What is Gravity? Why/How does it work?
sdr
BandTechnology.com" <tttppp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Well, as I listen to Mr.Rodrian's piano sonata
http://www.archive.org/details/COMPLETE_MOZART_PIANO_SONATAS
>> Ha! Those are by Mozart.
>> Last time "I" wrote a piano
>> sonata it caused such hysterics
>> (of laughter) that I
>> was briefly held on a charge
>> of attempted homicide
>> (of my listeners).
>
> Sorry... interpretation...
>
>>> I wish we could discuss the relation of
>>> thermodynamics and gravity.
VISIT THOU: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
It's all there. Could it be simpler? I doubt it:
Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to the
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:
Think of the "visible" universe as a sort of eternally
"shrinking" black hole "singularity" (of course, this
is only a poetic exaggeration, since obviously,
"singularities" are physically impossible in our
reality--all you need do is look around you).
Fortunately, because there is nothing to which to
compare "the size" of the universe... it will
"always" remain the biggest thing in existence, no
matter how "smaller" it may go on to become.
Where can you find more on all this? Hello:
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
Note, however, that "gravity" is not the simple effect
of this "shrinking" (no matter what the speed of this
shrinking may actually be).
Consider: In an elevator in perfect "free-fall" there
is no "effect of gravity." If you are inside it and
drop Newton's apple it will simply "float" in place.
You need to add 1) an acceleration to the "speed" at
which something falls, vs/and 2) a "floor" not moving
away from Newton's apple with a matching speed:
Think of the earth's ground (in the latter case, or #2
above): The relatively uncollapsing "framework" of the
earth's matter keeps it from going into any sort of
"free-fall" (observable by us)... unlike what happens
to an actual black hole star's "ground." Therefore the
falling Newton's apple can only accelerate until it
hits the earth's surface. Why should it/does it
accelerate at all?
The reason for this acceleration is that the
"shrinking" universe is "an energy-conservation
engine." [In "shrinking" the universe is forever
hopelessly forced to observe the conservation of
angular momentum law--Yes, the same effect one
sees when a spinning skater pulls in his arms.]
The "body" of the "shrinking" universe is forever
growing "tighter" (or, going from being larger/slower
to smaller/faster). An "acceleration" by any name: The
entire universe is experiencing an acceleration in
merely "existing." Or, the "smaller" it grows the
"faster" it grows smaller... forever.
This is the reason why for a dozen or more
years before astronomers finally discovered
that the universe's "expansion" was
accelerating I despaired of ever discovering
the footprint of that acceleration I knew HAD
to be taking place in ANY imploding universe.
If our "Newton's apple" were falling into an actual
black hole star, its acceleration would almost
certainly continue until it very nearly matched that
of the shrinking universe itself--even if but "always"
only just "nearly."
This acceleration ("towards shrinking" of/at every
point in the universe) means that EVEN if our elevator
(above) were itself in complete "free-fall," when you
dropped Newton's apple it would NOT just float "in
place" but would actually begin to gradually "fall."
And THAT effect is what we normally "observe"/describe
as the observable "effect of gravity." Very subtle on
earth's surface, very pronounced on a black hole
star's. Why?
Because this effect/interaction is one which is
strictly between quantities of mass/matter/energy:
In our experience, the effect of this acceleration is
identical to the conventional description of "gravity"
in any way you would care to measure it: Since the
"universal singularity" ["the universe"] is shrinking
unto itself, it will "appear" to interested observers
as if nearby bodies are "pulling" at each other [and
not just the elevator floor, obviously]... in other
words, if you suppose a "pulling" to be the case,
Newton's apple appears to be pulling at the elevator's
floor and vice versa.
And because, to all practical ends, every "point" is
the center of the universe ["down" is strictly only a
"relative" term], it is "the sum centers of mass" that
are the "points" toward which the surrounding mass
is/are "shrinking" (i.e. obviously, "space" plays no
part whatsoever in "shrinking" ... and therefore the
"illusion" of weaker/stronger "gravitational fields").
The "distance" between two nearby bodies will
diminish more than/long before the "distance"
between them and bodies farther afield" (because
all groups/conglomerations are "moving" ["down"]
towards the sum of all their mass' centers) and
therefore away from everything else "outside" them.
There is nothing "personal" about this, it's merely
that the universe is "so big in comparison to the bit
under consideration" that, to all practical effects...
every such bit of the universe can be described as its
"center." [The universe is everywhere "shrinking"
towards its everyplace ... not "slurping" wholesale
towards its whatever singular sum center.]
Individual stars, planets ... and related/very
close but "untouching" conglomerations will be
"shrinking" into a point "in space" which is the
center of the sum of their added mass: the
earth/moon system, as well as solar systems,
galaxies, galaxy groups, et al ... and so forth
outwards with every surrounding and
correspondingly independent conglomeration of
mass/energy from the smallest subparticle to the
entire universe itself (which you may choose to
call "gravitational systems" if you still believe
in gravitons).
As one continues to pull back one will always observe
all whatever groupings of such conglomerations to be
behaving as if they were independently "associated
super-conglomerations" BECAUSE they will always be
"shrinking" towards the center of the sum of their
total mass. And so it will continue (as you "pull
back") until the entire universe itself will be "seen"
as behaving as if it were one single "associated
conglomeration," [not a "singularity" of course].
The effect can be "observed to be" extremely
subtle or extremely pronounced (depending on the
amount of mass, and its organization, whether
more compact or more spread out/insubstantial.
The crucial factor being the amount of mass in a
given volume observed, and not necessarily how it is
distributed across that volume... again, because
what matters always is "how much mass/matter is
falling towards the sum of its mass' center, or
[see above] the closer a sum of mass/energy is to
itself, the more it will be moving away from
everything else afield.
As the independent conglomerations "shrink into
themselves" the distance between them will naturally
increase ... subtly with proximity and increasing with
distance so that very distant galaxies will seem to be
speeding away from each other at nearly the speed of
light (there is no natural law against something
moving faster than the speed of light,* but "catching
sight of something moving away faster than the speed
of light" is always problematical, even if only
philosophically).
