Reality: Can We Understand It
RC
Existence of matter?
Can we understand the true nature of the Universe?
Why does a Universe appear in Existence?
Why does a Universe become a vast collection of particles?
Why do particles behave the way they do?
Why do we have Gravity in this Universe?
Why do Particles have Existence?
--
The Reality
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Alun Williams
Basically, the theory puts forward some ideas that suggests that all the
matter and energy was created by the singularity. The hypothesis, defines
the singularity as being nothing, but that nothing and chaos are
indistinguishable. We use the word NOTHING in many different contexts, (eg
we often use it to explain the absence of something.. . .. .'There
is nothing in the box') However, there may be both, air and space and light
in the box. In my theory (called the chaos point hypothesis) I use the word
nothing to mean exactly that NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, not
even the fundamental laws of physics that we know and love. Without any
rules, causality breaks down, and all things must happen. This
is because there is nothing to prevent them from happening. So, the
creation of energy (which is just one possibility) is unavoidable.
The quantity of energy/matter that can be created by the singularity (or
chaos point as I have termed it) is theoretically limitless, or infinite.
However, it is also indeterminate. So, it could create any amount of energy
between 0 to infinity.
So, energy is created from nothing. Probably as a single highly energetic
quantum of energy or particle in the first instance.
Associated with this quantum would have been the laws of physics that govern
it's very existence. As soon as it and the laws of physics it complies with
exist, all of the following events, must conform to the logic embedded
within those laws. In other words, the logic of the first event, which is
the creation of the quantum of energy from nothing, becomes illogical for
any further events associated with the quantum of energy. In my hypothesis,
I have said that there can only be one singularity, which is the most
fundamental thing that connects everything else. The logic I have used to
come to this conclusion is as follows:
If the singularity is nothing, then the probability of anything happening is
1. If this is true, then the singularity is not limited in terms of
quantity or magnitude. In other words there is a theoretical possibility of
it creating an infinite amount of anything (eg energy). If, the singularity
can theoretically, generate an infinite amount of energy, then there cannot
be any other singularities. If there were more than one, then each would
produce an identical set of possibilities and would be indistinguishable
from the rest. But, more importantly, if there were more than one
singularity, then there would be a theoretical possibility of generating
more than an infinite amount of energy. So, the existence of more than one
singularity becomes illogical and meaningless.
The hypothesis, then expands thus:
It is quite widely accepted now that all the energy in the universe was
created in the big bang. In my hypothesis as described above, the initial
event was the creation of a highly energetic quantum of energy. However,
this did not satisfy my curiosity, so I asked another question. Now, that
this energy has been created, why does it continue to exist? Why does it
perpetuate itself? What is the very basis of it's existence? The
conclusion that I came to was that, the basis for it's existence was most
likely the same as the basis for it's creation, (i.e. the initial event),
which was a result of the singularity (chaos point). In other words, the
energy is being sustained or perpetuated by the singularity. Another, way
of looking at it is that the original quantum of energy is just one possible
interpretation of the singularity, out of an infinite number of possible
interpretations.
We can expand the idea even further. We can describe a quantum of energy,
in terms of a mathematical function (Schrodinger's equations etc). So, we
could probably have described the first quantum of energy in terms of a
mathematical function. as we know mathematical functions can be represented
in many different forms, and may have many different solutions. So, it may
be possible to express the mathematical function of the original quantum of
energy in terms of two independant solutions, or two separate quanta of
energy. And, it may be possible to describe the two quanta of energy in
terms of further mathematical solutions, or even more quanta of energy. We
can
extrapolate this process further and further, until eventually, we are left
with mathematical functions, that can no longer be simplified further.
These simple mathematical functions, could be what we now describe as
hadrons, leptons etc. in other words each component part of matter and
energy is in effect one possible solution that satisfies the original
mathematical function of the intital quantum of energy. But, how does each
of these mutually exclusive component parts of our universe sustain their
own existence? What perpetuates them? If the singularity is the basis for
the existence of the first quantum of energy, then it must also be the basis
for the existence of all the others that follow. But, if there is only one
singularity, how can it sustain the existence of all the component parts
throughtout the universe. See next bit:
The only way, that the singularity could sustain, the existence of all the
individual components is if it spreads itself probabilistically, throughout
the space time continuum. In other words, at any instant, we could never
know where it is. This is interesting, because when we look closely at a
sub atomic particle, we can never know exactly where it is, or even if it is
there at all. This is because, they would all have to exist
probabilistically.
All the individual componet quanta that
make up the universe could be normalised to 1, which satisfies the origninal
particle. When the first particle became more particles, those new
particles would have had some uncertainty associated with them, as the
particles continue to decay to more simple particles, the degree of
uncertainty would increase. If the orignal particle had a mass of M and the
probability of finding the singularity (chaos point) at the original
particle is 1, then we can see that as the first particle decays to less
massive particles, the probability of finding the chaos point at those
particles also decreases. It is quite easy to see from this that we can
correlate, the probability of finding the chaos point to mass or energy.
That is the probability of finding the chaos point (singularity) at any
instant, within any defined region of space, is proportional to the mass or
energy within that region.
Thus P = m/M
Where P is the probability of finding the chaos point in a region of space
m is the mass within the region of space
M is the mass of the original particle (i.e. the total mass of
the universe)
If we now take an enclosed region of space (a
spherical one for simplicity), and within this region we put a constant mass
m. In order to sustain the material/energy with the region, the chaos point
would have to propegate into it. But the chaos point also sustains the
existence of the material that is outside our spherical region of space, so
it would also have to propegate back out. In my hypothesis, I have
described the propagation of the chaos point to and away from any enclosed
region of space as 'The Chaos Point Field'. Since the chaos point would
need to propagate to all parts of the universe it is also reasonable to say
that the chaos point field would extend equally in all directions to and
from the region of space that we have defined. Furthermore, it may be that
the chaos point field itself, is what we perceive as spacetime.
Now, the rate at which the chaos point propagates into any enclosed region
of space (Ri) will be proportional to the probability of finding the chaos
point within that region, and thus proportional to m/M.
Thus Ri = km/M where k is a rate determining function.
Likewise the rate at which the chaos point propagates out of any enclosed
region of space (Ro) will be proportional to the probability of finding the
chaos point outside of that region and thus proportional to (M-m)/M
Thus Ro = k(M-m)/M Where k is a rate determining function
For values of m which are small comapared to the total mass of the universe
the factor (M-m)/M approaches unity.
Thus we can write Ro =k
Now, if there is only one singularity or chaos point, then the rate at which
the chaos point propagates into any enclosed region of space (Ri) must
always be equal to the rate at which the chaos point propagates back out
(Ro). This has to be true. If there is only one chaos point how could it
possibly propagate into a region of space faster than it is propagating out
and vice versa?. Now in the above equations we can see that Ri is not equal
to Ro. This presents us with a problem. However, there is a solution that
satisfies all requirements. See following:
NB: Previously I have suggested that it is the chaos point field that we
perceive as spacetime. Now consider the following two equations again:
Ri = k.m/M
Ro =k
In the above two equations the factor k is common and is a rate determining
function. Therefore the value of k must depend on the properties of space
and time. Now, the only way that we could manipulate the above equations
such that Ri = Ro, is if we alter or warp time itself. Thus, time as
measured by a stop watch for the determination of Ri, is different from the
time as measured by the same stopwatch for the determination of Ro. Thus
there must exist a constant differential in space time around massive
objects.
