Re: Tom Roberts, M-Max, Hobba

From: xxein (xxein_at_bellsouth.net)
Date: 10/26/04 

Date: 25 Oct 2004 20:29:56 -0700

Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<cc8qn01a5i3jt80rraiiknprdg003t90o4@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Oct 2004 16:30:46 -0700, xxein@bellsouth.net (xxein) wrote:
>
> >Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<jj7ln0du9g46sfkppcso2rvmfmnc7ajdjl@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:16:52 GMT, "Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:cce403e3.0410192013.595545b1@posting.google.com...
> >>
> >> [Snip...]
> >>
> >>>>>> However, I did not get YOUR origin of of charge. OH!!! I almost
> >>>>>> understand what you might mean. The burps of the local adiabatics
> >>>>>> (temporary feedbacks on the difference scale). That would be
> >>>>>> necessary to be 360. Otherwise only a restricted 180??? Let me
> >>>>>> think for a while.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No adiabatics... well, maybe for an instant. Charge requires an
> >>>>> exchange, and definitely an interaction of opposing forces.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Magnetism? Again related to the above (?). I know that you did
> >>>>>> not say that, but gravity is radial and magnetism is not. Got
> >>>>>> something else?
> >>>>
> >>>> xxein: This is where we start to differ.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Is it Lesage that pushes?) Gravity does not attract either.
> >>>
> >>> You stopped me cold with that one!
> >>
> >> As Ross Tessien claimed, "There exists in nature no attractive forces"
> >> only differential compressive ones. If you are not familiar with
> >> Le Sage's hypothesis you can find information here,
> >>
> >> http://www.mountainman.com.au/news99_b.htm
> >>
> >> I authored this back in 1999 and would retract this clause from the
> >> piece if I had wrote it today,
> >>
> >> "In the case of a stationary body, this path is through
> >> it (or not at all), for said moving body, in is either
> >> through it or 'around' it which ever is easier... and
> >> around it will be the easier path. As such, the
> >> magnitude of the drag will be greatly reduced, but
> >> probably NOT eliminated entirely."
> >>
> >> You can also search Google for LeSage (Gravity) to find much more diverse
> >> coverage...
> >>
> >> Paul Stowe
> >
> > xxein: I didn't acquiesce to push.
>
> OK... :)
>
> > There apprear to be different levels of physical reality and physical
> > understanding that are not delineated by our theories. We still seem
> > free to mix 'n match with our inventions.
> >
> > A 'pull' may be a sink (a well) and a 'push' may be the same thing
> > depending on whose side you are on and what you can identify as
> > pertinent to observation. ...
>
> Perhaps you can narratively describe a disconnected pull. That is,
> an apparently attractive force acting on two disconnected (in the
> physical contact sense) bodies or objects. How does one 'pull' the
> other?
>
> > It is conventional to ID a mass and give account to the surroundings,
> > thus making the mass the central figure. But is it wrong to identify
> > with the remnants of the BB and consider mass as an anomoly?
>
> No, in fact that's probably the case. That is to say, the majority
> of the physical universe is not matter.
>
> > If we wish to be relative, there should be nothing wrong with that point
> > of view --- especially since mass occupies and affects such a miniscule
> > part of this universe.
>
> Why would there be? To take such a matter centrist stance smacks of
> medieval geocentrism.
>
> > It is in this latter view, that I attempt to construct a physic. Of
> > course, this wasn't my starting point, but for all practical purposes
> > this was the starting point of this timely universe. I see no reason
> > to abandon that time and substance (energy).
> >
> > Our connectivity to mass as a central feature is a given because of
> > what we are. But we are insignificant to this universe as a whole.
> > It is like losing a penny through a hole in your pocket. A penny???
> > No big deal. Pennies are a nuisance anyway.
> >
> > The big question is why and how did we have a hole in our pocket!!!
> >
> > We can look at this with several conceptual terms of our making.
> > Inhomogeniety, chaos, assymmetry, fractals and phase change. It is
> > our job to figure this universe out, but when we try to figure it out
> > from the inside (matter, mass) we are almost certainly going to screw
> > it up with proprietary interests concerning ourselves rather than any
> > grand scheme of things.
>
> And given that our very essence is influenced by same we must be
> able to discriminate that those influences exist and are affecting
> our every observation & measurement.
>
> > We know that there exists an adiabatic process in chemistry and
> > atomics. We know E = Mc^2, but we know little beyond how it
> > immediately affects matter. We know nothing about any intermidiate
> > effects on a higher or lower scale of things. We can't trace energy
> > to baking soda and salt in the same way we would like to make matter
> > from energy (such as hydrogen from energy in a primal, universal BB).
> > If we could, this forum would need not exist.
> >
> > Instead, we do the hardest and most stupid thing. We try to make
> > energy comply with mass (mass, a by product).
> >
> > It is not enough that quantum theories can be almost ignored and
> > considered just another approach in this type of theory. It is almost
> > a denial that another theory can approach the matter. The reality of
> > it is that we can't comprehend the physical level that is required to
> > make a sense of it.
> >
> > Truth be told, it is a matter of the framework of each theory. I am
> > told that they regognize one another, but that they both lack the same
> > thing. A knowledge of the cause of gravity. That will get your
> > juices boiling again.
>
> LeSage's hypothesis does not lack a cause for gravity. It does lack
> a root 'cause' for the existence of the LeSagian field...
>
> > Even more, gravity is supposed to be one of the first major effects
> > (that we can recognize today) that became apparent in this universe.
> > That leaves strong, weak and electro- as by products also. What is it
> > with gravity???
> >
> > I think that we had better start thinking about this from the genesis
> > of the BB instead of whatever period thereafter.
>
> I'm not certain there was a BB. The evidence, contrary to some,
> is not definitive.
>
> > I do not claim that this is the only universe (in this fashion) nor
> > that it did not have an existence (as some space feature) before this
> > BB. I can only claim that it exists in a time of our measurability.
> >
> > Is there any question of subjective vs. objective thinking wrt a
> > reality? If one has a subjective theory, can one claim an objective
> > measurement? Just thought I'd throw that in.
>
> Clearly there is inductive and deductive thinking. Both in science are
> useful. But ultimately, inductive reasoning MUST be shown to be deductive
> from a set or series of measurable processes to become part of 'science'.
>
> This can take some time however. The so-called magicians of science are
> the inductive types.
>
> Paul Stowe