* Einstein's restriction comes from his assumption
that the "Fitzgerald contraction" (that all matter
contracts in the direction of its motion) was true
[as truly a whoppingly moronic explanation of why
the speed of light is constant as is "dark energy"
to explain why the universe's "apparent expansion"
is accelerating]. But having assumed that, Einstein
was left with the fact that this moronic assumption
demanded that matter could only contract "so much"
and then could not possibly contract any "mucher" (a
reflection of his state of mind, I imagine). ergo:
The "numbers" told him that at 7/8th the speed of
light a 12-inch ruler would contract to 6 inches,
and so forth, until at the speed of light his ruler
would have contracted to zero--And, as a ruler can
then contract no further, Einstein left himself no
wiggle-room to imagine any speed greater than that
of light. Neat, eh! Unfortunately for Einstein,
smart as he was, the "facts" upon which he built his
Grand Temple were rotten and, eventually, it shall
all tumble down, I'm afraid. (You will be able to
tell when this is happening by the number of rats
leaving the edifice ... and whether they will be
sauntering out, or scrambling like ... rats).
Of course, the actual distance between galaxies, as
measured by a yardstick outside the universe, will
actually be "shrinking." But, since we can only
measure such distances with our own "shrinking"
galactic yardsticks... such distances must therefore
forever appear to us to be increasing! An effect which
is clearly discernible to us as the "illusion" that
the galaxies are everywhere moving away from each
other at rates of speed "surprisingly" related to how
"distant" they are from each other.
Needless to say, any silly goose first coming upon
this peculiar motion of the galaxies away from each
other ... with a brain empty of the knowledge I have
just outlined above must inevitably conclude that THE
UNIVERSE MUST OBVIOUSLY BE EXPANDING (as if
it were ... oh, I don't know, the result of an ancient
explosion, a really "big bang"). And so, imagine the
surprise of all such "empty brains" when astronomers
suddenly discovered (in 1997 or so) that their
UNIVERSAL EXPANSION IS ACTUALLY ACCELERATING!
(Obviously, a physical impossibility for the remnants
of an explosion.) Oh, I don't know, I suppose they
might be made loopy enough to even grow to imagine
that this inexplicable/completely unpredictable (in a
big bang universe) acceleration HAD TO BE due to some
invisible and undetectable mystical/magical kind of
"dark" energy or something. No, really, don't laugh:
Billions of dollars being dropped down this particular
black hole is more something to cry about.
But that is how man's knowledge advances across the
stumbling nature of his history... from blind guess to
blind guess, I guess.
There, now I've written it so that even a fly can
understand it. But, have I not said all this before?
Yep. Thought I did ...
>> If you wish to plunge into the lighter side of
>> humanity visit:http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
>
> Unfortunately your poem is as long as your treatise
> on gravity and thermodynamics.
And people have forgotten how to read. I know.
> By the time I get a bit of the way through I am
> tired and wish that you could compress the rhetoric
> down to a simplistic construction.
A kind of Dick and Jane Reader for physicists... yes.
> Then there could be a real discussion.
O yeah--yeah--O yeah--yeah--O yeah. Been there.
> I do not wish to be light. You would like to goof
> around a bit and it is your right to do so.
What else can one do around goofballs?
> You say you are old.
My bones concur. As well as the last two brain cells
still alive and echoing back & forth to each other in
the otherwise Brain Cells Mausoleum of my mind.
> Will your idea of unifying gravity and
> thermodynamics die with you?
The instant I die the universe shall be swallowed by
eternal oblivion. I should be better off worrying
about keeping a smile on until that instant, don't you
think. Well, perhaps you don't. But that's no skin off
my nose either.
> Is there even anything substantial there?
For whom?
> Why then would you attempt to force your reader
> through such a long roundabout path?
Thank me for my least effort. And then move on!
I shall be thankful for your thanks (I do not intend
to take anything with me to oblivion.)
> The direct approach is much more efficient. When
> you have someone offering to be a student why
> would you throw them away?
So that, hopefully, a real teacher might catch them.
I am not a teacher but an observer. This is an
interesting planet.
> I suppose you are a man of great variations with
> little basis.
Ah! You have been to:
http://www.archive.org/details/BACH_ART_OF_THE_VARIATION
> I challenge you to present your theory of
> gravitation and thermodynamics in as compact
> a form as possible.
I have news or you, my boy: It will never be compact
enough for someone or other. Otherwise they would have
surely stopped running the 100-yard dash long ago.
Those who truly wish to understand ... will.
> I have a brief theory that predicts that large solid
> objects cannot achieve low temperature.
I think my fridge disproves it already...
> By a natural tendency of matter to cohere as it
> oscillates such a tendency can be intuited.
Now, think about why matter "coheres" and one day
you may yet come to understand that the universe is
imploding!
> I admit that my own theory is infantile
> and it needs work. I
> encourage you to present even just such
> a starting point as a kernel
> of development.
Can't: My ancient digestive system can no longer
take corn.
> Operating by declaration is necessary but the
> quality of the declarations are an open problem.
Isn't that a declaration!
> All human knowledge is
> constructed and as such is suspect
> and therefor open to development.
Another declaration? Will it never end?
> Unfortunately your declarations are
> either nonexistent or lay buried.
Declaration or mere opinion, or both?
> Perhaps you should bury your hard drive
> with you. Or will you be incinerated?
Incinerated: I'm already burnt up.
> Either way your state is presently grim.
Don't be too sure: I seem to suffer from incurable
happiness. I think it's genetic. From my father's
side. The curious thing is that I grew up with my
mother's family, grim apes the lot of them... and here
was this jolly kid always having a grand ole time
living among them). It must have infuriated them no
end (something always rather hilarious to me).
> It seems you need this reflected.
I own several mirrors. Albeit I have them all covered
up now so that I can still live the illusion that I am
seven years old! I'll uncover one of them ... last
time I uncovered them was last time I had visitors (on
account of some time ago other visitors accused me of
being Dracula, and I had AN AWFUL time proving to
everybody that I wasn't): Monkeys, can't live with'em-
> -Tim (with more retort below)
>
>> There are no atheists in the human species. Anyone
>> sez he's an atheist who then prays/prays and prays
>> that he gets the job is a mere hypocrite (at best).
>
> I am an atheist.
Hello: You are a hypocrite. Again you weren't reading!
> This merely means that I do not believe in God.
NOTE that you did not say "there is no God."
Trust me: "hypocrite."
> Prayer is closer to thought and intention
When you propose something only God can affect,
you are proposing God. USE YOUR BRAIN, sometime.
> and may not be far from meditation.
When you meditate on things God does,
how could you possibly think you are NOT
medicating [sic] on God?!?
> These concepts are not directly tied to the
> three letter word.
When you use a metaphor that can only be alluding
to God, it is to God you're alluding. How much more so
when you directly allude to God's very name!
> If you wish to define an abstract God we may
> come to some resolution
Perhaps when you learn to be honest with yourself
--first.
> but I will prefer the word reality to such a misuse
> of the old egotistical construction.
>>> The Abrahamic religions are false belief systems.
>> Do these religious principles really require that
>> they
>> be correct? I mean, after all: Didn't the Maya keep
>> the world from coming to an end for a thousand
>> years
>> by ripping the still beating hearts out of the
>> breasts
>> of their countless sacrificial victims? These
>> things work.
>
> But do they work well?
Hello! Kept the entire WORLD from coming to an end:
ALL religions are saving Mankind, saving the universe,
preserving existence itself... what more do you want?!
> The current situation may be dismissed as
> purely political,
You mean this post?
> but are the greivances of the Islamic
> fundamentalists valid?
You mean that non-Muslims are stubbornly refusing to
join the blood-thirsty cult? Sure. Their religion says
that people who refuse to join should be killed,
man, woman, or child. It's the Maya all over again.
Oh no, wait, the Maya only sacrificed enemy warriors:
Islam is a much more primitive sort of barbarism.
> Their unified mixture of tribal culture,
> religion, and government is old and strong.
> The American attention
> deficit disorder does not allow for such
> consideration.
You should know: You can't even read a collection of
old jokes....
http://poems.sdrodrian.com/470.htm
> The maturity
> of American politics is suspect, especially when
> the leader preaches
> that God is on his side.
That's true. I think the President's poll numbers
might improve if he started preaching that he's a
Satan-worshipper instead...
>>> Perhaps the situation for the individual is of
>>> multiple identities.
>> Don't woik:
>> Multiple identifies = multiple taxation.
> Yes. We already have multiple taxation: town, state,
> nation ...
But obviously you don't have a good tax consultant.
You must be one of "the little people."
>>> So I cannot rule out the media completely.
>> Yeah! Nasty bastards all, who are always bending
>> backwards to try to be unbiased and report only the
>> facts when they should properly be the instruments
>> of
>> OUR propaganda/the voices of our biases/the petards
>> of our prejudices! But, nooooooo!
>
> How often is it mentioned in the media that the US
> is facing a long term foreign policy crisis?
Like: EVERY TIME. You gotta stop commenting on things
you never see/hear/read about/watch/know the least of!
> Are we ever reminded that we helped to build the
>Taliban?
Every Democrat and independent commentator I ever
saw on every news show repeats it. It's like, "You do
know that bread is made with flour, don't you" Yeah--
> That the US and GB armed Saddam Hussein?
I have not heard "we've got ants" mentioned more!
(Green Bay armed Saddam Hussein--? Holy--!)
>> A financial crisis looms and dithering from
>>> external
>>> forces along with
>>> another terrorist attack are a plausible end.
Are you even on planet earth? Prove it: Explain
to me what cows are.
>>> It's
>>> not going to be
>>> pretty, but it is perhaps the right thing in terms
>>> of global justice.
Global justice is what justifies local injustices.
Old as time.
>> Yes. Well, it's a good thing Russia, China and Iran
>> are there to pick up the slack if the United States
>> falters in this world, no? Ho! Ho! Ho!
>
> The USA has played a large part in how these
> countries that you
> mention have come to be what they are.
Then they are right to hate us. They're shit.
> Your own sense of hostility is
> exactly the tension of which I have spoken
> elsewhere.
Elsewhere I have spoken of ducks, and of chickens,
and of ping pong playing wombats...
>>> Of course, the US could stand down, join the ICC,
>>> stop twisting the
>>> rest of humanity around its interests...
>> And implode into the most monumental economic crash
>> ever seen on this earth since The Flood (which I'm
>> sure won't even blow away a single leaf in the rest
>> of the planet)... Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
> We'll see won't we? At some level we just watch
> and see what unfolds.
We do that at every level, the world is a colossal
Colosseum, ain't it.
>>> Morality has been a puzzle for philosophers yet it
>>> is clear to me that
>>> symmetry plays a fundamental role in the supply
>>> of moral values.
>> The more criminals that arise/the more cops we
>> gotta hire: Yes, I'm beginning to see the symmetry
>> of human behavior.
>
> No. I do accept that there are asymmetries in our
> behavior.
Where do you get asymmetries from symmetries?
Are you a mathematician?
> But in a
> search for moral principles which we accept as
> ideal symmetry would be
> observed.
Because if something makes us feel good, it is
"obviously" good. We are bastards all, yes.
> It is also a grave mistake to presume that others
> operate exactly as ones self.
I don't know. Medicine is based on that assumption.
>>> We must exist in a
>>> culture of false assumptions
>> Who did you say made this unchallengeable judgment?
>
> Me.
I thought as much, since it is a false assumption!
> You are of course free to challenge it.
Okay: "Coke is better than Pepsi." There! I win.
> It is tiring to preface
> everything with
> 'I think/believe/...'
>From now on use: "Fuck you/Bite me/..."
They'll pay more attention to you. They might
even throw you in jail (which is like the highest
amount of attention society can pay you).
> So before everything I write you can just insert
> this preface universally.
You can insert my preface (above) before everything
you write too: I even think it sounds funnier. And
I like that.
>> Yes. And I know which parts too, but, because by
>> almost universal agreement, we term those parts
>> "dirty," as a gentleman of the old school (in fact,
>> I believe it's been torn down & carted away): I
>> refuse to mention such terms.
>
> This is cryptic
Some people just aren't equipt to discern the funny
parts. Sometimes that can be rather funny too.
> but I suppose there is a lack of tabboo in current
> culture that you find distasteful.
The only thing I find universally distasteful any more
is cheese: I've eaten too much of it.
> Still the open paradigm is strong
> especially here on this medium which you choose
> to use.
She is a good medium. I have already spoken to
everybody I know who's dead (brain dead).
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
RE:
On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob
<robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> And, of course, to 'prove' that no
> magic is required you need to
> explain (or eliminate) the beginning,
> i.e. how something evolved from
> nothing. -- Rob
As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
yourself must realize: "If Existence had to
have had "a" beginning it could not exist."
In a very real sense: There was always
"something." AND/OR what now exists is
another version/variation of Nothingness
--Something which some scientists and
theoreticians (including myself) like to swear
is the case:
SEE http://physics.sdrodrian.com
In fact this is what makes it possible for the
universe to continue "conserving" the energy
of which it is made from larger/slower to
smaller/faster ... for all eternity.
We do not notice this eternal conservation
of energy, of course. Except for the "force"
we call "gravity."
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
*****************************************
On Aug 5, 3:31 pm, Chris L Peterson
<c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> You try to force the Universe to conform
> with the limitations of your
> imagination, rather than trying to
> expand your ideas to encompass the
> reality of the Universe.
Pardon me for thinking.
> I suspect the Universe is far different,
> and far more interesting, than
> the form you attempt to define
> with your philosophy.
EVOLUTION
Horatio, believe Einstein (a very smart
fellow) when he assures you that is it
unlikely the universe began from complexity
and more likely it began BECAUSE of ONE
very simple principle... from which it
evolved to the present level of complexity.
> What came "before",
> or whether any such concept as "before"
> even has meaning, is currently
> beyond our ability to know. When
> that question is answered, however, it
> will be by science (not philosophy)-
> and it's perfectly possible that
> the answer will be that there truly was nothing-
> in any sense- before the BB. Chris L Peterson
Dear Horatio, the very essence of
analytical thinking is directly involved
with understanding "what came before"
FROM the study of "what exists now."
(Ask your local police detectives & such.)
... Just as, hopefully, studying present
conditions will tell us what's coming next:
Which is, in sum, why the brain evolved
--aside its body maintenance duties--
in the first place: that is, to predict the
future. "If I jump in the creek the gator
will eat me!"
Even BigBangers understand that "something
can not come out of nothing" and have
thought up all sorts of sci-fy scenarios in
which, for the most part, the Big Bang erupts
(is, in fact, a puncture) from some other
dimension/universe when hanging bedsheets
(banes) "blowin' in the wind" touch the
prick point (Big Bang!) through which it all
then came to fill up our universe! Complexity
creates the universe--Einstein sez, "Nix!"
Unfortunately for them, this marvelous scenario
better than anything I could possibly come up
with (with all my wit), exemplifies the ancient
circular argument against those who claim that
God created the world: That, if God created
the world, then the business of "origins" is no
longer about the world's origin but about God's.
The Big Bangers have themselves made the Big
Bang as irrelevant as the God proponents have
made the world. Please hand out the straitjackets
so we can start arguing which God created God
and which dimension created which dimension
worlds without end. "Simplicity is the essence
of elegance."
Look. Let's be reasonable about this. And let's
try to reduce it to its simplest and most logical
(sanity): The nature of matter speaks about it
being (speaking too poetically perhaps) "a mere
swirl of energy." Everywhere we look into the
subatomic world we "see" horrific/enormous
amounts of energy "bound" in tiny swirls. And
when we look out to the greater universe we
see the unmistakable evolution of "the universe
of stars" into "tighter swirls" called "black holes."
SEE? ... One can look at "matter" as EITHER
Something OR Nothing. Nothing could be simpler:
After there are no more stars (atoms) there will
be no more us. But there will be a universe (of
black holes). In such a universe there may yet
arise intelligent life--since we do not know the
ultimate limitations of life... and it may be very
difficult for those beings, perhaps, to imagine
life (their forms of life, of course) possible in
the universe of atoms/stars which existed before
them. And they will know about our universe
BECAUSE
They will create monstrously powerful machines
which will crash black holes (or tear them apart)
until showers of galaxies pour out. In human
lifetimes, these out-pouring galaxies will live for
billions and billions of our years. But for the black
hole physicists they will wink out perhaps after
only a flash of one of their moments.
Meanwhile, some fellow in our own universe is
reading http://physics.sdrodrian.com and thinking:
"How can our universe be a mere swirl of energy
"shrinking" at the speed of light?! I'd notice it!"
And then after all is said & done, perhaps only
Dr. Seuss's philosophy (from amongst all that
have peopled this noble race of ours) will have
any truth/meaning left at all. Albeit, I doubt
seriously there will be even one "black hole
physicist" named Horton among the lot of'em.
Look for beauty where it exists, Horatio. Close not
your eyes to it and but curse the blackness.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
RE:
On Jul 22, 4:00 pm, bdbry...@wherever.ur
(Bobby > In article <1184873139.211531.245...@d55g2000hsg.
googlegroups.comBryant) wrote:
>sdr <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com> writes:
>
> > Existence is absolutely deterministic.
>
> Physicists have determined otherwise.
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
Don't bet on it, Bobby.
Or, before you place that bet, at least consider
THE SORT of "physicists" who have made
the "claim" that there is a portion of existence
where the laws of physics (i.e. determinism)
do not apply. In essence, Quanta Theory is
statistical analysis (it is BOUND to produce
the most informed guess, but it is NEVER looking
directly and absolutely at its subject in its
totality). This explains its many (and continuing)
successes; and why it ought to have no say
--whatsoever-- in any discussion trying to settle
the question of the nature of existence in its sum
total. [You cannot have someone who is but guessing
about exactly what it is he/she is looking at being
the final arbiter of that thing's description--and no
matter how well such a guess works in the meantime.]
START QUOTE
mccarthy@ writes:
Mr. S D Rodrian,
I have been reading scientific articles
(i.e. space.com, nature.com,
etc) and following the mainstream
thinking (BB, string theory, QM,
QP, extra dimensions, etc.) for
the last 8-10 years and not
understanding what all the fudge
factors (dark energy, dark matter,
etc.) are all about and why they
were so illogical.
With great difficulty, I managed to
wrap my head around most of it
except that in spite of all I read,
I could never ever comprehend
where a single photon emitted from
a candle gets its insane energy
and acceleration to travel that "fast"
( in all 3 dimensions ) and
always regain its speed after being
slowed down by some medium.
It never occurred to me that a
photon is created, suspended in
'place' while everything else is
collapsing (imploding) towards,
from, away or past this photon -
depending on one's reference point.
Your explanation clicked something
I can understand and comprehend
now in laymen's terms; and as you
said, it should be simple enough
for me to see everything from
hereon out on my own.
much appreciated,
-eric
******************************************
eric,
Thank you for your note. I was just now
thinking about the implosion vs expansion
(Big Bang, et al) dichotomy. And contemplating
the endless number of nonsense required for
the expansion model to "work" (not to mention
all the things which actually put it into question)...
while at the same time realizing that I have yet
to find a single objection to my own implosion
"viewpoint."
I am more than willing to admit that if ever
there is ANY objection (even the slightest), my
entire theory would collapse--and I would be
more than glad to admit it: If but a paperclip
were to cast a doubt on it, that would be enough
for me. And I would let others fight it out from
here on out.
But I have not yet run across even a paperclip
objecting to it. And so I will continue to believe
that the implosion model describes the universe
--And that THAT is why everything appears to
agree with it. Reality agrees with itself.
I believe the world (of men) will slowly but
eventually come around--One can only ignore
the Sun in the sky so long.
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
******************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
To S D Rodrian:
...and I appreciate your reply.
I am sure you get enough email to
make it impossible to answer all of them.
I am not a mathematician, physicist
etc., just a plain M.Sc. from a
canadian university. I have been
trying to find some model that
would explain the world around me
for years now. Since "everybody"
was so excited and united wrt the
BBang, strings, "branes" concept,
it appeared they just "must" be correct
even though my logic couldn't
get around all the complexities and
hiccups involved in the BB model.
This may sound silly, however, since
I couldn't possibly get my head
around the BB concept with crashing
branes, multi-dimensions, etc. in
its entirety, I had started
compensating for the lack of logical
flow in the BB th. by thinking about
our universe as a computer
generated, recursive, virtual reality
simulation. The BBang being
"somebody" throwing the switch
and all the inconsistencies and
contradictions in the model being
programming mistakes. I thought of
it all as a universe within universe(s)
with time as such being
relative and irrelevant.
Right or wrong, your theory/explanation
via imploding universe using
laws of thermo-dynamics clicked with
me and the logic of universe
finally flows for me. It just makes
plain sense. The fact I can now
understand why photon behaves the
way it behaves was well worth the 5-
6 hours it took me to read your
material and absorb it. Great stuff.
You certainly gave me a lot to think
about...in a different light.
thanks again,
-eric
********************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:
can this double-slit experiment:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/quantum_astronomy_041111.html
be explained by the imploding universe model?
How can a photon pass
through two holes at the same time?
thanks,
-eric
*********************************************
eric,
I have sometimes thought it very well may. It might,
were the photon to not only not "move" but also not
"shrink" (however, this is self-evidently not the
case, or light could never be "aimed"). But I have
also had to admit that the double-slit experiment is
too subject to interpretation for a slick answer (it's
not just a matter of: ask a child what he/she is
seeing and of course you'll never get the QM answer
... but that it also depends on a large number of
assumptions about the nature of the photon, et al,
going back to Thomas Young's 1803 version of the
double-slit experiment and Newton's even older
interpretations on the nature of light, all of which
have to be absolutely correct): The QM interpretation
is just that, one interpretation of the light
refraction. And none of the QM interpretations HAVE
TO BE correct: If they are ALL correct, however, then
the answer is either indeed the imploding universe
OR we are all insane. Hard to come up with a third
alternative:
Take the following quote from the article as the
perfect hint of what quantum fundamentalists
(extremists) are carried away with:
"and ... nothing existing until it is observed,
these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
reality that are consistent with the experiments
and observations."
Every child understand that the answer to the ancient
question of whether a falling tree really makes a
noise if there is no one there to hear it fall is that
YES IT DOES. But QM fundamentalists have not yet
grown up even to the level of children (apparently).
That's saying a lot.
It is merely/purely/only/simply a display of the
heights of human arrogance to claim that if WE cannot
"measure" something "it cannot be measured." And yet
we have made such a claim, as you can see!
The point that "one cannot measure something so
frail/delicate without the very act of measuring it
changing its character/nature/displacement" is
absolutely reasonable. But when one jumps from such
reasonableness to the idea that "something does not
have a definite position at a definite time--and ONLY
the measurement/observation GIVES it that." Then one
are talking logical insanity. One needs a doctor, not
a science journal editor.
Dr. Heisenberg wrote, "Some physicist would prefer
to come back to the idea of an objective real
world whose smallest parts exist objectively in
the same sense as stones or trees exist
independently of whether we observe them. This
however is impossible."
Quanta theory is one of the greatest mathematical
tools ever devised to "peer" into the realms of things
which will never be observed directly. But it is
merely a form of statistical analysis. Period. The
problem is that when QM theoreticians start "looking"
into the world that can NEVER be seen, they start
"seeing" everything in their heads there. And people's
heads are teeming with squirming eecky nightmares.
"Reality is absolutely deterministic." If ever you
hear that "an experiment" has proven this wrong, you
can be just as certain that it is the experiment that
is wrong as if you had heard that the real Santa Claus
was recently interviewed by Katie Curic. And no matter
how much you trust the integrity of Katie Curic.
"There are many ways we could go now in
examining quantum results. If conscious
observation is needed for the creation of an
electron (this is one aspect of the Copenhagen
Interpretation, the most popular version of
quantum physics interpretations), then ideas
about the origin of consciousness must be
revised. If electrons in the brain create
consciousness, but electrons require
consciousness to exist, one is apparently caught
in circular reasoning at best."
The paragraph above is obviously a man struggling with
his sanity. This is not science, this is psychology.
Trust Einstein in this at least: The world is sane,
period. When the "wise-ass kids" who came up with
the "uncertainly principle" and other insanities by
taking Quanta theory to its logical extremes were
being lionized for saying things nobody even bothered
to analyze in the light of day, all Einstein could say
was that "God didn't pray dice." In his quaint way,
what he was saying was that "reality is
deterministic." The alternative is "magic" (as
described in extremist QM) and "utter insanity"
(again, as described in extremist QM).
Quantum mechanics, as statistical analysis, will
always produce predictions which will bear out--It's
what statistical analysis does: wear down the numbers
to the most probable results.
NOTE, above all (or, if nothing else) this crucial
passage:
"The answer is that each individual photon must -
in order to have produced an interference pattern
-- have gone through both slits! This, the
simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has
been the basis of many of the unintuitive
interpretations of quantum physics."
And there you have one of the greatest examples of how
just one very probably wrongly-interpreted experiment
can lead an entire mob of zebu-people utterly crazy.
The answer is NOT that the universe is magical and
utterly insane. The answer is more likely that there
is a simpler (and sane) explanation, after all.
As I said above, it's very possible that what we are
seeing is the photon acting very normally in an
imploding universe, but I just don't have the time now
to diagram all the steps. If you would like to, more
power to you! It's (probably) very simple--and people
shall laugh at why people should have thought it so
difficult (as people have done since the dawn of time).
S D Rodrian
**************************************************
mccarthy@ wrote:
Hi, S D Rodrian:
you wrote:
>> imploding universe, but I just don't
>> have the time now
>> to diagram all the steps.
>> If you would like to, more
>> that's fine; I just wondered if
>> there is some simple
>> explanation using a model we know
>> - perhaps your analogy with cork, helium
>> balloons, drag and so forth...
Also, perhaps the experiment itself is flawed in
some way i.e. how and when the photon is created,
how it (photon) reacts with the medium through
which it travels, what forces (el.magn.) iterfere with
it when the size of the slits and the material itself
is considered, etc. Anyway, I'd hate to speculate
about something that I cant competently defend.
thanks anyway; perhaps we'll know the answer
in our lifetime...
-eric
*************************************************
eric,
I actually saw the experiment carried out when I was
very young. (It's actually something of a requirement.)
Einstein was familiar with it too, and I don't wonder
it might have been the reason he never came out more
forcefully against the crazier QM claims. (Apparently,
Einstein's confidence in Reality was only "relative,"
whereas my confidence in Reality is ... absolute.)
I was rather impressed by it myself. And had (have)
no explanation for it (not that I have even given it
any serious time): However, not much later I watched
a lady being sawed in half and was equally baffled.
(And much more impressed... there were screams,
and a gush of blood... and if I'd had a gun with me
I don't know whether I might not have taken a shot
at the bastard doing the sawing.)
Was it all magic? The ONLY difference between the
two "tricks" is that the magician sawing the lady in
half only claimed his "magic" was real in jest. But,
I assume, those who "perform" the double-slit
experiment actually always believe in its "magic."
Ah! Some time later some TV magician explained
how the lady was sawed in half (and was later glued
back up with no apparent ill effects to her health).
And the whole thing was, rather quite embarrassingly,
very childishly simple.
I always regretted Einstein didn't attend that lady-
sawing performance--What might his mind have made
of it!
Will the explanation for the double-slit trick (I mean
"experiment") turn out to be as childishly simple? Who
knows? (I don't.) But, this is certain:
I think I'll wait (until they perform the experiment
inside a Bose-Einstein condensate with the photon
travelling at a few inches per hour or so ... so we
can "see" it go through the two different slits at the
same time and then bounce! against itself) before I
make any real attempt to "explain" an "experiment"
which (like the sawing-the-lady-in-half experiment)
just doesn't seem to square with reality. And reality
is the thing I am more inclined to trust, frankly.
THINK: Were the answer, say, that the photon quanta
is not inviolate and two photons are produced by
the experiment, then a most marvelous violation of
the conservation-of-energy laws would occur, and
by merely forcing a single photon through infinitely
doubling double-slit experiments... we could produce
enough energy to blow up the whole universe if
necessary!
PLEASE always remember: When you insist to someone
(who asks you whether a tree falling in the forest
without anybody being there to hear it fall makes a
noise) that, yes, it does and he/she then inevitably
asks you: "How do YOU know?!" Don't be shy about
pointing out that "identical conditions produce
identical results" (and that millions of trees have
fallen while people were present--and ALL of them
made a noise of falling). So there!
Similarly, when they ask you whether Schrodinger's
cat is alive or dead. You ask how long it's been in
the box. And if it's been in there a year ... that cat
is dead, baby: "You can bury the box now." And without
having to look inside, either. Some magic tricks are
just easier to figure out than others.
Please forgive me for not having given the double-slit
experiment more thought. But perhaps now you
understand why I never did.
Good luck,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
END QUOTE
"Experiments which produce verifiable results can
not be ignored, as they are the foundation and
sustenance of science. But this does not mean that
our immediate interpretations of those experiments
are and will always be the correct ones." --SDR
Finally: NOTE that the very fact that the double-slit
experiment ALWAYS produces the same results
(and does not merely have a propensity to do so)
is evidence of the deterministic nature of existence
regardless of whatever explanations we may prefer
to give for the results: "Identical conditions always
produce identical results." Period. Modern science
is based on verifiable (reproducible) results.
Everything else is lies, lies, and damned statistics.
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
*************************************************
Here is the text of the articles in question:
Quantum Astronomy: The Double Slit Experiment
By Laurance R. Doyle
SETI Institute posted: 11 November 2004
This is a series of four articles each with a separate
explanation of different quantum phenomena. Each of
the four articles is a piece of a mosaic and so every
one is needed to understand the final explanation of
the quantum astronomy experiment we propose, possibly
using the Allen Array Telescope and the narrow-band
radio-wave detectors being build by the SETI Institute
and the University of California, Berkeley.
With the success of recent movies such as "What the
&$@# Do We Know?" and the ongoing -- and continuously
surprising -- revelations of the unexpected nature of
underlying reality that have been unfolding in quantum
physics for three-quarters of a century now, it may
not be particularly surprising that the quantum nature
of the universe may actually now be making in-roads
into what has previously been considered classical
observational astronomy. Quantum physics has been
applied for decades to cosmology, and the strange
"singularity" physics of black holes. It is also
applicable to macroscopic effects such as
Einstein-Bose condensates (extremely cold
conglomerations of material that behave in
non-classical ways) as well as neutron stars and even
white dwarfs (which are kept from collapse, not by
nuclear fusion explosions but by the Pauli Exclusion
Principle - a process whereby no two elementary
particles can have the same quantum state and
therefore, in a sense, not collapse into each other).
Well, congratulations if you have gotten through the
first paragraph of this essay. I can't honestly tell
you that things will get better, but I can say that to
the intrepid reader things should get even more
interesting. The famous quantum physicist Richard
Feynmann once said essentially that anyone who thought
he understood quantum physics did not understand it
enough to understand that he did not actually
understand it! In other words, no classical
interpretation of quantum physics is the correct one.
Parallel evolving universes (one being created every
time a quantum-level choice is made),
faster-than-light interconnectedness underlying
everything, nothing existing until it is observed,
these are a few of the interpretations of quantum
reality that are consistent with the experiments and
observations.
There are many ways we could go now in examining
quantum results. If conscious observation is needed
for the creation of an electron (this is one aspect of
the Copenhagen Interpretation, the most popular
version of quantum physics interpretations), then
ideas about the origin of consciousness must be
revised. If electrons in the brain create
consciousness, but electrons require consciousness to
exist, one is apparently caught in circular reasoning
at best. But for this essay, we shall not discuss
quantum biology. Another path we might go down would
be the application of quantum physics to cosmology --
either the Inflationary origin of the universe, or the
Hawking evaporation of black holes, as examples. But
our essay is not about this vast field either. Today
we will discuss the scaling of the simple double-slit
laboratory experiment to cosmic distances, what can
truly be called, "quantum astronomy."
The laboratory double-slit experiment contains a lot
of the best aspects of the weirdness of quantum
physics. It can involve various kinds of elementary
particles, but for today's discussion we will be
talking solely about light - the particle nature of
which is called the "photon." A light shining through
a small hole or slit (like in a pinhole camera)
creates a spot of light on the screen (or film, or
detector). However, light shown through two slits that
are close together creates not two spots on the
screen, but rather a series of alternating bright and
dark lines with the brightest line in the exact middle
of this interference pattern. This shows that light is
a wave since such a pattern results from the
interference of the waves coming from slit one (which
we shall call "A") with the waves coming from slit two
(which we shall call "B"). When peaks of waves from
light source A meet peaks from light source B, they
add and the bright lines are produced. Not far to the
left and right of this brightness peak, however, peaks
from A meet troughs from B (because the crests of the
light waves are no longer aligned) and a dark line is
produced. This alternates on either side until the
visibility of the lines fades out. This pattern is
simply called an "interference pattern" and Thomas
Young used this experiment to demonstrate the wave
nature of light in the early 19th Century.
However, in the year 1900 physicist Max Planck showed
that certain other effects in physics could only be
explained by light being a particle. Many experiments
followed to also show that light was indeed also a
particle (a "photon") and Albert Einstein was awarded
the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for his work
showing that the particle nature of light could
explain the "photoelectric effect." This was an
experiment whereby low energy (red) light, when
shining onto a photoelectric material, caused the
material to emit low energy (slow moving) electrons,
while high energy (blue) light caused the same
material to emit high energy (fast moving) electrons.
However, lots of red light only ever produced more low
energy electrons, never any high-energy electrons. In
other words, the energy could not be "saved up" but
rather must be absorbed by the electrons in the
photoelectric material individually. The conclusion
was that light came in packets, little quantities, and
behaved thus as a particle as well as a wave.
So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of
unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally
weird. But the double slit experiment had another
trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or
"quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time,
with a sufficiently long interval in between, and
eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the
one produced when a very intense (many photons) light
was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing
happened. When one sends a single photon at a time
(waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward
the screen when both slits are open, rather than two
spots eventually building up opposite the two slit
openings, what eventually builds up is the
interference pattern of alternating bright and dark
lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was
sent through the apparatus at a time?
The answer is that each individual photon must - in
order to have produced an interference pattern -- have
gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum
weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of
the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We
can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for
example, that a particle of light is not a particle
until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that
the particle of light is rather a wave before it is
measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave
sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns
out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That
is, the elementary particles making up the trees,
people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are
apparently just distributions of likelihood until they
are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much
for the Victorian view of solid matter!
The shock of matter being largely empty space may have
been extreme enough -- if an atom were the size of a
huge cathedral, then the electrons would be dust
particles floating around at all distances inside the
building, while the nucleus, or center of the atom,
would be smaller than a sugar cube. But with quantum
physics, even this tenuous result would be superseded
by the atom itself not really being anything that
exists until it is measured. One might rightly ask,
then, what does it mean to measure something? And this
brings us to the Uncertainly Principle first
discovered by Werner Heisenberg. Dr. Heisenberg wrote,
"Some physicist would prefer to come back to the idea
of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist
objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist
independently of whether we observe them. This however
is impossible."
Perhaps that is enough to think about for now. So in
the next essay we will examine, in some detail, the
uncertainty principle as it relates to what is called
"the measurement problem" in quantum physics. We shall
find that the uncertainty principle will be the key to
performing the double-slit experiment over
astronomical distances, and demonstrating that quantum
effects are not just microscopic phenomena, but can be
extended across the cosmos.
************************************
On Aug 7, 7:36 am, "andy" <th...@thought.com> wrote:
> Hello, SDR!
>
> Slight correction - gravity is as a result
> of the energy around us.
Slight correction: Sweat is as a result
of the energy around us.
> We are
> all part of the same 'mass' of energy that
> was blown apart at the point of
> the big bang.
That is totally meaningless: You are saying:
"Look but do not think!" I hate that.
> It's one of the basic laws, energy
> can not be created nor
> destroyed, it just changes it's state.
The universe as a result of an explosion
is putting the horse before the cart. If you
tell me, the universe and THEN it explodes
it might be hard to imagine how, but at least
it would not be counter-intuitive.
> As for nothingness, impossible.
Ah! Yet another man who believes there has
always been death and taxes! (Me too!)
> To
> measure nothingness involves some form of
> interaction, observer and event.
Ha! You'd be surprised at how many people are even
now in government measuring nothingness.
> Not possible as event = action and reaction, and
> in the event of nothingness
> the equation can not be completed as you can
> not oberve nothingness.
Then what are all those strong-muscles gentlemen
who say they're bending space really up to?
************************************
On Aug 8, 10:31 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Aug, 12:14, sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com wrote:
>> On Aug 3, 11:16 am, Rob <robwil...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>>> And, of course, to 'prove' that no magic is
>>> required you need to
>>> explain (or eliminate) the beginning, i.e. how
>>> something evolved from nothing. -- Rob
START QUOTE
Look ... There is a slight misconception abroad in the
land that a thermodynamic current can only arise when
there is suddenly "more of something" to flow away
towards where there is "less of it." [Suggesting that
because "something" cannot arise from "nothingness"
only an act of "magic" could have given rise to he
universe.] However, the fact is that regardless of how
tenuous the broad/infinite expanse of Nothingness was,
all that was really required was that "somewhere" the
"Nothingness" should become even more tenuous still
than generally, and then a thermodynamic current would
have inevitably flowed towards that blessed spot. And
because of Newton's laws of motion, that "spot" would
have eventually become our universe (the concentration
of so many, many somethings). SEE:
END QUOTE
>> As I've said many times, and as (surely) you
>> yourself
>> must realize: "If Existence had to have had "a"
>> beginning
>> it could not exist."
>
>> In a very real sense: There was always "something."
>> AND/OR what now exists is another version/variation
>> of Nothingness--Something which some scientists
>> and
>> theoreticians (including myself) like to swear is
>> the case:
>
>> In fact this is what makes it possible for the
>> universe
>> to continue "conserving" the energy of which it
>> is made
>> from larger/slower to smaller/faster ... for all
>> eternity.
>
>> We do not notice this eternal conservation of
>> energy,
>> of course. Except for the "force" we call
>> "gravity."
>
> That, and the argument on your website, is a
> statement of belief.
If I chose to believe in the laws of physics... let
them take me where they're going to take me.
> To
> be a valid scientific theory it needs to propose
> explanations from
> which predictions can be made.
Every prediction I have ever drawn from the
conclusion that the universe is in implosion
has proven true, from why the speed of light should
be constant, to what really causes inertia, to the
1997 discovery that the universe is in acceleration,
and not (as a big bang universe predicts AND was
proven false) in deceleration. Further, an universe as
an implosion makes "dark energy" and "dark matter"
unnecessary. Use the model to come up with a thousand
predictions more, and then watch them all be proven
true. GO: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
> These predictions then need to be
> verified by independent, repeatable experiment.
"No matter how you slice it an apple will ALWAYS
prove to be an apple." There will be (and have already
been) countless facts which will baffle/frustrate
people who still believe the universe is the result of
a big bang (no matter how many "proofs" they "find"
to support it). And there has not been nor can there
ever be even one substantial fact ever found which
will contradict that the universe is in implosion:
This is an absolutely black/white either/or matter.
The universe is either the aftermath of a "big bang"
(which contradicts the laws of physics and countless
discoveries about how the universe works) or it is
in implosion, which instantly explains everything
about how it works & why it works that way... with
not a single contradiction.
It is the difference between what is true and what
is not true.
****************************************
On Aug 5, 6:15 am, BernardZ
<DontBot...@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <1186209867.957163.147...@
r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com says...
>
>> Otherwise, what you have there is A THING
>> brought into existence out of Nothingness. Or,
>> "created" by magic (with no connection whatever
>> to the laws of science, of nature, of physics).
>
> The big bang is magic?
Strictly speaking, it is a myth.
1 a usually traditional story of ostensibly
historical events that serves to unfold part of the
world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,
or natural phenomenon
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up
around something or someone; especially: one
embodying the ideals and institutions of a society
or segment of society *seduced by the American
myth of individualism- Orde Coombs*
b: an unfounded or false notion
It comes from observing that the galaxies are receding
from each other as if they were the gigantic remnants
of an ancient explosion. ERGO: "Run the film
backwards" and one HAD TO eventually end up at a
"point" where the "big bang" took place. And now you
know how the Big Bang Myth came about. I kid you not.
"running the film backwards" is the experiment which
"proved" the "reality" of the Big Bang Theory!!!!!!!!!
**********************************
On Aug 5, 11:04 pm, "'foolsrushin.'"
<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 03:53, SDR <sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Jul 21, 5:21 am, "'foolsrushin.'"
<dolomi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> All religions are local.
>> Only science is universal.
>
>>> And, so, now, you are going to tell how, quite
>>> accidently, of course,
>>> you came to have your present opinions, God!
>> Sure: I was in the wrong place
>> at the wrong time.
>
> Where should we move you to - to get the
> correct result?
To the correct location.
Thank you,
S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
Buffalo Bob
>Subject: What is Gravity? Why/How does it work?
1.)
Gravy is a natural phenomenon by which all food objects with liquid mass
attract each other on the dinner plate. In everyday life, Gravy is most
familiar as the agency that endows these objects with weight. Gravy is
responsible for keeping any dish in its orbit around the main course
Sun; for the formation of gravy tides around the plate; for convection
(by which the hot fluids rise); for heating the interiors of food stars
and side dish planets to higher temperatures; and for various other
liquid phenomena that we observe at mealtime. Gravy is also the reason
for the very existence of potatoes with gravy, and most macroscopic food
objects in the meal liquid universe. Without it, any dish ever served
would not have coalesced into these larger masses, and meal life, as we
know it, would not exist without gravy.
2.)
Gravy is also a type of sauce, usually made from the juices that
naturally run from meat or vegetables during cooking. Ready made cubes
and powders can also be used as a substitute for natural meat or
vegetable extracts. Gravy is most commonly served with a roast dinner,
Sunday roasts, rice, or with mashed or other popular types of potato
dishes.
Thickened gravy
Thickened gravies are usually made starting with a roux made of wheat
flour, cornstarch/cornflour, or arrowroot. The liquids from cooked meat,
the liquids from dissolved bouillon cubes/stock cubes, or stock are
added gradually to the mixture, while continually stirring to ensure
that it mixes properly and the thickener doesn't clump. In some recipes
the animal fat in the roux may be omitted as part of the base due to its
saturated fat content. It may be replaced with cornstarch/cornflour
alone (see cowboy roux) or is sometimes omitted entirely.
Types of gravy
* God's gravy is a term used for juices naturally emanating from meat
joints during roasting served unadulterated as gravy.
* Giblet gravy has the giblets of turkey or chicken added when it is to
be served with those types of poultry, or uses stock made from the
giblets.
* Onion gravy is made from large quantities of slowly sweated, chopped
onions mixed with stock and wine. Commonly served with sausages and
mash, chops, or other grilled or fried meat cuts which by way of the
cooking method would not produce their own gravy.
* White gravy may contain milk or cream but most often it is simply meat
drippings to which white flour has been added. This may also be known as
cream gravy, country gravy, or sawmill gravy. Sometimes little bits of
meat are mixed into the gravy. This is the gravy typically used in
biscuits and gravy and chicken fried steak.
* Redeye gravy is a gravy made from the drippings of ham fried in a
skillet/frying pan. The pan is deglazed with coffee or water. Coffee is
the traditional method. A small amount of sugar is often added also.
This gravy is a staple of Southern U.S. cuisine and is usually served
over ham, grits or biscuits.
* Tomato gravy is a gravy made from canned tomatoes, flour, and usually
a small amount of fat. This is a Southern U.S. dish.
* Vegetarian gravy is gravy made suitable for vegetarians. One recipe
uses vegetarian stock cubes with corn flour as a thickener (Cowboy
Roux), which is whisked into boiling water. Sometimes vegetable juices
are added, which may give the gravy a dark green color. There are also
commercially produced gravy granules which are suitable for both
vegetarians and vegans.
* Italian-American gravy is commonly referred to as sauce or pasta
sauce. In the Italian-American culture it is quite common to call sauce
gravy (especially northeastern Italian-Americans).
/
boB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtiHbZFx0Xw
//