This differential manifests itself as a gravitational field.
The same principles can be applied to motion. When and object is
accelarated, the component of the chaos point field in the direction of
motion has to be balanced so that the rate at which the chaos point
propagates into the region the object occupies, must be equal to the rate at
which the chaos point propagates back out. So, when the velocity of an
object changes, space and time for the object must also change such that a
balance is maintained. The magnitude by which the field would need to
change will be proportional to the size of the field (and thus the mass of
the object), and also proportional to the change in velocity)
Thus the field would need to be altered by and amount proportional to:
Mass x Change of velocity
The rate of change of the chaos point field manifests itself as force.
Tha above ideas satisfy the equivalence principle for both inertial mass and
gravitational mass, because both are dependant on the size of the chaos
point field which in turn is proportional to the same mass.
I have used the hypothesis
to derive the universal gravitational constant (which isn't a constant, but
instead is slowly increasing with time). From G, I have been able to
theoretically calculate the total mass of the universe. However, the
theoretical figure for the total mass is about 10 times greater than the
estimated quantity of visible matter in galaxies. I am currently trying to
find out why the sun is getting
10% hotter every billion years. If my theory is correct, then it could be
due to the increasing value of G (increasing by about 6% of it's current
value every billion years), thus the sun is slowly being squeezed,
which results in increased pressure and temparature at the core, and
consequently and increased rate of nuclear fusion.
Just one other thing. If the chaos point has been sustaining the existence
of all the energy in the universe since it's moment of creation by spreading
itself probabilistically, then the universe cannot have an exact geometric
centre. The chaos point intself is the focus of all things. However,
because the chaos point sustains the existence of everything by propegating
to it, and away from it all these things will appear to be at the centre
from their own perspective.
This just a model that I have been thinking about for some time. Comments
welcome
Cheers
Alun
Double00
Alun Williams <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ehbul$h91$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> I have a theory that may explain answer some of your questions
Fascinating. I have read the theory of Nothing forcing Something into
existance before, I believe in one of Isaac Asimov's collections of science
essays. You appear to have taken it a whole lot farther, and actually
explained it so even I could understand it. Good work... I can't critique it
on the science side, but it does seem to all fit together.
-regards
double00
Paul Mays
the tenuous quantum back ground field as it maintains its
connection between matter formed from the slight variance
in the field as it expanded after time 0. As energy expanded
and cooled after antimatter and matter had their little argument
the residuals would tend to create a bubble / foam structure to
the expanding universe with matter tending to congeal with matter
forming around larger areas of much less matter due to
migration to the larger groups of matter. This would explain the
red shift as this foam structure of the universe expands the cells of
the structure expand so all the galaxies would seem to move away from
all others as many specks on a balloon move away from each other
as in is blown up. An example of this migration of matter to
create a foam structure can be seen in the slow motion film of the
energy shell as it expands from a hydrogen detonation. From the outside
you can see the structure of the forming energy ball as it expands having
a foam structure as the external surface of the plasma grows. As matter
is moved further apart this quantum connection is impacted which would
cause an increase in Universal Gravitational Constant.
I'm am an eng. so I've have not the terminology to explain my concept
near a eloquently as you did but the concept you have stated is the
best one I heard that I actually understood.... And Heck... It means
my fool idea I've been kicking for 20 years around might have a tad
bit of merit...
R J Englund
discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence? Following from
that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
Must reread and consider before I can ask any further questions.
RJ
[Please forgive if this becomes a double-post, but I replied to your post
hours ago and my reply has not showed up on either my newsreader or Deja.]
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ehbul$h91$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
EL
<alun.wi...@btinternet.com>
wrote in message
news:9ehbul$h91$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
This just a model that I have been thinking about for some time.
Comments welcome
Cheers
Alun
Sorry Alun, this is where we do not agree.
By the way, "Nice new Dictionary". ;-)
Of course I can see my own theory inside what you wrote but I can hardly agree with you on substituting the word singularity for the
word God as you are obviously using it in connection with an act of creation. Yet I cannot agree with you on what are my own ideas
on "Nothing". I am sure you are aware of my theory on chaos being the dynamic state of the background from which order emerges and
evolves. Yet what really forced me to decide to completely disagree is that you are redefining the singularity to be a chaotic
"point", thus hinting at the zero force point, pleading for chaos, smiling to the singularity and hugging the big-bang and praying
to God.
So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into one nice
cake. :):)
So, you imagine all those inherited believes on the characteristics of the divine creator then call it a singularity and make it one
but infinite and at no place but everywhere, satisfying the chaotic fundamental demands and jumping into particles world by
quantifying a point and returning to god by assuming the creation of energy from nothingness.
NO.
I do not like it.
Sorry.
EL
Alun Williams
"R J Englund" <rjen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b0cc...@newsa.ev1.net...
> I very much enjoyed reading the below. :-) I find it serendipitous that
the
> discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
> attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
> boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
> everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence? Following from
> that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
>
> Must reread and consider before I can ask any further questions.
>
> RJ
>
>
> [Please forgive if this becomes a double-post, but I replied to your post
> hours ago and my reply has not showed up on either my newsreader or Deja.]
>
>
Thanks for your comments. Please feel free to fire any questions at me.
Al
Alun Williams
fire any questions.
Just in case you are interested, the equation I came up with for G was as
follows:
G = 2C^3.T/M + K
Where C = velocity of light
T = Age of Universe in seconds
M = Total Mass of Universe
K is the initial value of G at T = 0, which is very very small. So, in the
very early Universe the force of gravitation was very small, which could
explain why the universe didn't just collapse back in on itself.
Cheers
Al
Alun Williams
Sorry, I cannot say that I have encountered your own ideas or theories
(please elaborate). I have read and commented on some of your articles and
on quite a few occasions agreed with you. However, I do remember your
lecture on science and the limitations that you placed on the extrapolation
of theories into regions that we cannot test experimentally. Basically, if
I am correct you were after absolute proof of everything. If it cannot be
proven experimentally in a laboratory then it is not science?????? Even on
this I don't totally disagree with you. Here, I am presenting a MODEL. It
is totally theoretical. I am not claiming that it is fact!!! It is up for
exploration. Although, I think I should add that so far I have not
discovered any other theory that answers all of my questions.
With respect to your reference to God, I totally disagree. I am not
referring to God in any way. I don't know where you got that idea from. I
am leaving God out of this debate. This is about logic and Chaos, not God.
Neither am I hinting at the zero force point.
You may not like the model that I have put forward. This is ok. I do not
expect everyone on this news group to agree with it. I am just looking for
some genuine debate and exploration of the ideas and concepts.
Cheers
Al
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9ej7bd$730$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
tj Frazir
The creation of the universe is space time and it is energy expanding at
the same rate.
The particals in your plazma are not expanding but space time gose on .
Mater is space not expanding . A space not expanding is in space that
is maintained and expanding .
Less expansion will come from the space mater takes up.
The atom is one condenced energy partical spining making waves and
sounds and intence wave presure in the energy presure of space time.
Space time is gods active force I think you might have mentioned
something like that .
The spin of the nucleus is thermal kenetic energy like a top rocking
and spining making waves in space time we call a field .
I agree there is no pull in physics anywhere.
But you not too clear on gravity or liquified condenced energy at the
birth of the universe .
Spining faster takes more space in a time unit
and the nucleus dose not realy have more mass it just takes up more
space in a unit of time the faster it spins.
The nucleus has an odd shape . A passing sound or wave will cause it to
spin . Moving it will cause it to spin. Because its spining in space
time the wave presure pushes them apart so they dont touch and space
time is lower around non expading matter so tending to less energy is
gravity pushing matertogether till thermal orientation to the least
resistance holds mater in its cemical arngment only stable wile in
balance with these two forces .
Long winded wasnt I
Alun Williams
I have read your theory before. There are a number of comments/questions
that I have for you:
1. You say that spacetime is expanding energy maintained by God's active
force. I am not happy with this idea for a number of reasons. You have
introduced God into the equation, which also means that you have introduced
the belief in God and also faith in God. This means that if you wanted to
take your idea to it's conclusion you would have to devise an experiment or
find evidence that proves the existence of God. There is no logic in the
assumption that God maintains the active force of the universe.
2. In your model you say that spacetime is expanding and that it exhurts an
energy pressure, whereas matter is not expanding and therefore the energy
pressure of space forces the matter together. If matter is condensed energy
why does it not also expand?
3. How does your model satisfy the equivalence principle for gravitational
and inertial mass?
4. In your model, where did matter come from and is there anything that
would suggest how it would bahave on a quantum level.
5. How could the energy pressure of space affect the spacetime curvature
around massive objects as described in Einsteins model?
6. How does your model satisfy Newton's equation for the intensity of a
gravitational field. Ep = GM/R^2 ?
In your post you have made a number of statements as to how gravity and the
universe works but you have not explained the logical reasoning for your
statements. You need to beef it out.
Cheers
Al
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1850-3B...@storefull-262.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Mark Farral
worthy of thought. I was about to delete this group from my list because of
all the drivel that emanated from it. I'm far from being a physicist but I
can read what you have written. now... me has to sits and think.. (this is
why I joined the group in the first place, I want to think)
Thank you again.
mark
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ehbul$h91$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
EL
Basically, the theory puts forward some ideas that suggests that all the
matter and energy was created by the singularity.
As you put it, "created BY the singularity", you are suggesting an intrinsic GOD.
** "Created by God." **
You did not say that you are forwarding ideas that suggest that all the matter and energy must have been the consequence of a
singularity or that they are the natural evolution of a singularity but rather you chose to say that they were CREATED BY whatever.
Then, you tell me:
"I am not referring to God in any way.
[ATW]
The hypothesis, defines the singularity as being nothing,
but that nothing and chaos are indistinguishable.
[EL]
Here I you redefine the word "singularity" as nothing.
Then you mix it with chaos, but you should be aware that chaos is 4D or more (which is something).
Your "nothing" is in fact "something out of observation".
Please understand that my objection is based on algebraic topology.
The singularity is a hypothetical dimensionless end-point of existence (true nothingness).
The chaos could hardly be chaotic without homogeneity of uniform dynamics in a background field.
Thus, chaos must be AT LEAST FOUR DIMENSIONAL (or more), while the singularity is dimensionless. Redefining words that had anchored
in a scientific branch is bad practice.
I shall suggest another word in the course of my reply.
[ATW]
We use the word NOTHING in many different contexts, (eg
we often use it to explain the absence of something.. . .. .'There
is nothing in the box') However, there may be both, air and space and light
in the box.
[EL]
Here you confirm my suspicions.
You take observation to be the criterion of something and nothing.
[ATW]
In my theory (called the chaos point hypothesis) I use the word
nothing to mean exactly that NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, not
even the fundamental laws of physics that we know and love.
[EL]
This view here is a total contradiction to the first view.
Now you define the true singularity which has absolutely nothing to do with chaos and everything to do with the boundary of
existence.
[ATW]
Without any rules, causality breaks down, and all things must happen.
[EL]
That sentence was too much overloaded.
Without any rules, not only does causality break down but also nothing can ever "happen".
Happening is an event chain of continuous events, thus a single event can happen.
Events demand a place for the event to take place and a time for events to take time. ;-)
With a minimum of four dimensions you contradict yourself on having no rules at all.
[ATW]
This is because there is nothing to prevent them from happening.
[EL]
Yet more there is nothing to cause anything to happen.
If you cannot prevent the happening, you cannot force the happening.
[ATW]
So, the creation of energy (which is just one possibility) is unavoidable.
[EL]
What would avoid what and when was that altered?
You begin with nothing in the absolute sense, you must end with nothing in the absolute sense.
I recommend that you should stick with chaos and bypass that "bell&whistle" SINGULARITY.
You really do not need that Alun.
Chaos is a very good starting point from a 4D nothing-in-order.
From there you can "string" your ideas in order to emerge order. <g>
[ATW]
The quantity of energy/matter that can be created by the singularity (or
chaos point as I have termed it) is theoretically limitless, or infinite.
[EL]
Back to God, aren't we?
[ATW]
However, it is also indeterminate.
So, it could create any amount of energy
between 0 to infinity.
[EL]
In theoretical physics, Alun, this is already defined as the emergence of order from chaos.
Order can escalate and the "amount" depends on the arbitrated scalar and the metric quantification.
[ATW]
<snip>
If the singularity is nothing, then the probability of anything happening is
1. If this is true, then the singularity is not limited in terms of
quantity or magnitude.
[EL]
Which quantity and what magnitude can be in nothing but nothing?
[ATW]
In other words there is a theoretical possibility of
it creating an infinite amount of anything (eg energy).
[EL]
Sorry this possibility has nothing to do with science, maybe poetry can do.
You begin with infinite energy in an infinite and chaotic field, then all what can be shall be in time, and it takes as long as it
takes to evolve into everything.
[ATW]
If, the singularity can theoretically,
generate an infinite amount of energy,
then there cannot be any other singularities.
[EL]
That "if" was an [IFF] Alun.
[ATW]
If there were more than one, then each would
produce an identical set of possibilities and would be indistinguishable
from the rest. But, more importantly, if there were more than one
singularity, then there would be a theoretical possibility of generating
more than an infinite amount of energy. So, the existence of more than one
singularity becomes illogical and meaningless.
[EL]
In fact that was it Alun. The singularity is the NO_STATE.
We have no need for counting nonsense one and nonsense two when it is all but nonsense.
We depend on the sense to sense whatever is sensible.
[ATW]
The hypothesis, then expands thus:
It is quite widely accepted now that all the energy in the universe was
created in the big bang.
[EL]
And that is why you forced the usage of a redefined singularity.
[ATW]
In my hypothesis as described above, the initial
event was the creation of a highly energetic quantum of energy.
[EL]
From nothing!
Sorry, that makes no sense.
[ATW]
However, this did not satisfy my curiosity,
[EL]
Certainly. :)
[ATW]
so I asked another question.
Now, that this energy has been created,
why does it continue to exist?
[EL]
This is like asking: "If time was never then why does time ever?".
Like as if once time starts it never stops.
No take the fact that time is infinite and tell me what does it need to start?
[ATW]
Why does it perpetuate itself?
[EL]
Because it was and it is and shall always be fundamentally perpetual.
[ATW]
What is the very basis of it's existence?
[EL]
The basis "IS".
"Is" comes from verb "to be".
To be or not to be is the most serious question ever.
The answer is that it IS, therefore and because.
[ATW]
The conclusion that I came to was that, the basis for it's existence was most
likely the same as the basis for it's creation, (i.e. the initial event),
which was a result of the singularity (chaos point). In other words, the
energy is being sustained or perpetuated by the singularity.
[EL]
Indeed, God created existence and is sustaining it and perpetuating it.
Now tell me again that you never meant God to be in your subconscious consciousness .
;-)
<snip>
[ATW]
The only way, that the singularity could sustain, the existence of all the
individual components is if it spreads itself probabilistically, throughout
the space time continuum. In other words, at any instant, we could never
know where it is. This is interesting, because when we look closely at a
sub atomic particle, we can never know exactly where it is, or even if it is
there at all. This is because, they would all have to exist probabilistically.
[EL]
What a load of "new ideas". :):)
If you are not aware of the Islamic definition of God, please be aware that
your definition is a mutilated version of it.
[ATW]
All the individual componet quanta that
make up the universe could be normalised to 1, which satisfies the origninal
particle. When the first particle became more particles, those new
particles would have had some uncertainty associated with them, as the
particles continue to decay to more simple particles, the degree of
uncertainty would increase. If the orignal particle had a mass of M and the
probability of finding the singularity (chaos point) at the original
particle is 1, then we can see that as the first particle decays to less
massive particles, the probability of finding the chaos point at those
particles also decreases. It is quite easy to see from this that we can
correlate, the probability of finding the chaos point to mass or energy.
[EL]
Wake up Alun.
PROBABILITY of what?
How do you intend to apply probability for nothingness sans dimensions?
Without space-time the probability is neither one nor zero because the probability of the availability of probability is zero.
[ATW]
That is the probability of finding the chaos point (singularity) at any
instant, within any defined region of space, is proportional to the mass or
energy within that region.
Thus P = m/M
Where P is the probability of finding the chaos point in a region of space
m is the mass within the region of space
M is the mass of the original particle
(i.e. the total mass of the universe)
[EL]
No, this is in contradiction with your "redefinition" of "nothingness".
No equation holding any parameters with dimensions is allowed to be with the singularity as per YOUR DEFINITION.
[ATW]
If we now take an enclosed region of space (a
spherical one for simplicity), and within this region we put a constant mass
m. In order to sustain the material/energy with the region, the chaos point
would have to propegate into it. But the chaos point also sustains the
existence of the material that is outside our spherical region of space, so
it would also have to propegate back out. In my hypothesis, I have
described the propagation of the chaos point to and away from any enclosed
region of space as 'The Chaos Point Field'.
[EL]
Now you rub your nose with the "Zero Pint Field".
Hence, you are attempting at increasing the items in your new "dictionary"
[ATW]
Since the chaos point would
need to propagate to all parts of the universe it is also reasonable to say
that the chaos point field would extend equally in all directions to and
from the region of space that we have defined.
[EL]
Only here you are 100% compatible with my primordial force propagation scheme.
BUT.
This would be based on a primordial, eternal and infinitely dynamic,
infinitely extended and chaotic field.
[ATW]
Furthermore, it may be that
the chaos point field itself, is what we perceive as spacetime.
[EL]
Indeed, and my take is on the new redefinition of what had been defined by others.
So the concept was postulated by others in many ways (including me);
But your usage of words is either unaware of the works of others or aware and revolting on consensus of the usage of the meanings
behind the words.
The zero point field is topologically legitimate for mathematical reasons.
A "chaos point field" sounds very weird for someone who teaches the theory of chaos.
<snip>
[ATW]
This differential manifests itself as a gravitational field.
[EL]
Hahaha! "Difference" and "Differential" are not the same thing Alun.
You did not present any CHANGE OVER CHANGE.
<snip>
[ATW]
Just one other thing. If the chaos point has been sustaining the existence
of all the energy in the universe since it's moment of creation by spreading
itself probabilistically, then the universe cannot have an exact geometric
centre. The chaos point intself is the focus of all things. However,
because the chaos point sustains the existence of everything by propegating
to it, and away from it all these things will appear to be at the centre
from their own perspective.
[EL]
That paragraph is extremely consistent with my own theory on the primordial oscillator.
Only in different words. :):)
I think that you are "there" Alun.
Please make an effort to leave the words that have been "over-consumed".
Look for words that express your imagination in the most appropriate way rather than begging for popularity by using popular words.
You have surpassed the usage of single words to the usage of almost identical expressions of three words constructs, again begging
for popularity.
Certainly you tactics can "work" in such a world full of morons.
I do recognise that you are a genius and perhaps that is your way for finding a way.
Please do not pay to much attention to my honesty, and the way you are playing it might be the most appropriate way to find a place
between the fantasies that overwhelm our reality.
*************
Your admirer :):)
EL
*************
[ATW]
This just a model that I have been thinking about for some time. Comments
welcome
Cheers
Alun
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9ek5sv$ql5$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
tj Frazir
2 condensation would not be without the presure of air nor would
condenced energy without the energy presure at C .
light is a sound in energy and the energy presure is constant so god is
creating that thing poping in and out of exsistance at the same rate.
God did not creat the universe he is still creating it.
3 gravity is a displacment to less energy.
less expansion comes from earth and all things move to less energy as
more energy pushes it there. If the earth was holow and you fell in you
would come to rest wher nothin is and nothing can pull nothing . Pull
dose not exsist anywhere. We are pushed down to the earth .
5 space time is the energy presure of space in a unit of time . All
energy expands at the same rate , is created in a patern at the same
rate in time. Warp in space is a diferance in energy presure as mater
dose not contribute to the energy of space because its in a condenced
state.
in the begining of the universe all he created was energy . the same
as now.
But it was like hot against cold because energy is against nothing and
cooling. It is paservating between them making condenced liquified
energy that did not expand as the energy of space still dose. The less
expansion is less presure in a unit of time so space that is energy
presure pushed condenced liquified energy into a balloon befor the big
bang .
Wile a baloon befor the big bang the walls of the balloon cools more
wile the presure of energy is going up inside making elements as layers
of dencity with H on the outside amd element 124 on the inside.
Atoms are condenced energy ( nucleus ) that spin . The spin is
thermal energy. Like a top.
The top spins in an oval path . like the nucleus. The waves the
spining top makes looks like emf . The electron is not part of the atom
its part of space. Light is a sound in space.
magnetic attraction is waves that pass by taking some energy from
between with it and the presure of space energy pushes them together.
Repell is waves coliding raising the energy between them. Without the
energy presure of space gravity and magnetisem is unexplainable and vodo
physics .
attract , pull, dose not exsist. Its all a push to less. Things cant
fall to more energy .
Things dont fall. They get pushed .
A spining rock looks biger than one not spining.
As space is energy created in a time patern a spining nucleus spining
eliminates some space in that unit of time and less energ expands in
that space ( gained mass ) is not a biger atom but less space time and
more dispacment.
two glasses full to the top with water.
one has a rock in it and water , the other just water . If space was
water every second the water would double in volume . All the water in
each glass doubled . They are allways proportional . But less water is
allways with the glass with the rock. The rock is still the same size .
