Trumps taxes during his presidency

26 views
Skip to first unread message

John Clark

unread,
Dec 22, 2022, 6:07:27 AM12/22/22
to 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
ADJUSTED GROSS INCOMETAX BASED ON
INCOME AND A.M.T.		TAX CREDITSFINAL TAX BILL
AFTER CREDITS
2020–$4,795,757$0$0$0
20194,380,714558,780–425,335133,445
201824,339,6969,356,232–8,356,766999,466
2017–12,916,9487,435,857–7,435,107750
2016–32,409,6742,234,725–2,233,975750
2015–31,756,4352,127,670–1,485,739641,93
------------

Mr. Trump’s income, by source

CATEGORY201520162017201820192020
Wages$14,141$978$373,629$393,957$393,928$393,229
Interest9,393,0968,994,1416,758,4949,435,37711,332,43610,626,179
Dividends1,729,897337,93821,98460,25471,92125,347
Business income–599,0308,797,3931,433,030–430,408–225,560–29,686
Real estate–7,882,011–15,939,523–16,746,815–11,992,220–16,472,951–15,676,469
Other business–76,909,237–44,955,324–12,306,1114,826,47800
Capital gains35,835,45310,941,0537,528,29822,015,1239,257,1970
Other gains6,603,042–444,63333,74000–501,255
Pensions77,80877,80884,35186,53286,53286,532
Refunds00000382,065
Total income–31,736,841–32,190,169–12,819,40024,395,0934,443,503–4,694,058

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 22, 2022, 7:15:46 PM12/22/22
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ok JC. Let's find out if he is a tax cheat or not?
One standard for your team.
One standard for mine. 
No other commentary from me needed. 




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv382MVsQZ1DeVPCTR89O4pvYo8RFeZAOd1o3PL3iiFEWA%40mail.gmail.com.

John Clark

unread,
Dec 23, 2022, 5:48:05 AM12/23/22
to spudb...@aol.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 7:15 PM <spudb...@aol.com> wrote:

> Let's find out if he is a tax cheat or not?

Would it surprise you if he was? Would you consider such a thing to be out of character for Trump? 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ppq

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 23, 2022, 7:35:06 PM12/23/22
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
My view is that I cannot fairly apply to you, standards that I wouldn't accept for myself. I advocate finding out the facts in all things, whether it's inoculations or tax returns.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals-

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”



-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 23, 2022, 7:55:10 PM12/23/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
No, you imply that someone should find out facts that would cast doubt on government decisions.  And if someone suggests  finding the facts about the relative risk of vaccination and non-vaccination...you don't care about that, because you know it doesn't meet your objective.  Or how finding facts about Russian help to the Trump campaign?  And where are you proposals to find the facts about Trumps use of political fund raising for personal use?

Brent

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 24, 2022, 12:54:21 AM12/24/22
to meeke...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
If I had the choice of presenting findings to the American people, I'd investigate all politicians and follow the cash trail. This way, they could make up their own minds who they would vote for and who they'd avoid? To find out what Trump did I would at the same time wish to find out what Nancy did and when? Schiff as well. 

My proposal is that we'd insist on term limits. How will we be able to insist upon this? Powerless serfs and all? One path is that when Comrade Xi attacks, those of draft age do a lie down. The Elites wants themselves, their families, their businesses protected by the military. What happens during such a chokepoint when males say, not so fast!

Will you agree to this? Nada. Because as Joe pointed out this fall in two speeches, the reps are enemy #1. 
Biden Castigates MAGA Republicans In Scathing Speech Against Trumpism (forbes.com)


So, I accept this state of affairs because I have no other influence otherwise and your purpose, is simply to block Trump from acquiring the White House again. That's the Jan 6 committee's purpose. I would add the obvious and say to you that we're no longer 1 country anymore. (Can I hear a Duh! from the choir?). 

Now, for transferring my energy to some sort of economic separation. As in, who needs Blackrock or NBC to make policy for the rest of us? They are spot-on for you and your voting cohorts, but not for the rest. A 2nd economy may be the best route away from Progressiville, whose changes seem to make life worse. My view-not yours. 

John Clark

unread,
Dec 24, 2022, 8:04:59 AM12/24/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, meeke...@gmail.com
On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 12:54 AM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> My proposal is that we'd insist on term limits.

Term limits is a fine idea but as a practical proposal it's worthless because it would require a constitutional amendment, and that would mean an overwhelming majority of politicians would have to vote themselves out of a very cushy job, and the sun will turn into a red giant before that happens. Hell, one of the two major political parties in the US has already clearly demonstrated that they believe keeping their jobs is vastly more important than the constitution or the fate of the country.  And long before January 6 2021 a sitting president declared that the constitution should be ignored and he be allowed to have a third term of office, and more recently he specifically said the constitution should be canceled and he should immediately be made president even though he overwhelmingly lost a reelection bid 2 years previously.
I have learned not to click on your many many links because nearly all of them turn out to be worthless, but if Joe Biden did say the GOP embrace Of Trump’s MAGA values is a path to chaos then he was just stating an obvious fact; he might be legitimately criticized because the quote is not very deep and is just a tautology, but tautologies have one grade advantage, all of them are true

 > your purpose, is simply to block Trump from acquiring the White House again. 

And what a noble purpose that is!  

> That's the Jan 6 committee's purpose. 

That's because the January 6 committee did NOT think a president that violated his oath of office and committed an act of treason by staging an unsuccessful coup d'état when he failed to win reelection is fit to ever hold that office again, especially when just days before they issued their final determination that same ex president recommended the constitution be canceled, the 2020 election be nullified, and he immediately be named president again. Anybody who thinks that democracy, in spite of all its flaws, is superior to China and Russia style dictatorships would have to agree that this man should never be allowed to hold elected office again; but you don't agree with the premise of that statement so you don't agree. However if you think the constitution is just a bunch of suggestions not laws then what exactly do you mean by "term limits"? And you're constantly harping about how evil China and its leader Xi is but you're advocating that the US adopt the same system. I think those apparent paradoxes can be easily explained, logical contradictions just don't bother you much. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
bgv


spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 24, 2022, 5:48:58 PM12/24/22
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com, meeke...@gmail.com
Well, the main thing is we get see what happens, if anything to the country? 
This means the traditional things. 
White-Black
War-Peace
Rich-Poor.

Maga values are nationalist values as opposed to globalist values, like George Soros and Klaus Schwab.
Will the middle America that Joe despises die for he and his progressives? This is what I will watch for. 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Cc: meeke...@gmail.com <meeke...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 24, 2022 8:04 am
Subject: Re: Trumps taxes during his presidency

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 11:20:05 AM12/25/22
to Everything List
On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 6:35:06 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
My view is that I cannot fairly apply to you, standards that I wouldn't accept for myself. I advocate finding out the facts in all things, whether it's inoculations or tax returns.

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals-

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”


Et tu? You are the one saying what is on Hunter Biden's laptop amounts of criminality far beyond t'Rump trying to organize a coup or insurrection.

LC

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 12:22:41 PM12/25/22
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Yeah, John's assertion that Trump planned Jan 6 as an insurrection (and all his favorite pols!) has yet to be proven. Maybe in the next 30 days Team Dem will have the man in cuffs? On Hunter- 

It started like this: NYT

It is ending like this:

At this point, ideologically driven naivety isn't going to help matters any, sorry to say. 

Joey and family were in it for the money, obviously. Will it bring down his presidency? I am not even focused on that and no it wouldn't make things better! All of Wall Street, say, Blackrock takes money from China specifically. It dumped some serious cash from managing retirement funds (9 tril?) into the PRC. Even George Soros in 2021 September said this was a big mistake, Look at the heads of Apple? I won't go on, but we're adults here supposedly. 


Larry Fink, the President, and who knows how the money travels tween corporations, foreign leaders and their cronies, controlling the lives of the middle class? 

As a man of the sciences, you should know better than most that few things in life are axiomatic, especially trust. 








John Clark

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 12:54:43 PM12/25/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, goldenfield...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 12:22 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Yeah, John's assertion that Trump planned Jan 6 as an insurrection (and all his favorite pols!) has yet to be proven.

For Darwin's sake! Millions of people on live TV saw Trump tell a huge crowd of neo-Nazis and white supremacists to march on the capitol building right now and demand that the House and the Senate and the Vice President nullify the results of the 2020 election that he lost overwhelmingly and make him the president, and the mob did its damnedest to follow his orders; they were not successful but it was a close call and for the first time in the nations 250 year history there was not a peaceful transfer of power between presidential administrations. And you say it has yet to be proven?!  And you wanna talk about Hunter Biden's silly laptop!

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
olt

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 1:43:19 PM12/25/22
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com, goldenfield...@gmail.com
What you saw was NBC's editing. What the BBC heard was something different. 

RealClearPolitics Steve Cortes, "This is CNN!"


Secondly, it seems unlikely that Nazi Trump will kill his daughter and her children, Mein Fuhrer! (Clicking Heels!).

Papa Trumpf ger-sangen dur De Leppard Tune Rock of Ages!

Gunter glieben glauchen globen
All right, I got something to say
Yeah, it's better to burn out
Yeah, then fade away
All right
Oh
Gonna start a fire
C'mon
Rise up, gather round
Rock this place to the ground
Burn it up, let's go for broke
Watch the night go up in smoke





-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Cc: goldenfield...@gmail.com <goldenfield...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, Dec 25, 2022 12:54 pm
Subject: Re: Trumps taxes during his presidency

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 25, 2022, 1:52:13 PM12/25/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


Would the mass of 1000 miles (1333 kilometers) with the mass of liquid water induce nuclear fusion at the bottom of those oceans??

Water, mass, gravity, crushing force? Like perhaps not deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion, but proton-proton fusion??

Would a space probe doing an orbit on such deep ocean view white plasma glowing upwards? Would the damn things look more like just another gas giant? Nothing spectacular, nothing remarkable? Would closeness to its primary (star) have any influence? 

John Clark

unread,
Dec 26, 2022, 8:57:50 AM12/26/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 1:52 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Would the mass of 1000 miles (1333 kilometers) with the mass of liquid water induce nuclear fusion at the bottom of those oceans 
 
1000 miles is not nearly deep enough for fusion, it would have to be about half a million miles deep for that and then it would not be a planet it would be a star. 

Water, mass, gravity, crushing force? Like perhaps not deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion, but proton-proton fusion??

The smallest true star, that is a star that undergoes proton-proton fusion in its core, has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter, although pseudo-stars just 20 times the mass of Jupiter can undergo deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion for a short time until their fuel is used up. Jupiter's mass is 319 times the mass of the Earth and the Sun has about 1050 times the mass of Jupiter.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
moj



spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 26, 2022, 2:32:53 PM12/26/22
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Very nice, JC. Thanks. Pressure makes diamonds and thus fusion at high enough pressures. Therefore back to the drawing board for this one! The only science fictional takeaway would be if the water worlds had photosynthetic life at the surface and down below were incredible, dense life who need little or no light. I ain't holding for deep diving breath on that one. 



-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Jason Resch

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 5:59:56 AM12/27/22
to Everything List
There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 6:47:32 AM12/27/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.

That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
hfl


Jason Resch

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 10:11:36 AM12/27/22
to Everything List
That's interesting I hadn't heard that detailed of an explanation before.

There are also anthropic arguments for very weak gravity:

If gravity were 10 times stronger than it is, stars like our sun would live for 1 billion years, not 10 billion.

Yey it took multiple billions of years to evolve multicellular life.

Jason



 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
hfl


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Telmo Menezes

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 11:26:25 AM12/27/22
to Everything List


Am Di, 27. Dez 2022, um 15:11, schrieb Jason Resch:


On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:47 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.

That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 


That's interesting I hadn't heard that detailed of an explanation before.

There are also anthropic arguments for very weak gravity:

If gravity were 10 times stronger than it is, stars like our sun would live for 1 billion years, not 10 billion.

Yey it took multiple billions of years to evolve multicellular life.

Interesting stuff Jason and John. I tend to go with anthropic explanations by default (because I cannot think of anything else). So much of our physical laws seem so precisely fine tuned for life that I struggle to come up with any other explanation. I seem to remember that Brent has a different view on this?

Telmo

Jason



 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
hfl



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 11:46:46 AM12/27/22
to Everything List
It really is not so much that gravitation is so weak, but that elementary particles have such small masses. The coupling constant for gravitation is GM^2, or better a dimensionless form is (m_{pl}/m_higgs})^2. The Higgs field is a quartic field, and if it were much more massive the phi^4 interaction would require it be near the Planck mass. The GM^2 version scales with mass, which for elementary particles is very small, but for black holes is huge.

LC

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 2:04:36 PM12/27/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost massless.

Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 3:03:44 PM12/27/22
to Everything List
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost massless.

Brent


This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 3:07:02 PM12/27/22
to Everything List
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost massless.

Brent


This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC
 

erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 3:15:01 PM12/27/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 12/27/2022 12:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost massless.

Brent


This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC
 

erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

LC

But the proton mass, m_p, isn't fundamental.  A proton isn't even a fundamental particle.  That's why Vic thought the Planck mass was the only sensible candidate.  And if a particles gets mass from the Higgs field, comparing it's mass to the Higg's mass is more the measure of the weak coupling between the Higgs field and the particle.

Brent

 

On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 AM Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.

That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
hfl


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 5:52:38 PM12/27/22
to jason...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
A well-covered essay you have there, Jason. 

This almost goes to the essays by a few physicists which asks, "Are there any laws?"
I would say yes, or perhaps evolving laws in an evolving cosmos? But I am not the astronomer or physicist.






-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2022 5:59 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 8:50:47 PM12/27/22
to Everything List
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:15:01 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:


On 12/27/2022 12:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost massless.

Brent


This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC
 

erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

LC

But the proton mass, m_p, isn't fundamental.  A proton isn't even a fundamental particle.  That's why Vic thought the Planck mass was the only sensible candidate.  And if a particles gets mass from the Higgs field, comparing it's mass to the Higg's mass is more the measure of the weak coupling between the Higgs field and the particle.

Brent

M_p is the Planck mass.

LC

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 27, 2022, 8:52:43 PM12/27/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Wormholes Could Be Hiding in Plain Sight

Public article-

Physical Review D

Polarized image of equatorial emission in horizonless spacetimes: Traversable wormholes


The amount of energy required is surely staggering, but for future human needs, existential needs, it seems like it requires a budget? 

Jason Resch

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 12:26:11 AM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM <spudb...@aol.com> wrote:
A well-covered essay you have there, Jason. 


Thank you!
 
This almost goes to the essays by a few physicists which asks, "Are there any laws?"
I would say yes, or perhaps evolving laws in an evolving cosmos? But I am not the astronomer or physicist.




I am quite partial to some of the ideas that the laws, as we see them, have much to do with the kind of observers we happen to be. I have collected numerous quotes from physicists who have thought along these lines here:

and here:

Here are a couple examples:

"The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states."


"It is an attempt to explain the Goldilocks factor by appealing to cosmic self-consistency: the bio-friendly universe explains life even as life explains the bio-friendly universe. […] Cosmic bio-friendliness is therefore the result of a sort of quantum post-selection effect extended to the very laws of physics themselves."


Jason

Philip Benjamin

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 10:46:30 AM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

[Philip Benjamin]

      No laws no physics. laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no scince, no business, no government, no language—no nothing!! Yes, even nothing has laws!!! Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of physics and chemistry govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is real, then it also MUST be governed by LAWS—immutable LAWS. Laws cannot precede analytical intelligence. Intelligence, which is an integral part of Personhood. Only a Person can be a Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING is not Personhood. This is also he issue of aseity. What is more rational—dead matter giving (trans-speciating) LIFE, or is it ETERNAL LIFE producing dead matter and life forms? WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist pagans are groping in incognito territory, of outer darkness!!    

Philip Benjamin

Non-Conformist

          From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

 

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM <spudb...@aol.com> wrote:

A well-covered essay you have there, Jason. 

 

Thank you!

 

This almost goes to the essays by a few physicists which asks, "Are there any laws?"

I would say yes, or perhaps evolving laws in an evolving cosmos? But I am not the astronomer or physicist.

 

 

 

 

I am quite partial to some of the ideas that the laws, as we see them, have much to do with the kind of observers we happen to be. I have collected numerous quotes from physicists who have thought along these lines here:

 

and here:

 

Here are a couple examples:

 

"The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states."

 

"It is an attempt to explain the Goldilocks factor by appealing to cosmic self-consistency: the bio-friendly universe explains life even as life explains the bio-friendly universe. […] Cosmic bio-friendliness is therefore the result of a sort of quantum post-selection effect extended to the very laws of physics themselves."

-- Paul Davies in “The flexi-laws of physics” (2007)

 

Jason

.

Philip Benjamin

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 10:49:38 AM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

everyth...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

 

[Philip Benjamin]

      No laws no physics. No laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no scince, no business, no government, no language—no nothing!! Yes, even nothing has laws!!! Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of physics and chemistry govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is real, then it also MUST be governed by LAWS—immutable LAWS. Laws cannot precede analytical intelligence. Intelligence is an integral part of Personhood. Only a Person can be a Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING is not Personhood. This is also the issue of aseity. What is more rational—dead matter giving (trans-speciating) LIFE, or is it ETERNAL LIFE producing dead matter and life forms? WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist pagans are groping in incognito territory, of outer darkness!!    

Philip Benjamin

Non-Conformist

          From: everyth...@googlegroups.com <everyth...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

Samiya Illias

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 11:41:10 AM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

The Deen & he who belies it 



On 28-Dec-2022, at 8:46 PM, Philip Benjamin <medin...@hotmail.com> wrote:


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 11:19:09 PM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Or because protons are so light.

Brent

Jason Resch

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 11:23:17 PM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Or because electromagnetic charge is so great.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 11:29:48 PM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation law.  So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.

Brent

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 28, 2022, 11:34:20 PM12/28/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
The point is that protons aren't even fundamental particles.  Unlike electric charge, mass, which is gravitational charge doen't have any corresponding fundamental particle.  The only candidate for a fundamental mass is the the Planck mass.  But if you compare the gravitational attraction of two charged Planck masses to their electromagnetic attraction you find that the gravitational attraction is 137 times greater.

Brent

Bruce Kellett

unread,
Dec 29, 2022, 12:01:38 AM12/29/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation law.

That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example, the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and charge conjugation.

So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.

It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those symmetries into our laws.

Bruce

Brent Meeker

unread,
Dec 29, 2022, 12:34:12 AM12/29/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to measure.

Brent


Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Bruce Kellett

unread,
Dec 29, 2022, 12:41:36 AM12/29/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation law.

That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example, the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and charge conjugation.

So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.

It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those symmetries into our laws.

Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to measure.

The real point is that the laws are discovered, not imposed. The fact that continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws was discovered only very much later. Most of the history of physics is about discovering what works -- what the laws might be. POVI was thought of only very late in the game, and is not a fundamental insight.

Bruce

John Clark

unread,
Dec 29, 2022, 9:00:50 AM12/29/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:29 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, 

But the universe looks fundamentally different at different times because Dark Energy is accelerating things, so energy is not conserved at the cosmological scale. It's still true that if things are in thermal equilibrium then the amount of energy entering a region of space is equal to the amount of energy leaving it, however that region of space is getting larger so the energy in that region is getting larger because Dark Energy is a mysterious property of empty space that is not well understood.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
8hh


spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2022, 6:49:17 PM12/29/22
to medin...@hotmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
The difference here is the astronomers and physicists aren't just doing rationality, they are using equipment to observe and measure. So, I tend to lean heavily upon what they observe and measure Apologetics, is what people do when the toss around ideas and have no budget to do observations and measuring and testing.

The data obtained will not change no matter if the scientist is a marxist-pagan, ,or a believing Christian. That is, if both are honest in relating the facts of their work? 

That's all on them. .

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 30, 2022, 10:04:43 AM12/30/22
to Everything List

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of physics considered as such is something associated with covariant and invariant properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some set of transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, something that is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and *C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = √(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the observable universe. It is though in line with the theory of Emmy Noether, also work by Hurzebruch, and even the old Gauss-Bonnet theory.

Physical spacetime is more similar to de Sitter spacetime, and is the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime with positive energy. This means curvature is positive, which involves how space is embedded in spacetime, and this does not have conservation laws. If that space is a sphere S^3 the constant vacuum energy on this space grows with the evolution of this space and volume growth. This is one reason that people tend to prefer the flat space model, where vacuum energy is net "infinity" and remains so. However, there is nothing to prevent vacuum energy density from changing. The phantom energy model leading to a big rip of the cosmos is possible, and the curious discrepancy between CMB and SNII data, with the Hubble constant H = 70km/sec-Mpc and H = 74km/sec-Mpc respectively, appears to resist analysis meant to show it is zero. If the phantom energy model should be realized then conservation of energy, even with an infinite flat space, is gone.

The expansion of the universe also means we will not be able to observe much physics that could be called “pre-cosmic,” or the quantum gravitation of the pre-inflationary universe. Because of inflation and this 60-efolds of expansion, expansion by ~ 10^{29}, a Planck scale region was expanded from 10^{-33}cm to 10^{-4} cm. Since inflation began at 10^{30} sec in the early universe, any Planck scale fluctuation involved with the generation of the universe would have been 10^{-23}cm, and was expanded to 10^6 cm --- beyond the scale of the then observable universe ~ 10cm.  After inflation the observable universe with a scale of ~ 10cm an possible Planck scale process was stretched by more normal expansion to 10^{10} light years, and might appear as some order anisotropy in the CMB. Using blackbody physics, these quanta would have been a tiny aspect of the early universe. These would be very difficult to find in the CMB. Beyond that, we cannot observe anything. Any pre-cosmic physics emerged from something smaller than the Planck scale and is expanded beyond any measurable scale on the CMB.

John Wheeler said that the ultimate law of physics is there is no law. We may then have something similar to this, where what we call the laws of physics are just local emergent pattern in the observable universe. At large the universe may simply have no conservation laws and ultimate there are globally no physical laws.

LC



spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2022, 11:13:41 AM12/30/22
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic Universe.

Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what can be detected.

For this peasant? A great working theory.


-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Dec 30, 2022, 12:07:29 PM12/30/22
to Everything List
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic Universe.

Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what can be detected.

For this peasant? A great working theory.


From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.

LC

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2022, 1:57:12 PM12/30/22
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I have looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make it factual then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others.


Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from Microsoft to do all this. 

I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one big universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, make sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful things in the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the physics papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?




John Clark

unread,
Dec 30, 2022, 2:03:59 PM12/30/22
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.

Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
7bb

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jan 1, 2023, 8:19:15 PM1/1/23
to Everything List
It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It is possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.

LC 

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jan 1, 2023, 8:22:49 PM1/1/23
to Everything List
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:57:12 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I have looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make it factual then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others.


Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from Microsoft to do all this. 

I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one big universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, make sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful things in the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the physics papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?



Smolin has ideas of a sort of Darwinism in the laws of physics. His ideas are taken seriously by a minority. This is possible. but on the other hand it requires serious evidence to show it.

When I and other physicists submit papers for publication they are reviewed by other physicists. I have reviewed papers by other researchers. 

Brent Meeker

unread,
Jan 1, 2023, 10:47:43 PM1/1/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I thought the gauge coupling constants were expected to run with energy and to converge in the 1e14 to 1e17 Gev range.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6624.pdf  

Of course we can't see to that early a state of the universe.

Brent

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2023, 3:13:40 AM1/2/23
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ok. It will take a serious budget to falsify Smolin & Alexander's premise. I find it intriguing that space itself might be a responsive system. What's interesting is that it responds to astronomers and physicists, and for the rest of us, not so much? How does it detect your papers on ARXIV/Cornell, or Physical Review D? Does it just copy the thoughts of people doing cosmology and somehow changes the information flowing down through telescope lenses & high energy proton impacts? 


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 2, 2023, 3:20:37 AM1/2/23
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
The trick of the universe is not entropy, but size. What exists beyond the Hubble Volume? More galaxies, dust, empty vacuum, degenerate matter surrounding black holes, a super gravity-wave, paper clips???? It is certainly not well explained by cosmologists. No wonder guys like Linde & Guth and Vilenkin, simply push for eternal inflation? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com>
To: Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

Lawrence Crowell

unread,
Jan 3, 2023, 6:49:39 AM1/3/23
to Everything List
Well, the size reflects the very low entropy of the earliest universe.

LC

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2023, 3:25:26 PM1/3/23
to goldenfield...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com

I suspect and have no way of demonstrating that it all ends in a great poof-out. Getting all science-fictional here, I posit that the universe created one living world to produce life and that life eventually produces machinery that would modify the entropy forecast, eventually. It's a guess, and one that I sometimes care about, but being preoccupied with my own existence, often not. 

On science, I'd say if the astronomers believe that know what is occurring past the Hubble Bubble, I would ask them, by observation or even by computational modeling, prove it.  

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2023, 2:30:26 PM1/5/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit on humanity's part?


Brent Meeker

unread,
Jan 5, 2023, 5:15:10 PM1/5/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Physics innovation has slowed because it's been so successful.  Phenomena accessible without a ten billion dollar accelerator or a telescope in orbit are few.  Innovation now is in biology: mRNA vaccines, CRISPR-Cas9, brain/computer implants,...

Brent


On 1/5/2023 11:30 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit on humanity's part?


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jan 6, 2023, 7:57:54 AM1/6/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> Will AI ever come to the rescue or is there some unanticipated physical limit on humanity's part?


Although it's hard define an objective standard for such things I can't help but feel that society changed more between 1900 and 1950 than between 1950 and 2000, that's because before 1900 we didn't know a lot about electricity so the common man saw few if any occasions of it being put into practical use; and before 1900 we didn't have a technological ability to mass produce light strong parts at an affordable price that had the precision needed for an internal combustion engine. History shows that when a breakthrough is made you'll get a huge change in the way we live with the rate gradually tapering off until the next breakthrough. Today 2 breakthroughs are clearly on the horizon, Nanotechnology and AI, and they have huge and possibly infinite potential because as Richard Feynman said "there's plenty of room at the bottom", and because there's no obvious limit on how smart something can be.  

I think we're entering a time when more technical advances will be made but NOT by human beings and, depending on your perspective and that of the machines, AI will either come to our rescue or put scientists and engineers out of a job. There is a very good talk [the link is below] clearly making the case that Earth may be the only place in the observable universe where intelligent creatures evolved (intelligence being operationally defined as the ability to make a radio telescope). To some that may seem like a depressing conclusion but to me it is not because, despite looking for over half a century with ever larger and more sensitive telescopes, we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 2 viable explanations for that:  

1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the universe.
2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, and we are it. 

I personally find the second possibility less depressing than the first, but your mileage may vary and there is no disputing matters of taste.  

Why we might be alone

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
84n


 

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 6, 2023, 5:43:59 PM1/6/23
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Quoting, Jeff Bezos professor, Gerard O'Neil at Princeton, "Scientists tend to overestimate the impact of breakthroughs, and underestimate the impact of straight forward extensions of the knowledge we already have." This may be where physicists have let us down in the sense of being eager beavers in establishing the maximal numbers of qubits with their research budgets, rather than emphasizing How many entanglements result in successful operations?  Off-On, 1/0's, Yes/No and all that is digital. 

We may now be arriving at the phase where  4 out of 10K entanglements actually work and instead ensure that most do work.

That would then be the impact for all of us.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 6, 2023, 6:10:57 PM1/6/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com, johnk...@gmail.com
OR, is the premise of the Physorg argument, inaccurate? 

Stumble Upon...

Image



Brent Meeker

unread,
Jan 7, 2023, 1:13:10 AM1/7/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Or 3) No industrialized civilization lasts very long.

Brent


Why we might be alone

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
84n


 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jan 7, 2023, 6:09:43 AM1/7/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:13 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 2 viable explanations for that:  
1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the universe.
2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, and we are it.
 
 > Or 3) No industrialized civilization lasts very long.

That's just part of #1, it's a proposed reason why life cannot make a significant impact on the universe, and it doesn't explain why no industrial civilization lasts very long. Most of the explanations for the ephemeral nature of intelligence that I've heard, like war or environmental change, are not very convincing; the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of electronics. If that's true then civilizations don't die in a bang or even in a whimper of pain but in a moan of pleasure.  I'm still hoping reason #2 is why we've seen no sign of ET.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
8gn

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2023, 7:38:16 PM1/7/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
So who the hell is messing with the universe!?? Oh, ok, sorry sir!


Seems, that, if accurate, the universe is altering things, or more, likely; our equipment is getting better, and we are thus obtaining more accurate results? Or is the Universe aware and likes to communicate with astronomers and physicists and is trying to get their attention?  The Autodidactic Universe - INSPIRE (inspirehep.net)

Me not know because me just a slobbering, peasant-serf type, a-slobbering over various science articles in mindless, incredulity. 
Hey, if this is correct, then, God really likes the smart people. This should cheer you all up.

Samiya Illias

unread,
Jan 7, 2023, 9:23:06 PM1/7/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Days of Allah 



On 08-Jan-2023, at 5:38 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

Jesse Mazer

unread,
Jan 8, 2023, 12:43:26 AM1/8/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ethan Siegel just seems to be using non-standard terminology here to express the same results that have been known for a long time--he says that what he means is that "the expansion rate — also known as the Hubble constant/parameter — still decreases" even though "each individual object that’s receding from us will recede at faster and faster speeds as time goes on". If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#Technical_definition they say that cosmologist typically define "accelerating expansion" to mean the second derivative of the scale factor a(t) is positive, meaning the scale factor is increasing with time, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Time-dependence_of_Hubble_parameter notes that it's quite possible for the scale factor a(t) to increase with time while the Hubble parameter H(t) is decreasing, and in fact that's what observations suggest is happening (as Siegel points out). The article even notes that one implication of this is that "The recession velocity of one chosen galaxy does increase, but different galaxies passing a sphere of fixed radius cross the sphere more slowly at later times".

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2074755747.3567665.1673138289826%40mail.yahoo.com.

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2023, 7:12:52 AM1/8/23
to laser...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
Ok Jesse, nothing has changed, and the Standard Model seems solid. Shame on Siegel for getting people worked up for the price of selling an article. "Nonstandard terminology" seems a method for lying via exaggeration. Thanks for the info.

Spud.


spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2023, 7:40:29 AM1/8/23
to johnk...@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
I'd sat Civs are rare and not dead as doornails. We'd have seen crap around stars or solar sails whizzing past. Maybe dead for 5 billion years but until Isaac Newton halts these, onward they go, until entropy kicks in and they still float slow. 
Maybe Hoyles Black Cloud, eh? 


-----Original Message-----
From: John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2023 6:09 am
Subject: Re: Are we entering a time of no more technological advances?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2023, 11:18:52 AM1/8/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

The battle between physicist, Max Tegmark, and physicist Penrose and anesthesiologist, Hameroff is recalled, before their truce of 20 years ago. The difference was in semantics. For the brain's microtubules, Penrose and Hameroff used the phrase quantum computing. Tegmark, took umbrage with the term quantum computing because qc is done at sub-sub-zero temps, using liquid helium & liquid nitrogen. What the boys should have written, was quantum field effect/theory, which by nature occurs everywhere, including the warm and delicious environment of our brains. I mean QFE/T  is everywhere. You, me, that piece of bird shit on the sidewalk on a spring day. Note I inserted the "effect" because its on-going, and am happy to have LC or anyone else, perform the needed correction, np. 

Brent Meeker

unread,
Jan 9, 2023, 10:10:15 PM1/9/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com


On 1/7/2023 3:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:13 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

 >> we have never seen even a hint of ET or his engineering and there are only 2 viable explanations for that:  
1) For some unknown reason life is unable to make a significant impact on the universe.
2) The observable universe is finite so somebody has to be the first, and we are it.
 
 > Or 3) No industrialized civilization lasts very long.

That's just part of #1, it's a proposed reason why life cannot make a significant impact on the universe, and it doesn't explain why no industrial civilization lasts very long. Most of the explanations for the ephemeral nature of intelligence that I've heard, like war or environmental change, are not very convincing;

Why is environmental change not convincing.  It's easily seen as a product of industrialization done without any global-unified response by a bunch creatures that evolved to function in small tribes.  It doesn't even have to be an extinction event to prevent a significant impact on the universe. 

Even if human civilization continues another million years how do you imagine us making a significant impact on the universe?  Von Neumann machines?  It's certainly not inevitable that enough people will ever care to build one.


the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of electronics.

Or developing artificial digital environments to the level that people will explore all possible worlds without leaving this one.

Brent

If that's true then civilizations don't die in a bang or even in a whimper of pain but in a moan of pleasure.  I'm still hoping reason #2 is why we've seen no sign of ET.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
8gn
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jan 10, 2023, 10:12:05 AM1/10/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:10 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Most of the explanations for the ephemeral nature of intelligence that I've heard, like war or environmental change, are not very convincing;

> Why is environmental change not convincing. 

Because despite all the hype about the disastrous effects of climate change the fact is despite local disruptions the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived, better educated, or richer than it is right now.  The world is about 0.8ºC warmer today than it was a century ago, nobody knows what the perfect temperature to maximize human happiness is, but I doubt it's exactly 0.8º less than it is right now. I think it's interesting that during the Carboniferous era the Earth was not 0.8 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, and yet life was far more abundant then than it is now.  Humans are very adaptable creatures, it would take a hell of a lot of climate change to kill every single one of us, hell we survived an ice age so severe there was a 2 mile thick sheet of ice covering Manhattan, and back then we had very very primitive technology yet we still managed to get through it. Since planet Earth was created  the climate has always been changing. Other than a few very brief ice ages during the last few million years the temperature has always been warmer than now and occasionally much warmer; at least that's the way things have been during the last 600 million years.
 
> Even if human civilization continues another million years how do you imagine us making a significant impact on the universe? Von Neumann machines? 

Yes.

> It's certainly not inevitable that enough people will ever care to build one.

You don't need a lot of people, and I think it's inevitable that at least one individual will want to build a Von Neumann machines and that's all it would take, after all it's not as if building one would be expensive, once  Drexler's style technology is developed everything will be either dirt cheap or physically impossible, and there is no reason to believe a Von Neumann machine is impossible. And even if one makes the ridiculously conservative assumption that nobody will ever make a space probe that moves faster than the ones we can make right now, just 50 million years (a blink of the eye cosmically speaking)  after the launch of one probe a Von Neumann machine could be in every star in the Galaxy. And after that the Galaxy would never look the same. 

>> the only one that seems a little more plausible is drug abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of chemistry or electronic abuse by beings that operate according to the laws of electronics.

> Or developing artificial digital environments to the level that people will explore all possible worlds without leaving this one.

Yeah but doing all those computations for all those simulations takes a lot of energy and yet 99.99999 ...% of the universe's photons are radiated uselessly into infinite space. That sure doesn't seem like a sign of intelligence to me.
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
jad


spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2023, 8:57:16 PM1/19/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com

Ok, all you commie-bastids! Remember when I pondered whether water worlds big enough, deep enough, (water getting denser as mass on-top of it in a fantastically deep ocean, could cause fusion??? You lot correctly said NO!  

Ok, here I am back again to, as I am wont to do, to rub things in people's faces! 

Golly, wonder why they get so sore?

Here it tis'

Henrik Ohrstrom

unread,
Jan 20, 2023, 3:07:29 AM1/20/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
One of the problems with a planet with fusion going on in the core is that if you can see that fusion on the outside, is it not a star rather than a planet?
That said, I do not have RFA so all are opinions from my hiney.

A pulstative fusion in the core of a waterworld is not impossible considering how high pressures an imploding bubble can generate and if you somehow start a bubble fusion cykel that would be worth considering.
But if that bubbling is so big that it shines through  the surface, you have a star or an explanet (aka Shrapnels) anyhow. 

Also, commie-bastids, that is an unimaginative insult, also as a modern trumist republican, you are much more commie than anyone of the rest of the world. 
Red party, check!
Dementia riddled leader without connection to reality, Check!
Madly lying sublieutenants, Check!
Centralized economy ideals that screws the public really well, Check!
could go on a while, nice glasshouse you have there, mind your throwing.
/henrik

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1998645699.2200647.1674179830674%40mail.yahoo.com.

John Clark

unread,
Jan 20, 2023, 6:23:42 AM1/20/23
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
I previously said:  

 "The smallest true star, that is a star that undergoes proton-proton fusion in its core, has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter, although pseudo-stars just 20 times the mass of Jupiter can undergo deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion for a short time until their fuel is used up."

This planet is estimated to be 13 times more massive than Jupiter not 20, if this new finding holds up then the lower limit for a pseudo star will need to be modified.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

nbm

spudb...@aol.com

unread,
Jan 23, 2023, 3:00:10 PM1/23/23
to henrik....@gmail.com, everyth...@googlegroups.com
It would indeed be amazing if fusion could occur in some wildly different Neptune sized world, and would be pretty if fusion could occur on some vast water world. Just the visuals. For politics, the policies either work well or poorly? In the US we seem far from an inflection point, so far, this year.  Things are so far calm. Back to astrophysics. 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Ohrstrom <henrik....@gmail.com>
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 20, 2023 3:07 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages