " Star formation".
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
b) hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
As the result of star formation the Material particles
(protons) turn out well.
p ( Proton.)
7.
Here I explain the process of interaction between
Light Quanta/ Electron and Proton.
The process of evolution is one of main in Universe.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
The main laws in Universe.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Every theory must be testing logically and practically.
Testing.
a) Theory and practice.
===================..
#
" I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
/Einstein/
#
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion', ‘ Existence’,
'dualism of consciousness', 'human being' is hidden
in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
=================....
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik./ Socratus.
QUOTE (exevior+Jun 23 2008, 09:01 AM)
Only if we could see with the bear eye instead of the far things close, to see the close things far, and then minify them to see the whole picture from the outside.
That might be interesting, but 4 months out of the year the bear would be asleep in a cave with his eyes shut.
That might be interesting, but 4 months out of the year the bear would be asleep in a cave with his eyes shut.
ONE TOO MANY,
FEW TOO MANY,
PENNY THOUGHTS,
CANNOT BE BOUGHT
===========
exevior Posted: Jun 23 2008, 03:01 PM
Ok, imagine you are visualizing, say the Earth from a distance, now zoom in towards earth, OK to use past multi-media, movies and the like that you can remember.
Try other internal "zooming". I find my internal imagination of zooming is not continuous but segmented into limited spans, guessing, to twice the area if that.
"Words" or sights or sounds that represent more complexities than given to the words by a collection of other similar animals or creatures,... a matter of measurement and publishing.
The upbeat? Scribes have a potential living with words, time to sell out, or out sell, misspell, go to hell in a hand out basket.
=================================
DavidD Posted: Jun 23 2008, 05:44 PM
Being picky (me, here) but, for example, within the nucleus I read there is an inner structure (think polyhedral) and an outer halo (maybe like the chemical molecular electron orbits). The question I ask is this: will the current laws apply (salvaged at the least) to an overlapping range of predictable behaviors, or will apparently new laws have to be found, etc.?
The inner nuclear structures appear to be denser, maybe the "strong forces" and those away from these, "weaker", and I've concluded, the carries for all the forces, yes, the g-string, or G-string as a capitally defined bundle of some 26 minus one variables. Visualize this, I find it a continuing helpful way to wade through the BS, which is another phrase for Best Solution to confusion.
==================================
johnsom7 Posted: Aug 6 2008, 02:52 AM
Lots of parts you are asking to assemble into my imagination. Actually I have been doing this almost anytime I read "science" materials.
Even a "foamy universe" composed of 97% dark energy and mass as the outer shell and it's internal connections in which we are located, and our perceived universe some 3%, itself containing hidden mass/energy. I use the powers of three, each power containing some physical layer of visualizable models.
The energy are the transverse vibrations of the connecting string between "all" masses of the perceived universe.
Yes there are many problems in constructing such as I read the literature, but it goes well, and I sense a connection to the struggles of the authors I read of converging upon some common understanding that we can all share in this new revolutionary media, the Internet.
It is no shame in being confused, publicly or privately, for confusion is the first step to understanding, maybe a large step than one may be willing to take(?)
====================================
Harry Costas Posted: Aug 6 2008, 03:31 AM
There are three other posts following yours, but my first humor answer about the BBT is this:
A male dominated science may well use the phrase "big bang", for the obvious and natural prejudice most males may have to describe a dominant frustration if I have judged my own correctly. Age shows and tells me much more that BB.
My reading shows that a rapid expansion leaves the explanation somewhat linear, an order that matches, perhaps components that are fewer.
The literature I read on the transitions of H, He, Li, Be, B, ... up the table of elements deserve a better simplification that BB.
Even presently I am reading about the composition of nucleii, the "shells" of inner central masses/energies, the halos, the chemical electron shells, the molecular, the organics, the DNA repricating, ... to the more complex, we who type here now.
=======================================
StevenA Posted: Aug 6 2008, 05:26 AM
Well expressed, I am in agreement, but have an obligation to express what this agreement might be, so here it is.
My consciousness, the everyday senses, typing now, bringing up words to deliver idea, your statements, especially the last paragraph, contrasted to the ideas of perceptions as layered, in the Willard Gibbs (circa 1895 and after) of phases between forms of water, say, solid, liquid, and gas as measured by pressure (vertical axis) and temperature (horizontal).
His ideas have proved powerful, expressible as second order partial differential equations (sopde), a form of mathematics used for a wide range of disciplines aside from physics and allows partial differentially expressed constants to equations of second order that can change two orders either way.