The other glass is so big now it is pushing the other glass off the
table rock and al but the volume of each glass is still proportional.
When I got here I thought I was seeing kids talk. I did not know
physics was so far behind .
I came with clear steal and gravitational propullsion. Spining a clear
steel disk with lasers to half light speed to eliminate enouph spacetime
to use as propulsion . Physicsist dont undrstand it. Unable to jump
the wall of ignorance i give them a 4000 mpg car engine they do not yet
understand even if its simple .
From the sea not a space man . Not an english man . The call me the
giant ( TJ) because im 8 foot tall 460 lb with hair 4 foot long. I
biuld ships to pay fr more ships . Im Dale Fraser.
I dont own stock and dont sell stocks I own my loads or dont haul. APL
and Seaway and yards and yachts . I do what I do and let those that do
what they do very well . In order to have more we must produce more and
in order to enjoy the frute we must do it in lless time.
about 1.8 trilion Usd. Im 43 and am slowing down . I can make a
milionair out of anyone that wants to befor xmass. In fact 7 people
just did. one $ 100000 ship 250 foot and one load of wood from the
ahmish ( oak and cherry at 25cent a foot ) to japan at $ 12 a foot .
They made 22 milion the first trip and gave the ship to japan and flew
home . Done in 90 days .
Reality is not an ilusion nor dose it care who understands. The otto
engine was the engine ford improved and they have been improving it
sence. Its a stupid engine . it sux.
scrole and see the whale engine I posted .
Physcs biult this engine , ... why .. you could say its from out of this
world.
I have a uqestion for you now.
If God would answer what would you ask ?
Its in the iron of your blood.
evry atom you record all you know on is here till god takes it and you
are your own witness.
I will wait till you ask ... shouldnt I
gravity jones
assumption against reality and if one cant really tell , one takes
torizine.
there are consequences of assuming that there is no reality. experiment
and see. one simple experiment is to jump off a bridge.
reality can be proven using mathmatics: 1-1=0
4=2+2 you might not like it but its not just intuitive nor is it
subject to variation. one does not assume that a single obejct is more
than one object or less than one object, start with a marble and then
find a second marble...the experiment is to count them and if you dont
believe reality you could swallow them....and let your alimentry canal
count them.
R J Englund
Your phobia is showing again, my dearest EL. There is no God-spider
crawling in your hair, so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
Another interpretation of his thesis might be that nothing ever left the
"singularity", and its internal seething is what has built reality. :-)
Very simple math says 0 beginning states within reality that have nothing
other than 0 with which to work may only include --
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
Therefore these are impossible 0 beginning states within reality since they
must assume the coexistence of 1 in order to utilize it --
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
0 - 1 = -1
1 - 0 = 1
0 x 1 = 0
1 x 0 = 0
0 / 1 = 0
1 / 0 = infinity (the screaming e divide by 0 error)
It seems that Mr. Williams is using 1 / 0 = infinity as the main thrust of
his thesis. However, numerically 0 can be classed as a set equaling all of
the infinite numbers, both negative and positive. Continuing from that,
could nothing contain all negative energy and all positive energy in such a
way that nothing is not nothing but is, instead, a balance or state of
stasis with the potential to produce everything?
Sigh. There we are at the dreaded and damned singularity again. Stasis
cannot be overcome or Hawking would have done it. [Please refrain from
yelling "Fuck Hawking!" I know where you stand.] Unless infinity was
infinitesimally flawed, such as in infinity - 1, which strips infinity of
its completeness and therefore never allows for an exact balance.
"Infinity - 1". Is it a viable concept? It seem ludicrous. What
difference to infinity would -1 make? But I keep thinking of the one black
ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
One of the statements the Ouroboros makes is that all and nothing create
each other and destroy each other. It is an ancient Egyptian symbol which
is said to have led to the Yin-Yang. Quite an assertion, if true. Egyptian
usage of the Ouroboros appears to predate all its subsequent uses by other
civilizations, so you are probably aware of its meanings.
In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
construction.
| [EL]
| So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to
| twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into
| one nice cake. :):)
[RJ]
And his presentation was indeed masterful. :-) Perhaps you could make the
discussion more dialectic? One rule being -- every time God by any
appellation or inference is mentioned you lose two points.
:-) :-) :-)
| [EL]
| So, you imagine all those inherited beliefs on the
| characteristics of the divine creator then call it a singularity
| and make it one but infinite and at no place but everywhere,
| satisfying the chaotic fundamental demands and jumping
| into particles world by quantifying a point and returning to
| god by assuming the creation of energy from nothingness.
| NO.
| I do not like it.
|
| Sorry.
[RJ]
You see God under every comma and within every ellipsis, just waiting there
to jump out and do what, EL? Deprive you of your cognitive abilities?
Cause you to ruin the knees of your favorite suit? For someone so abhorrent
of the concept of God you certainly seem to have God foremost in your mind.
Your ability to notice God everywhere in everything is a trait those who
attest to a strong faith in God would find admirable and hope to emulate.
;-)
|
| EL
RJay
|
|
|
|
|
R J Englund
Your Chaos Point Theory is a beautifully done piece of methodical logic, Mr.
Williams. :-) On the surface it seems that you have answered all the
questions I can think to ask at present. I will take this opportunity to
sit back and read the exchange between you and EL. :-)
RJ
EL
[RJ]
Your phobia is showing again, my dearest EL.
[EL]
Phobia does not coexist with logical proof.
I demand an apology for overlooking the reasoning process I held quite strongly. :)
[RJ]
There is no God-spider crawling in your hair,
[EL]
It was not crawling in MY hair, it was crawling in HIS post. ;-)
[RJ]
so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
[EL]
What makes you think I am freaking?
Do I sound like someone who is freaking?
Do you have any quotable proof?
Let me guess, Ah! You are still bitter for my suspicions of YOUR AGENDA. :):):)
[RJ]
Another interpretation of his thesis might be that nothing ever left the
"singularity", and its internal seething is what has built reality. :-)
Very simple math says 0 beginning states within reality that have nothing
other than 0 with which to work may only include --
0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0
0 x 0 = 0
0 / 0 = 0
[EL]
:):):)
I would like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):)
[RJ]
Therefore these are impossible 0 beginning states within reality since they
must assume the coexistence of 1 in order to utilize it --
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 0 = 1
0 - 1 = -1
1 - 0 = 1
0 x 1 = 0
1 x 0 = 0
0 / 1 = 0
1 / 0 = infinity (the screaming e divide by 0 error)
It seems that Mr. Williams is using 1 / 0 = infinity as the main thrust of
his thesis.
[EL]
So you do think that his foundation is based on an error??!!!!
[EL]
:):):)
I would really like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):):):)
[RJ]
However, numerically 0 can be classed as a set equaling all of
the infinite numbers, both negative and positive. Continuing from that,
could nothing contain all negative energy and all positive energy in such a
way that nothing is not nothing but is, instead, a balance or state of
stasis with the potential to produce everything?
Sigh. There we are at the dreaded and damned singularity again. Stasis
cannot be overcome or Hawking would have done it. [Please refrain from
yelling "Fuck Hawking!"
