Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 1

On Nov 9, 10:53 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Nov 8, 10:31 am, John Kennaugh <J...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
[...]


John Kennaugh  "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way
by gradually winning over and converting its opponents. What does happen is
that its opponents gradually die out..."  - Max Planck- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: You said "but anyone who believes the myth of detached
objectivity in any
science is exceedingly naive."

Naive to expect to fully discover it all, yes, but it is not a myth.
It is the grail. It is not detached. It is the parent physical
behavior in the objective tree.

Leaves on such a tree like a Banyan tree depend on a lot of extraneous
things to make their existence so closely homogeneous wrt to one
another, but not exactly the same. Show me a Chevy that grows on that
same tree. It requires a parent, even if small in the universal scale
of things. I don't have leaves, scales or feathers. But I am
similar. We can work this all the up to the point of deciding if we
are life or rocks.

Likewise wrt non-life. A rock exists. It has parents all the way up
to the BB and whatever provided for it to happen. The BB had parents
and now we get a little more lost.

We have a physics. It is as local as we can control it to be or think
of it to be as a constant. We have ventured out of such local physics
to encompass the larger and smaller swaths of what we can observe and
try to connect them in some way.

This is the physic --- the "detached objectivity". The origin remains
unclear to us. We don't know whether to look up or down in scale to
find a parental cause. Should we look for a large created existence
that was unstable and filled the void (or our part of it). Then, we
would have to either look for what created it or just believe it was
created by something extra-universal. Extra-universal should not be a
problem except when believed as gods. Or did it come to be from a
micro-instability that was always present? In this case it made its
own separate universes due to inhomogeneities. But neither has a root
cause for existence. A dilemma. I have no preference except that one
may be the progenitor (parent) of the other. There arguments that can
be made either way. In either case, there was never an empty space
except for voids in it and even that is too hard to believe as a logic
in contemporary thought. Gravity!

Here, I would have to conclude that there exists a sea of energy and
matter interconnected. E=MC^2 by our low energy measurements. Matter
seems to be energy that has found a way to tie itself up. It shows
this energy as binders and as orbits. Non-inertially. Iow, where
does matter get its energy from?

Even if we give matter an inertial status to exist, it still exhibits
gravity beyond its structure. Gravity must be external and be an
expression of free energy seeking an equilibrium. Since it is energy,
it can certainly carry matter along with its flow. It will flow to
the matter that uses it.

But there are all kinds of matter structures out there. Some very
large as single objects. If in a field of smaller objects, a large
object cannot get the energy flow it might otherwise get if the
smaller objects were not using some of it. The point is that matter
does not attract matter. It is an energy sink. Smaller objects
simply follow the energy flow.

Now eventually a large matter object will absorb the smaller objects
and be able to extract their energies. This is what we usually call
accretion (although it is not correctly understood because of the
inability to know what gravity is). It exists. But the accretion
rate is far more complex. If each smaller matter (in large enough
numbers of such) were to take in a lot of the free energy, that's less
for the central large object.

The key here is that energy flow comes primarily from the outside.
Its overall influx flow depends upon how much matter demands it to
exist in its matter form. As the number of smaller objects increases,
the less the central large matter can get.

BH's are possible because a matter core is large enough to get energy
flowing into it faster than c. But it depends on the accretion rate
(described above). That also affects how a BH uses/assimilates it.

Novas, supernovas. Are they just smaller and faster assimilators?
Did they have enough 'alone' time to get fat at a quicker pace? A BH
seems to digest its energy for a longer period of time. Slower
accretion rate for its size? Or does it have too many parasites?

We have a lot of logical thinking to do wrt a "detached objectivity".
It's only detached because we fail in logic.

We will never be able to put Humpety Dumpety together again but I
don't blame you for looking for Cinderella instead, either. Don't try
to believe one fairy tale over another just because you want to. They
will all be tales and not the objective truth.
.

Relevant Pages