It is not that my mind does more with Gibb's interfacing between phases than contemplating what goes on between the phases themselves, that is, the imagining that whatever goes on, I can assume for starters an equal amount or quality to each, say solid and liquid, or gas, for water there is a triple point where the three forms have the same pressure and temperature, along the two phase interface, I can or am required to imagine only two simplified states somehow moving around.
The actual practical physics to flow from Gibb's "conjecture" or better expressed, "formal conjecture" seems up to the user with state mathematical limits.
Gibbs himself, it is written, was from a family of many sisters, no doubt I feel that may explain the praise he got for his teaching style, maybe Gibbs picked up some of the balance that women are reported to have on both sides of their brains.
And maybe as we males recognize the social portion of science, science will become more balanced, which is to say, slowed down enough to settle the scales drawn by the forces of gravity in temporary equilibrium.
What a shame that "War" upsets the balance, forcing continue weapon development, and entrenchment by men, themselves disadvantaged with imbalances separated from the women. This vicious cycles must be broken to arrive at Peace.
=====================================
s0cratus Posted: Today at 4:05 PM:
Right now your comments are the only one left, so I am going to try to read and grasp something to say constructive, the first concerns your T=0K degrees.
But I'll skim your writings first.
OK, that is already, not 0K, for what is zero degrees Kelvin physically.
Last time I checked it meant the absence of chemical element electron movements, maybe some super conducting state, just quessing.
But recently, last week I posted a link to an article or essay, that was examining the nucleus of Lithium, one of it's forms, one that has a half life time of a few microsecond.
The authors, if I recall correctly, acknowledged that the absence of an electron in the chemical orbit would or did create a "complex" my words, not theirs, effect upon the inner, first in order from the outside nuclear orbit, the 'halo", and then upon the inner nuclear orbit, the denser more structured (polyhedral?), more centered matter.
Thus ideas like the "center of mass" may not have a physical place or mass presence, but are useful in my and other's conveying the idea of computing a center for outside positioning.
Thus your attention to estimating with mathematics may help your thoughts, but can you comment on whether "our" thoughts as humans are based upon internal brain structures such as the five centers for conscious thought stated we have, or more complex arrangements?
Take this further, please, if you like, best, rm
=========================================
FEW TOO MANY,
PENNY THOUGHTS,
CANNOT BE BOUGHT
===========
exevior Posted: Jun 23 2008, 03:01 PM
Ok, imagine you are visualizing, say the Earth from a distance, now zoom in towards earth, OK to use past multi-media, movies and the like that you can remember.
Try other internal "zooming". I find my internal imagination of zooming is not continuous but segmented into limited spans, guessing, to twice the area if that.
"Words" or sights or sounds that represent more complexities than given to the words by a collection of other similar animals or creatures,... a matter of measurement and publishing.
The upbeat? Scribes have a potential living with words, time to sell out, or out sell, misspell, go to hell in a hand out basket.
=================================
DavidD Posted: Jun 23 2008, 05:44 PM
Being picky (me, here) but, for example, within the nucleus I read there is an inner structure (think polyhedral) and an outer halo (maybe like the chemical molecular electron orbits). The question I ask is this: will the current laws apply (salvaged at the least) to an overlapping range of predictable behaviors, or will apparently new laws have to be found, etc.?
The inner nuclear structures appear to be denser, maybe the "strong forces" and those away from these, "weaker", and I've concluded, the carries for all the forces, yes, the g-string, or G-string as a capitally defined bundle of some 26 minus one variables. Visualize this, I find it a continuing helpful way to wade through the BS, which is another phrase for Best Solution to confusion.
==================================
johnsom7 Posted: Aug 6 2008, 02:52 AM
Lots of parts you are asking to assemble into my imagination. Actually I have been doing this almost anytime I read "science" materials.
Even a "foamy universe" composed of 97% dark energy and mass as the outer shell and it's internal connections in which we are located, and our perceived universe some 3%, itself containing hidden mass/energy. I use the powers of three, each power containing some physical layer of visualizable models.
The energy are the transverse vibrations of the connecting string between "all" masses of the perceived universe.
Yes there are many problems in constructing such as I read the literature, but it goes well, and I sense a connection to the struggles of the authors I read of converging upon some common understanding that we can all share in this new revolutionary media, the Internet.
It is no shame in being confused, publicly or privately, for confusion is the first step to understanding, maybe a large step than one may be willing to take(?)