[EL]
FUCK HAWKING AND PENROSE. :):)
[RJ]
I know where you stand.] Unless infinity was
infinitesimally flawed, such as in infinity - 1, which strips infinity of
its completeness and therefore never allows for an exact balance.
"Infinity - 1". Is it a viable concept?
[EL]
Yes.
[RJ]
It seem ludicrous.
[EL]
Not to me.
[RJ]
What difference to infinity would -1 make?
[EL]
Minus one is the difference.
You are not comparing two infinities here.
You are comparing an infinity with itself, before and after subtraction.
Thus it is the evolution of the infinite in an event of unit subtraction.
It is even acceptable to subtract an infinite number of infinities from one infinity.
[RJ]
But I keep thinking of the one black
ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
[EL]
Since when was stasis anything but the elusion of force equilibrium?
Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic background oscillatory nature.
Stasis is an imaginary boundary averaged between the limits of a binary state.
[RJ]
Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
One of the statements the Ouroboros makes is that all and nothing create
each other and destroy each other. It is an ancient Egyptian symbol which
is said to have led to the Yin-Yang. Quite an assertion, if true. Egyptian
usage of the Ouroboros appears to predate all its subsequent uses by other
civilizations, so you are probably aware of its meanings.
[EL]
Not the curvature of density, but the curvature of spatial relativistic relations.
If you begin by assuming "homogeneity" then all your spheres should be of equal diameters.
Painting one in black does not affect the cause of homogeneity, but serves us to identify and distinguish it. In practice you shall
find that one sphere can touch a maximum of twelve spheres and not one more at the condition that they are all of the same diameter.
By escalating the complexity of relations relative to the black ball, you get an expanding curved plane referenced by the black ball
as a center of ....... whatever.
[RJ]
In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
construction.
[EL]
If both of you care to use the word chaos properly, you shall save me a headache.
It is absolutely contradictory logic to pin-point a point in chaos before order emerges from chaos.
So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic
point" it just makes no sense.
What Alun must have had in mind was the "Zero Point Field", which is in fact an ordered field in chaos.
It is called Zero because it stands between opposite entities that annihilate each other by equilibrium. Thus measuring a Zero
quantity at any point within a field, does not mean that it is nothing but could very well be the equilibrium of two opposing great
forces. If such a force is anywhere between nothingness and absolute infinity, then that is what Alun meant by the emergence of any
indeterminate amount of energy between Zero and One.
| [EL]
| So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to
| twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into
| one nice cake. :):)
[RJ]
And his presentation was indeed masterful. :-)
[EL]
Indeed, Alun is the same person we know as Hermital.
He is a very able man with great insight.
Yet I still reserve my right to disagree with him if I find it necessary. :)
[RJ]
Perhaps you could make the discussion more dialectic?
*****************************************************************************
One rule being --
every time God by any appellation or inference is mentioned you lose two points.
:-) :-) :-)
*****************************************************************************
[EL]
You just lost two points, because we can apply the rule immediately after accepting it.
You certainly never meant that I am the only one who abides by YOUR rule!
You must have accepted this rule before you write it down or you would not have written it. ;-)
Now that I have affirmed that you lost two points I must have accepted that rule too. <g>
| [EL]
| So, you imagine all those inherited beliefs on the
| characteristics of the divine creator then call it a singularity
| and make it one but infinite and at no place but everywhere,
| satisfying the chaotic fundamental demands and jumping
| into particles world by quantifying a point and returning to
| god by assuming the creation of energy from nothingness.
| NO.
| I do not like it.
|
| Sorry.
[RJ]
You see God under every comma and within every ellipsis,
[EL]
This is not true and you lose four points up to this.
[RJ]
just waiting there to jump out and do what, EL?
[EL]
What is it that shall jump out and do?
I am not expecting anything that jumps, but if you mean that hops then yes smart1234 does it all the time. :):):)
[RJ]
Deprive you of your cognitive abilities?
Who? Alzheimer?
[RJ]
Cause you to ruin the knees of your favourite suit?
[EL]
I usually take off my trousers before doing anything that ruins the knees of my favourite suit. :)
I might keep the Jacket though, quite a view. :):):)
[RJ]
For someone so abhorrent of the concept of God
[EL]
There, your points are dwindling by the bucket. :):):)
[RJ]
you certainly seem to have God
[EL]
Two buckets more. :):)
[RJ]
foremost in your mind.
Your ability to notice God
[EL]
Here comes two more.
You can confidently dive in the pool now after all those points and buckets. <g>
[RJ]
everywhere in everything is a trait
those who attest to a strong faith in God
[EL]
Ok, I must open the drain or we are going to have a small flood here. :)
[RJ]
Alun Williams
Thanks for your feedback. It was very constructive. You are correct about
my use of words. Much of it was very deliberate as I am attempting to
describe some new ideas and needed a common basis to start from. I decided
to use terms and concepts that people already understood, and then
manipulated them in an attempt to lead them into my own vision. As you
pointed out I was not 100% successful, although I do think that most of the
people got the general idea. If I had just jumped in with new terms and
ideas i doubt many people would have been able to make the connection.
(e.g. If you try to explain to a person how to produce a painting it is far
easier if they already understand what canvas, paint and brushes are.)
I can see now why you correlate some of my statements with God. Again, this
is because of the language that I have used in an effort to lead people into
the Chaos Point model. I am certainly not attempting to replace God with an
equivalent principle and a clever name.
In the Chaos Point Hypothesis, the default state is Chaos, which is singular
in nature. The word 'NOTHING' as I have used it in my previous post is not
the default state and never has and will never be the default state.
However, the logic behind the deafault state (i.e. Chaos) is that NOTHING
cannot be (only Chaos can be). this is actually what I think.
I do not like using the word singularity in my theory. That is why I have
called it the Chaos Point Hypothesis, as the word singularity is a well
established scientific term that does not satisfy my own description of what
it represents. However, I have used it and attempted to alter it's
properties to fit with my vision so that people have a starting point.
I am not sure that I understand the four dimensional nature of chaos that
you refer to.
You did not seem to grasp the idea of the probability of the chaos point
being within an enclosed region of space. You said:::PROBABILITY of what?
> How do you intend to apply probability for nothingness sans dimensions?
> Without space-time the probability is neither one nor zero because the
probability of the availability of probability is zero.
I don't think that you quite understood what I was getting at here and you
were still hung up on the nothingness thing. What I am saying is that each
sub atomic particle, photon, quantum of energy etc is in fact the Chaos
Point, or at least one possible interpretation of it. I see the Chaos point
as being singular in nature (The default state is chaos and it is singular).
Now, we perceive that the Universe is composed of a very large number of
particles etc so I am suggesting that the Universe exists as it does because
the Chaos Point spreads itself probabilistically throughout spacetime. I am
also suggesting that it is the probabilistic propegation of the Chaos point
that we perceive as spacetime. I have correlated the probability of the
Chaos Point taking on the interpretation of a quantum of energy with mass,
(including the equivalent mass of the other forms of energy etc) Thus, if
we define the region of space under consideration as the whole universe and
assume that the Chaos Point is definatley within the universe then the
probability of the chaos point being within the region is one. In the same
way if we now take a smaller region (eg spherical region around a massive
object) we can use our previous correlation to mass in the same way. Thus
the probability of the Chaos Point existing as one of the quanta of energy
with the region at an instant in time is given by:
P= m/M
You are correct I used the word differential incorrectly. (I always do
that!!!) I did mean difference.
Anyway, thanks for your input. I know that using clear english is important
when describing scientific ideas. I do tend to use many analogies and
comparisons to try to get the ideas across, which can lead to some
confusion. However, It is also important not to get too hung up on the
words (at this stage at least). The artist that concentrates too much o the
brush strokes does not see the whole picture. If I do ever get into a
posiyion where I have enough evidence to publish any of this I will ensure
that it is peer reviewed many times first.
Cheers
Al
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9embnp$57j$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
RC
gravity jones <grav...@webtv.net> writes
>it does not matter. one makes the assumption of reality or one makes the
>assumption against reality and if one cant really tell , one takes
>torizine.
There are no assumptions to be made about Reality. It is definite
because it is everything and anything. Reality allowed a Universe to
come into Existence; it allows us to think about the Universe.
>there are consequences of assuming that there is no reality. experiment
>and see. one simple experiment is to jump off a bridge.
>reality can be proven using mathmatics: 1-1=0
>
>4=2+2 you might not like it but its not just intuitive nor is it
>subject to variation. one does not assume that a single obejct is more
>than one object or less than one object, start with a marble and then
>find a second marble...the experiment is to count them and if you dont
>believe reality you could swallow them....and let your alimentry canal
>count them.
All the things above are part of Reality, but what we must concern
ourselves with is: why was a Universe brought into Existence? Why and
how was Physical Existence produced?
--
The Existence
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
RC
<rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
>I very much enjoyed reading the below. :-) I find it serendipitous that the
>discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
>attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
>boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
>everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence?
I don't think we could ever know what the mandate of non-existence is.
> Following from
>that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
Yes.
[...]
--
The Nothingness
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
RC
<alun.wi...@btinternet.com> writes
>I have a theory that may explain answer some of your questions
>
>Basically, the theory puts forward some ideas that suggests that all the
>matter and energy was created by the singularity. The hypothesis, defines
>the singularity as being nothing, but that nothing and chaos are
>indistinguishable. We use the word NOTHING in many different contexts, (eg
>we often use it to explain the absence of something.. . .. .'There
>is nothing in the box') However, there may be both, air and space and light
>in the box. In my theory (called the chaos point hypothesis) I use the word
>nothing to mean exactly that NOTHING. No space, no time, no energy, not
>even the fundamental laws of physics that we know and love. Without any
>rules, causality breaks down, and all things must happen. This
>is because there is nothing to prevent them from happening. So, the
>creation of energy (which is just one possibility) is unavoidable.
My own thoughts concern phases or states of physical Existence which
came before the inflation of our Universe. Things we may have no way of
understanding - the original state or phase of the Universe may be very
different to anything we could think of. Originally there were no
particles and there was no matter too at the very beginning of the
Universe. So, who knows what sort of physical Existence mechanism leads
to the production of huge quantities of particles?
[...]
--
The Particles
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Alun Williams
understanding of what chaos is, and where it came from and what
nothing/infinity is etc, only differs very subtley.
EL has taken the text in my orignal post and he has broken it down into
logical grammatical english. The English that I used does not translate
exactly into the concept that I was putting forward. However, it does lay
down the idea using some common terms which I think helps to create the
initial picture.
R J, I believe you have interpreted my idea well, and are now commenting on
ELs response to his interpretation of the English. EL abviously breaks down
the words very logically (almost like a computer), which is not how I write.
What I was really trying to say when I said that Chaos and nothing are
indistinguishable, is that chaos is the default state and the logic for it
being so, is that nothing cannot exist. But if I had used the previous
sentence alone then it would not make sense to anyone. I have used the term
Chaos Point because I do not like the term singularity. The word
singularity is well established and differs greatly from what I am trying to
explain. However, it is useful as a starting point as we can then modify
it's properties to reflect the Chaos Point. The term Chaos Point was
something I pulled out of the air for the following reasons. The default
state is chaos, which is not something that is easy to describe. Within
Chaos all concepts become meaningless, inclusing time, and spacial
diemensions hence Chaos POINT (EL might not agree with me here). If I were
you I would not get too hung up on the terms at this stage.
Our universe and all the energy within it is a part of the infinite (Chaos
Point). That which is beyond our Universe plus our Universe is equal to
infinity. Again this has to be true, else there would be more than
infinity. Ok I hope this is becoming more clear. The model I am
constructing begins with the 'CREATION' of a particle. NB we could argue
that the energy which constitues this particle already existed at the Chaos
Point and is simply taking on the form of a particle/quantum of energy. (EL
please note that I just like using the word 'create') The appearance of
this quantum of energy is the initial event (NB not the initial event of all
events, but the intitial event that defines our universe). Associated with
this quantum of energy is the laws that governs it's existence and structure
etc etc. Thus all subsequent events associated with the first quantum of
energy must conform to the laws embedded within it. Then the original
particle dacays into other particles, because it can be represented in more
than just one single way (as described in my first post on this subject).
Thus the Universe as we know it is formed. Now in my hypothesis our
universe is finite, but forms a part of the infinite. Thus it has a finite
mass, energy, size etc etc and conrforms to logical rules. i.e Order out of
chaos.
I will not repeat the whole of my original post here, but you should be able
to get a handle on the rest. i.e that each component part of our universe
is simply one possible interpretation of the Chaos Point based on the logic
of the original quantum of energy, and that the Chaos Point could only do
this if it spreads itself probabilistially throughtout spacetime. Thus the
propagation of the Chaos Point (chaos Point field) is what we perceive as
spactime itself. Therefore we can never know exactly where the Chaos Point
is at any instant, but can correlate it's location probabilistically in
terms of mass or energy.
Lets consider the next step:
In my previous post I developed some simple equations for the rate at which
the Chaos Point Propagates:
Ri = k.m/M ....1
Ro = k .............2
(look up previous post for explanation)
Combining equations 1 & 2 we get:
Ri = Ro.m/M .....3
Let Qi = Chaos Point Flux, i.e the rate at which the chaos Point propagates
into any enclosed region of space per unit area of surface of the boundary.
Thus:
Qi = Ro.m/M.A.....4 Where A is the surface area of the enclosed region of
space being considered.
In equation 4, Ro is the rate at which the Chaos point propagates away from
the enclosed region of space such that it can sustain the existence of all
the component parts of the universe (including every single photon).
Therefore, the rate at which the Chaos Point will need to propagate will
depend on the spacial characteristics and distribution of the components
throughout the Universe. So, if the Universe is not static and is in fact
expanding, then the rate at which the Chaos Point propagates away from any
enclosed region can be expressed as the rate of change of volumetric
expansion of the universe.
Ro = C.dA/dT +C.dA/dTIt=o ......5
where dA/dT is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary,
dA/dTIt=o is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary at
T=0, C is the speed of light and T is the age of the universe in seconds.
