Re: Another Hurdle for LeSagian Theory
- From: xxein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Jul 2005 20:25:35 -0700
TC wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/b6l8k
>
> A neutrino telescope has measured the integrated radioactivity
> in the Earth and the result is consistent with the value
> required to explain heat emission of the Earth with
> non-LeSagian gravity.
>
> TC
xxein: Non-LaSagian in some regard, maybe, but I don't support the
LeSagian.
Measurements are taken and are related to a theory/belief. We do not
know the universe well enough to be very objective about applying
measurement to an objective-type theory. We only THINK we do.
It is our built-in nature to construct our understanding using a
feedback system that reinforces the subjective observation. Iow, we
have no objective observation from the visual nature of this working
universe except that from cosmological observations. Being a far
limit, We see that the momentum of galaxies (such) is dependent on a
gravitational response in bias to expansion. What caused the
expansion?
So what caused the expansion? A release of energy. From what? A
bound state. How did it get bound? From gravity.
What are we really looking at and considering when we try to do a
science? As we can consider, lightspeed tells us what we should see
and not. But what do we really know about lightspeed? We can guess is
that lightspeed is slowed between any expanding-space points. Why is
it that we cannot recognize gravity as being the local opposite of
global expansion in that space is contracting in the local region? It
has no characteristics that are shown to be false except by
self-indulgent belief, driven by past belief, that does not prove a
foundation any more than a 'he said, she said' type of 'I am in the
middle' arguementative process.
'Middle' is the opperative word here. We are in the middle of what we
'theorize by observation' and a reality. We ain't that good at
recognizing it yet. It is a level of understanding yet to be percieved
by any formal-type theory. (No! No God-like stuff here)
But we still see it (the true reality) every day and convolute it into
something that transforms itself into our present theory/belief. When
has this NOT happenned in our history only to be CORRECTED?
The case here is G, M and R as biased against an universal expansion.
Not only do we NOT an actual lightspeed wrt respect to this changing
space (we know it only for the notion of a background of a 'curved
space'), we use the subjective TWLS observation to determine its
characteristics.
This is 'ritual' rather than investigative. You can use GR to
determine a circular orbit period and the timerates to associate them
(observer to phenomena), and that is fine. It is accuracy to the given
limit. It is even a 'form' of objective understanding, but it is not
the 'real form' as practiced by the constituite reality. What's the
difference? Physics.
If we should remain mathematical on this issue, that is fine. Let's
ask a mathematic expert to to relate mathematical chaos to a Mandlebrot
or Julia (etc) set and find that a simple relation is self-similar but
chaotic depending on a pov (underlying physical theory).
It is our pov that is allowing the mathematic of this universe to be
chaotic and tamed by pop theories. It is not the universe's fault
(even through math) that we cannot realize it's simplicity.
Do not investigate from within a belief. It slows progress. Just put
it all together and see (not literally?) what you get. But I will
caution you to look beyond the thresholds of GR, cosmological and Q
theories if you want to get a sense of the universal reality. Why?
Because they are mutually exclusive of each other.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: topological equivalence?
- Next by Date: Light & very small distances - paradox??
- Previous by thread: Re: topological equivalence?
- Next by thread: Light & very small distances - paradox??
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