xxein: I don't know why you need a disconnected pull.

Let me bare my thoughts on this. Why do I think there was a BB?
Despite any (possibly) wrongful interpretation of measurement, there
appears that that there is incontrovertible evidence that (large
distance scale) matter in this universe is expanding. This matter is
controlled more by expansion than any gravitational consideration.
Maybe there is a yet unheard explanation for why this seems to be so,
but all so far have failed to convince or offer persuasion to a
threshold of doubt.

Many might say that the Universe (singular) had no beginning and has
no end; expansion still included as a counter to gravity. This
implies a fate. One will win. I always remember that if there is no
beginning, there need not be an end. But we see, on smaller scales
that there is a fractal symmetry that is pervasive: all of which has
the direction of a self-similar recurrence.

BUT we do not know whether this universe had predecessors or
companions. Perhaps progenitors even intermingled to make a different
and more enriched physics than would otherwise be in a single
universe. Again, we self-describe.

And while we are so willing to accept a no beginning - no end of a
single universe, we can't allow another? It may be time to redefine
what we generally accept as a universe. It even seems possible (for
all we know) that the unmeasurable parts of this universe (because of
some local lightspeed) might actually be contracting due to some grav
effects that might be different from our notion caused by what we can
observe.

We know there are things we cannot measure, but infer from a local
measurement. We haven't even left our local crib. This is a crux.
How do we deal with it?

We can say this is all we are concerned with: local measurements and
a physics that can predict it. Or we can go beyond: which we have
always done in the past. Only a simple belief allowed a math and an
empiric to support celestial spheres. What is different today??? Are
our latest concepts of physics much different than they were a few
hundred years ago? Any immeasurables still remain immeasurable. Yet
they happen out of our measure.

There is no physics that can be wrought by man --- only conceptions of
physics UNTIL we should understand everything that happens in this
universe and beyond. But that is not likely to happen (ever). Never.

So we are left with a best guess of what we can measure. That
satisfies to the ordinary and allows discovery. This is our
conceptual physics. Nothing more and nothing less.

While limited measure begets limited structural and self-consistant
theory, concept can go beyond. Jules Verne comes to mind. How about
JFK and the moon? And who is Hister? I do not claim to favor
psuedo-science, but tomorrow's science is often today's
psuedo-science. Go figure. I wish we could.

Push-pull, mass? I'll give you my best guess. From a beginning, no.
But here goes. Remember fractal symmetry.

If matter is converted into energy, for whatever scale, it's results
depend upon its environment. The release of energy cannot be
homogeneous and the environment cannot be homogeneous.

If energy is converted into matter, it has not arrived in a
homogeneous fashion. Think about how many different elements we
identify.

THE BB is a scalar event. Everything is, unless there is a limit to
scale. THAT, we do not know, but it is worth thinking about --- no
beginning and no end on a scale that may be bigger than our infinity
can imagine.

Perspective! Can an entanglement of a non-homogeneous push create an
assembly that can seem to pull (matter/mass)? I fashion it as an
entanglement that is simply non-homogeneous and cannot get out of its
entanglement. But it requires additional energy to break out. If the
supplied energy flux is too little, it aquires it instead of breaking
out. This may be the most primative and unforgiving of all adiabatic
processes known to (or not known) to us. But it appears on such a
small scale (of force?) that we cannot even measure (realize) that it
is actually happening in our physical world as we make it.

Is it a force? Apparently not if we cannot fathom it as a force.
Instead, pop theory describes it as a curved spacetime instead of a
flow of all basic energy and the matter (condensed and entangled
energy) that flows with it.

But there is exception. These lumps of entanglement (mass, or the
like) exibit a momentum within and wrt the flow. The more
entanglement they have, the more they require an energy. And if the
energy is still insufficient to break the entanglement, the ratio
grows larger and can only break from within (release).

The whole point is that as the entanglement grows (mass increases),
the effect of the overall flow is decreased in that specific region.
This is percieved by our subjective measurement as a momentum of mass
in a two (or more) body system.

Now you might ask why energy flows into mass. That is a good question
and one that is usually perplexing to me also. But in my pursuit of a
cohesive science, I have considered several reasons. A lot of them
make sense, but one more than the others.

Consider the energy of motion on the smallest scale. If there is
entanglement, that motion is locally more rapid compared to a general
'stand-off' expansion. If it is not more rapid, it is more localized.
 This means that expansion in this locale is hindered. That is
push-pull. That is flow of energy being non-homogeneous in a larger
locality. That is why a region can contain a momentum wrt to its
surroundings.

I can certainly consider that weak, strong and electro- are but
different local effects of this through a fractal symmetry.

I know that I may not have explained this well, but it is all within
my consideration to a high degree.

LeSage may have hit on a good principle, but not good enough. Just
like Einstein. LeSage is probably closer to the universal mechanism,
but lacking as much as Einstein.

I don't think there is anything hidden in the LeSagian or the
Einsteinian that I have not considered. Both are crude concepts to
me. This means that there is something more that I am considering
beyond that meagerness. Maybe I have expressed it well enough above
and maybe not. One thing for sure is that I don't let any of my
confusion of dictated science dictate a science from lack of
knowledge. I have always been this way to question everything and
find solutions.

But you don't have to listen to me. You may now continue with your
own belief.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The existance of time as anything other than a mere "concept"
    ... In the mathematical context time *is* what a clock measures. ... exists in the physical that has energy, or mass, or dimension. ... or the movement or transformation of some matter or energy ... hinting at a desire to talk about physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Geometrical interpretation of c^2
    ... direction at moving from energy to rest mass smoothly along the same ... This validates to me that the matter wave emerges from ... I looked up dimension analysis and got this from "wikipedia" ... understood how theoretical physics is done. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 781 June 19, 2006 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein and Davi
    ... The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News ... should not expect any one explanation for any one mystery ... There is a problem with "Dark Energy", ... for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A thought experiment...
    ... Physics is my favourite science for the fact that it ... Let the Universe be defined as being everything physical in ... existence [ie all matter, and energy] ... Assume that The Fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics are indeed correct ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Another sort of expansion?
    ... universe, you should read the paper from the Princeton ... You have to think of space in terms of potential energy, ... But the matter involved isn't fundamentally ... With life, when fully niche filled, the next large evolutionary ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading