Re: Part IV Nothing to see here folk people...

On Mar 31, 10:30 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 31, 10:05 pm, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



But it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you spend all your
time examining the stage, you are bound to miss the play itself.

Having said all that, we have made great progress towards
understanding the players and the play, and even have some of the
math. But we probably don't want much of the math, because if we could
sit and calculate what people were going to think or say with a palm
pilot we might as well put our brains in vats and dream ourselves into
Utopia.

So this notion that Michio Kaku and others have put forward that we
might some day find a formula that not only describes the physical
nature of the universe but describes all things within it, including
those things of mind, and human behavior is IMHO not likely to happen.

Michio is all about string theory as some of you know, and it is
always mentioned in discussions of this type, Greene talks about it
too in his book, but most say the same thing about it, that it doesn't
have practical application.

And in my opinion it does, if it were simplified, and the right
approach taken, but it has so strayed from its roots, that they have
lost their way.

Looking to translate formula with string theory, rather than looking
at reality and saying how could string theory describe what we know
about the universe.

A number of years ago, when we were discussing string theory,
Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi got wind of our discussions and took out a full
page in I think it was the New York times and maybe a few other
newspapers to bring to our attention, the Vedic scriptures, that he
discovered, which described the universe, using string theory eons
ago.

There are still lots of frontiers to be explored, but most of the
physical ones we can reach, on earth or in space, have been
investigated.

Beyond that we have with science fiction boldly gone and gone and gone
to such a degree that any past long forgotten memories that might have
got put there by some carrying forward in our DNA from our origins off
planet or that we can reach in dreams thats all been made into movies
books and TV shows.

We have really stretched our imaginations, and those frontiers of
mind, and examined all that in detail writing it into computer games
and dime store novels.

We are keen to find some new thing, not unlike Lazarus Long from Time
Enough for Love, where after after living for thousands of years,
finds the only thing left for him to do is die, since he has done it
all.

Well we will find some new thing, we always do, and it is probably
right under our noses, just waiting for some Einstein to turn it
upside down and discover something that others have overlooked.

As for Newtons bucket, what was he saying when he said that with it he
proved absolute space?

He was saying that there is resistance to motion, that cannot be
explained by anything other than an ether.

And Einstein said the same thing.

And I am saying the same thing and people have gone farther to say it
has properties that today we can examine.

It is like a light oil, that you can move through easily at a constant
pace, but do a bellyflop off a high diving board into a swimming pool
of oil and you will find it has some real resistance to the mass of
your body.

What will we do with our knowledge of it in the future.

I wonder.

So is it possible then, that quarks might have some real physical
existence, and be like tiny molecules that make up the undetectable,
yet detectable ether of absolute space-time?

Hypothetically yes.

They would not be hard rock like substances, but they may be tiny
bubbles, which make up the quantum foam.

And they would be expanding right along with the rest of the universe,
and maybe, just maybe, it was the creation of quarks, and the quantum
foam, which halted the inflationary expansion of the universe, and
which allowed this universe to stabilize into what we see today.

Without which we would just evaporate into the void, because the void
itself is a perfect vacuum, and has infinite space.
There are no walls out there past the edge of the universe.

And the big bang has even been re-examined in such a way that a more
rational explanation might be that it was a big suck, rather than a
big bang.

Just as shaving foam in a bell jar will expand as you vacate the bell
jar, the void pulls things outward, and without any resistance,
inflation is the result.

The light speed limit, came into being with the quantum foam.

Be it real or unreal or somewhere in between, it can affect motion,
and so we can say that is a real thing.

Just like we look at the brain and try to determine if consciousness
arises out of neural processes, or if consciousness is only able to
affect the brain, to cause it to think.

Consciousness is both real and unreal but we say it is real, because
we have the experience of it.

We have done a lot of slamming things into other things with linear
accelerators to try and glean out some data on the quantum foam, but
maybe another approach would be to study accelerated mass with
mechanical objects, rather than em waves all the time. Mechanical
objects have nuclei with intrinsic mass, and can move the quantum foam
around.

And you will find such simple experiments as putting things on turn
tables, have yielded results.

Its as if, a person doing T'ai Chi has a far better chance of
manipulating the ether, than you do with a particle accelerator.

So why do we keep returning the concept that absolute space-time is
like a fluid of any sort?

Because all motion through it, is fluent.

Long ago people looked at force applied to an object and asked the
question,
why does it keep going?
When you throw a ball, why does it keep going when your hand is no
longer touching it?

When the force is no longer applied why does it carry on?

What is this momentum anyways?

In the void, if there was no quantum foam, in a perfect vacuum, what
could possibly cause an object to keep moving.
And there you can see the reference to motion, in that motion is
relative with respect to to absolute space with Newton, and absolute
space-time with Einstein.

It wouldn't keep moving in the void.

There wouldn't be momentum, in a wormhole.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Part III Puny Earthlings, wash your clocks with quantum foam.
    ... consists of a sort of quantum foam. ... We know, that the bubble nucleus, which has mass caused at it tries to ... as the universe expands, ... as it has been not expanding for a long time. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Loneliest Black Holes in the Universe (Forwarded)
    ... The Loneliest Black Holes in the Universe -- a New Study ... In a study of more than 1,000 void galaxies, using data from the Sloan ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • The Loneliest Black Holes in the Universe (Forwarded)
    ... The Loneliest Black Holes in the Universe -- a New Study ... In a study of more than 1,000 void galaxies, using data from the Sloan ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
    ... >> You will need to determine the absolute motions of A and B ... We have in view the proof of absolute motion, ... I see it as accelerated 'expanse' of the Universe ... In that total picture all parts merge--collapse--into the universal horizon, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Relative Movement vs. Moving through Space
    ... >> You will need to determine the absolute motions of A and B ... We have in view the proof of absolute motion, ... I see it as accelerated 'expanse' of the Universe ... In that total picture all parts merge--collapse--into the universal horizon, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)