====================================
Harry Costas Posted: Aug 6 2008, 03:31 AM
There are three other posts following yours, but my first humor answer about the BBT is this:
A male dominated science may well use the phrase "big bang", for the obvious and natural prejudice most males may have to describe a dominant frustration if I have judged my own correctly. Age shows and tells me much more that BB.
My reading shows that a rapid expansion leaves the explanation somewhat linear, an order that matches, perhaps components that are fewer.
The literature I read on the transitions of H, He, Li, Be, B, ... up the table of elements deserve a better simplification that BB.
Even presently I am reading about the composition of nucleii, the "shells" of inner central masses/energies, the halos, the chemical electron shells, the molecular, the organics, the DNA repricating, ... to the more complex, we who type here now.
=======================================
StevenA Posted: Aug 6 2008, 05:26 AM
Well expressed, I am in agreement, but have an obligation to express what this agreement might be, so here it is.
My consciousness, the everyday senses, typing now, bringing up words to deliver idea, your statements, especially the last paragraph, contrasted to the ideas of perceptions as layered, in the Willard Gibbs (circa 1895 and after) of phases between forms of water, say, solid, liquid, and gas as measured by pressure (vertical axis) and temperature (horizontal).
His ideas have proved powerful, expressible as second order partial differential equations (sopde), a form of mathematics used for a wide range of disciplines aside from physics and allows partial differentially expressed constants to equations of second order that can change two orders either way.
It is not that my mind does more with Gibb's interfacing between phases than contemplating what goes on between the phases themselves, that is, the imagining that whatever goes on, I can assume for starters an equal amount or quality to each, say solid and liquid, or gas, for water there is a triple point where the three forms have the same pressure and temperature, along the two phase interface, I can or am required to imagine only two simplified states somehow moving around.
The actual practical physics to flow from Gibb's "conjecture" or better expressed, "formal conjecture" seems up to the user with state mathematical limits.
Gibbs himself, it is written, was from a family of many sisters, no doubt I feel that may explain the praise he got for his teaching style, maybe Gibbs picked up some of the balance that women are reported to have on both sides of their brains.
And maybe as we males recognize the social portion of science, science will become more balanced, which is to say, slowed down enough to settle the scales drawn by the forces of gravity in temporary equilibrium.
What a shame that "War" upsets the balance, forcing continue weapon development, and entrenchment by men, themselves disadvantaged with imbalances separated from the women. This vicious cycles must be broken to arrive at Peace.
=====================================
s0cratus Posted: Today at 4:05 PM:
Right now your comments are the only one left, so I am going to try to read and grasp something to say constructive, the first concerns your T=0K degrees.
But I'll skim your writings first.
OK, that is already, not 0K, for what is zero degrees Kelvin physically.
Last time I checked it meant the absence of chemical element electron movements, maybe some super conducting state, just quessing.
But recently, last week I posted a link to an article or essay, that was examining the nucleus of Lithium, one of it's forms, one that has a half life time of a few microsecond.
The authors, if I recall correctly, acknowledged that the absence of an electron in the chemical orbit would or did create a "complex" my words, not theirs, effect upon the inner, first in order from the outside nuclear orbit, the 'halo", and then upon the inner nuclear orbit, the denser more structured (polyhedral?), more centered matter.
Thus ideas like the "center of mass" may not have a physical place or mass presence, but are useful in my and other's conveying the idea of computing a center for outside positioning.
Thus your attention to estimating with mathematics may help your thoughts, but can you comment on whether "our" thoughts as humans are based upon internal brain structures such as the five centers for conscious thought stated we have, or more complex arrangements?
Take this further, please, if you like, best, rm
=========================================
QUOTE (rmuldavin+)
Well expressed, I am in agreement, but have an obligation to express what this agreement might be, so here it is.
My consciousness, the everyday senses, typing now, bringing up words to deliver idea, your statements, especially the last paragraph, contrasted to the ideas of perceptions as layered, in the Willard Gibbs (circa 1895 and after) of phases between forms of water, say, solid, liquid, and gas as measured by pressure (vertical axis) and temperature (horizontal).
His ideas have proved powerful, expressible as second order partial differential equations (sopde), a form of mathematics used for a wide range of disciplines aside from physics and allows partial differentially expressed constants to equations of second order that can change two orders either way.
Yes, there's simple logic and then I see these structures as derived from them, as logic provides the structure by which these don't collapse into nothing, but the manner in which they can be morphed and altered is dependent upon "energies" that deform them.
For example, a simple logic equation could be seen as addition x+y=z.
If we place single units for x and y, such as 1 and 2, then the result is just a static, single unit, 3.
But if x and y represent sets of possibilities or various forces which create accelerations and changes over time, then the "simple" logic of addition, when applied to the elements of these larger and dynamic sets becomes similar to physical objects in motion. (Not that I can actually "see" or imagine in great detail the properties of these, that appears to be one of the limits of short term memory, but they're still correlated to many of the properties of physical objects that I've learned the properties of over time and in this sense the logic is derived from observing physics - I don't believe I could deduce the existance or properties of anything that I haven't already encountered represented in at least a couple forms previously, though there would likely be things that I've experienced previously to such manners of deduction that allowed me perceive these properties in the first place, so I'm rather certain, and it seems obvious, there are things I do, that I can't explain how or why I was able to do them because, for example, the ability to understand or explain things comes before the understandings and explainations)
My consciousness, the everyday senses, typing now, bringing up words to deliver idea, your statements, especially the last paragraph, contrasted to the ideas of perceptions as layered, in the Willard Gibbs (circa 1895 and after) of phases between forms of water, say, solid, liquid, and gas as measured by pressure (vertical axis) and temperature (horizontal).
His ideas have proved powerful, expressible as second order partial differential equations (sopde), a form of mathematics used for a wide range of disciplines aside from physics and allows partial differentially expressed constants to equations of second order that can change two orders either way.
Yes, there's simple logic and then I see these structures as derived from them, as logic provides the structure by which these don't collapse into nothing, but the manner in which they can be morphed and altered is dependent upon "energies" that deform them.
For example, a simple logic equation could be seen as addition x+y=z.
If we place single units for x and y, such as 1 and 2, then the result is just a static, single unit, 3.
But if x and y represent sets of possibilities or various forces which create accelerations and changes over time, then the "simple" logic of addition, when applied to the elements of these larger and dynamic sets becomes similar to physical objects in motion. (Not that I can actually "see" or imagine in great detail the properties of these, that appears to be one of the limits of short term memory, but they're still correlated to many of the properties of physical objects that I've learned the properties of over time and in this sense the logic is derived from observing physics - I don't believe I could deduce the existance or properties of anything that I haven't already encountered represented in at least a couple forms previously, though there would likely be things that I've experienced previously to such manners of deduction that allowed me perceive these properties in the first place, so I'm rather certain, and it seems obvious, there are things I do, that I can't explain how or why I was able to do them because, for example, the ability to understand or explain things comes before the understandings and explainations)
QUOTE (rmuldavin+)
It is not that my mind does more with Gibb's interfacing between phases than contemplating what goes on between the phases themselves, that is, the imagining that whatever goes on, I can assume for starters an equal amount or quality to each, say solid and liquid, or gas, for water there is a triple point where the three forms have the same pressure and temperature, along the two phase interface, I can or am required to imagine only two simplified states somehow moving around.
Consider that anything you can perceive to move must be correlated in time with you. If it wasn't then you shouldn't be able to see it moving in a specific sequence of "next" states and, for example, a ball that rolls across a table, over time, moves through many positions, but the fact that you see this trajectory to be linear means that its motion is correlated with your manner of measuring time and the space in which this object moves is constructed relative to a common time reference.
Notice that experiences over time occur in a sequence (I'm saying that we specifically see things 'frame by frame', but even a blur is still an object and it appears to me that at least any attempt to describe and understand motion requires that it be quantized into discrete units - this is sufficient enough for a computer monitor, so though maybe there are additional elements, it's a "good enough" model for now).
Anyway, this sequence is determined by your own manner of consciously perceiving time and this property must also be shared by objects moving coherently from your perceptions.
If we expect to be able to understand things in terms of cause and effect and what comes "next", then any changes or observed effects should have a causes. This leads backward along that timeline, but it appears it can't go on forever backward and there had to be some observed effect without cause (this should likely be the equivalent of someones first inexplicable experience).
The reason why I've been making these comments is because I think all objects with a space should be connectable by a single pathway and this is because it appears to require the ability to construct such in order to determine the relationships between the objects. When you mentioned the interfact between these states meeting at a point, I think it likely that it's effectively information flowing into that point that splits off to construct the linear interfaces and then later fill the volumes in each area. For example, how can you determine where an interface between two things exist? Well you have to be able to see one thing of one type on one side and another of a different type on the other - the line connecting between these is the interface, though similar to the perpendicular relationship between electrical and magnetic fields, these lines connecting (and I believe ultimately describing a single pathway) the two sides together, then have another line (which should also be ultimately connected with the original line) passing between these two values and perpendicular to the lines of dissimilarities between them (there are mechanisms in the brain that almost certainly perform this operation for edge detection in vision).
Here's an image showing electricy field lines between two charged objects: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=233&rendTypeId=4
Notice that we have magnetic field lines as well that are perpendicular to the electric field lines, but I don't believe they can actually be perfectly perpendicular, instead you have a single line that loops back on itself connecting everything together by a single pathway.
But more fundamentally such a construction of a linear cause and effect relationship between all stationary objects within a space would appear necesary or the objects could be other objects or in other locations and they would not be determinable to be stationary.
Consider that anything you can perceive to move must be correlated in time with you. If it wasn't then you shouldn't be able to see it moving in a specific sequence of "next" states and, for example, a ball that rolls across a table, over time, moves through many positions, but the fact that you see this trajectory to be linear means that its motion is correlated with your manner of measuring time and the space in which this object moves is constructed relative to a common time reference.
Notice that experiences over time occur in a sequence (I'm saying that we specifically see things 'frame by frame', but even a blur is still an object and it appears to me that at least any attempt to describe and understand motion requires that it be quantized into discrete units - this is sufficient enough for a computer monitor, so though maybe there are additional elements, it's a "good enough" model for now).
Anyway, this sequence is determined by your own manner of consciously perceiving time and this property must also be shared by objects moving coherently from your perceptions.
If we expect to be able to understand things in terms of cause and effect and what comes "next", then any changes or observed effects should have a causes. This leads backward along that timeline, but it appears it can't go on forever backward and there had to be some observed effect without cause (this should likely be the equivalent of someones first inexplicable experience).
The reason why I've been making these comments is because I think all objects with a space should be connectable by a single pathway and this is because it appears to require the ability to construct such in order to determine the relationships between the objects. When you mentioned the interfact between these states meeting at a point, I think it likely that it's effectively information flowing into that point that splits off to construct the linear interfaces and then later fill the volumes in each area. For example, how can you determine where an interface between two things exist? Well you have to be able to see one thing of one type on one side and another of a different type on the other - the line connecting between these is the interface, though similar to the perpendicular relationship between electrical and magnetic fields, these lines connecting (and I believe ultimately describing a single pathway) the two sides together, then have another line (which should also be ultimately connected with the original line) passing between these two values and perpendicular to the lines of dissimilarities between them (there are mechanisms in the brain that almost certainly perform this operation for edge detection in vision).
Here's an image showing electricy field lines between two charged objects: http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=233&rendTypeId=4
Notice that we have magnetic field lines as well that are perpendicular to the electric field lines, but I don't believe they can actually be perfectly perpendicular, instead you have a single line that loops back on itself connecting everything together by a single pathway.
But more fundamentally such a construction of a linear cause and effect relationship between all stationary objects within a space would appear necesary or the objects could be other objects or in other locations and they would not be determinable to be stationary.
QUOTE (rmuldavin+)
The actual practical physics to flow from Gibb's "conjecture" or better expressed, "formal conjecture" seems up to the user with state mathematical limits.
Gibbs himself, it is written, was from a family of many sisters, no doubt I feel that may explain the praise he got for his teaching style, maybe Gibbs picked up some of the balance that women are reported to have on both sides of their brains.
And maybe as we males recognize the social portion of science, science will become more balanced, which is to say, slowed down enough to settle the scales drawn by the forces of gravity in temporary equilibrium.
What a shame that "War" upsets the balance, forcing continue weapon development, and entrenchment by men, themselves disadvantaged with imbalances separated from the women. This vicious cycles must be broken to arrive at Peace.
Maybe if things weren't as constrained there would be less conflict? If we figuratively let the system expand a bit and broaden the horizons, the temperature will cool some?
Gibbs himself, it is written, was from a family of many sisters, no doubt I feel that may explain the praise he got for his teaching style, maybe Gibbs picked up some of the balance that women are reported to have on both sides of their brains.
And maybe as we males recognize the social portion of science, science will become more balanced, which is to say, slowed down enough to settle the scales drawn by the forces of gravity in temporary equilibrium.
What a shame that "War" upsets the balance, forcing continue weapon development, and entrenchment by men, themselves disadvantaged with imbalances separated from the women. This vicious cycles must be broken to arrive at Peace.
Maybe if things weren't as constrained there would be less conflict? If we figuratively let the system expand a bit and broaden the horizons, the temperature will cool some?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.