Now if the surface of the expanding boundary moves at speed C, then at time
T (seconds), the surface area is given by:
A = 4pi(CT)^2 + constant which represents the surface area around the
original quantum of energy at T=0
Therefore dA/dT = 8pi.C^2.T....5
Therefore we can write Ro =8pi.C^3T + k'...7
Where k' is the initial rate of expansion of the universe at time T=0, (i.e.
k' = C.dA/dTIt=o) Note: for large values of T, k' will only be a very small
fraction of Ro as k' will be dependant on the initial surface area of the
universal boundary which is likely to be very small indeed.
We can now substitute Ro back into Eqn 3 & 4
Ri = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/M ...8 or Qi = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/A.M ...9
we can substitute the factor A = 4pi.R^2 into equation 9
Where R is the fixed radius of the enclosed region being considered.
Therefore we have:
Qi = (8pi.C^3T +k'). m....10
4pi.M R^2
For large values of T, k' will be insignificant, therefore we can write:
Qi = (2.C^3T ) m....11 when T is large and m<<M
M R^2
At this stage it would be useful to compare equation 11 with Newton's
equation for the intensity of a gravitational field:
Ep = G. m ...12
R^2
We can see that both equations 11 & 12 are very similar. Now if the Chaos
point flux is characteristic of the Intensity of the gravitational field
then we can see by comparison that the Universal Gravitational Constant G,
is represented in equation 11 by :
G = 2.C^3.T/M ....13
We can do a quick and very rough check of equation 13 as follows:
If you re-arrange Eqn 13 and solve for M (total mass of Universe) assuming
that the Universe is approx 15 billion years old we get:
M= 3.82 x 10^53 Kg
Lets assume that astronomical data is fairly accurate and that there are
approx 100 billion starts in a galaxy, and that there are at least/approx
125 billion gallaxies, and lets take the mass of our sun to be fairly
typical. ie. 2 x 10^30Kg
Then we get 100 x 10^9. X 125 x 10^9 X 2 x 10^30 = 2.5 x 10^52 Kg
I hope this all makes sense!!!!! please forgive any poor use of english.
Al
R J Englund
| "R J Englund"
| <rjen...@hotmail.com>
| wrote in message
| news:3b0f6...@newsa.ev1.net...
|
| [RJ]
| Your phobia is showing again, my dearest EL.
| [EL]
| Phobia does not coexist with logical proof.
Indeed it does not exist with logic.
| [EL]
| I demand an apology for overlooking the reasoning process I held quite
strongly. :)
[RJ]
Demand as you wish, I did not overlook. :-)
| [RJ]
| There is no God-spider crawling in your hair,
| [EL]
| It was not crawling in MY hair, it was crawling in HIS post. ;-)
[RJ]
One sees that for which one is looking. ;-)
| [RJ]
| so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
| [EL]
| What makes you think I am freaking?
| Do I sound like someone who is freaking?
| Do you have any quotable proof?
[RJ]
Yes.
| [EL]
| Let me guess, Ah! You are still bitter for my suspicions of YOUR AGENDA.
:):):)
[RJ]
Bitter? :-) :-) :-) Quite the contrary, your blatant phobia has sparked my
maternal instincts. :-)
| [RJ]
| Another interpretation of his thesis might be that nothing ever left the
| "singularity", and its internal seething is what has built reality. :-)
| Very simple math says 0 beginning states within reality that have nothing
| other than 0 with which to work may only include --
| 0 + 0 = 0
| 0 - 0 = 0
| 0 x 0 = 0
| 0 / 0 = 0
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):)
[RJ]
He might think I overlooked his premise that the beginning state would be one
that could not occur in reality once reality had been manifested; however that
is the reason I qualified my statements with the words "within reality". :-)
| [RJ]
| Therefore these are impossible 0 beginning states within reality since they
| must assume the coexistence of 1 in order to utilize it --
| 0 + 1 = 1
| 1 + 0 = 1
| 0 - 1 = -1
| 1 - 0 = 1
| 0 x 1 = 0
| 1 x 0 = 0
| 0 / 1 = 0
| 1 / 0 = infinity (the screaming e divide by 0 error)
| It seems that Mr. Williams is using 1 / 0 = infinity as the main thrust of
| his thesis.
| [EL]
| So you do think that his foundation is based on an error??!!!!
[RJ]
No, I think I am not qualified to stand in judgment. :-) The above was merely
an introduction for my statements that followed, and a product of the reasoning
found in his theory that the beginning "impossible" condition could not
logically be reproduced once our reality formed. One of the impossibles I
mentioned above might be representative of his theorized beginning state.
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would really like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):):):)
[RJ]
It was more a puzzlement than a comment.
| [RJ]
| However, numerically 0 can be classed as a set equaling all of
| the infinite numbers, both negative and positive. Continuing from that,
| could nothing contain all negative energy and all positive energy in such a
| way that nothing is not nothing but is, instead, a balance or state of
| stasis with the potential to produce everything?
| Sigh. There we are at the dreaded and damned singularity again. Stasis
| cannot be overcome or Hawking would have done it. [Please refrain from
| yelling "Fuck Hawking!"
| [EL]
| FUCK HAWKING AND PENROSE. :):)
[RJ]
And I asked so nicely. <sigh> :-)
| [RJ]
| I know where you stand.] Unless infinity was
| infinitesimally flawed, such as in infinity - 1, which strips infinity of
| its completeness and therefore never allows for an exact balance.
| "Infinity - 1". Is it a viable concept?
| [EL]
| Yes.
| [RJ]
| It seem ludicrous.
| [EL]
| Not to me.
[RJ]
:-)
| [RJ]
| What difference to infinity would -1 make?
| [EL]
| Minus one is the difference.
| You are not comparing two infinities here.
| You are comparing an infinity with itself, before and after subtraction.
| Thus it is the evolution of the infinite in an event of unit subtraction.
| It is even acceptable to subtract an infinite number of infinities from one
infinity.
[RJ]
Resulting in mathematical gobbledygook.
| [RJ]
| But I keep thinking of the one black
| ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
| of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
| nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
| white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
| ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
| [EL]
| Since when was stasis anything but the elusion of force equilibrium?
[RJ]
Illusion? Illusion. You have made a statement that you are not able to prove.
| [EL]
| Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic background
oscillatory nature.
[RJ]
Your use of the word "primordial" _especially_ when tying it to "truth" just
cost you two points. :-) And how, my dearest EL, can this "chaotic dynamic
background" exist to oscillate? What conditions allow its existence?
| [EL]
| Stasis is an imaginary boundary averaged between the limits of a binary state.
[RJ]
Stasis is not merely a state defined by numbers, should entropy have its way
stasis would be the ending state of the universe. Equilibrium is the drive of
entropy.
| [RJ]
| Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
| extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
| white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
| One of the statements the Ouroboros makes is that all and nothing create
| each other and destroy each other. It is an ancient Egyptian symbol which
| is said to have led to the Yin-Yang. Quite an assertion, if true. Egyptian
| usage of the Ouroboros appears to predate all its subsequent uses by other
| civilizations, so you are probably aware of its meanings.
| [EL]
| Not the curvature of density, but the curvature of spatial relativistic
relations.
[RJ]
With that you are saying "all is nothing and nothing is all". Of what are these
spatial relativistic relations comprised? At some point aether must be defined.
| [EL]
| If you begin by assuming "homogeneity" then all your spheres should be of
equal diameters.
[RJ]
Assume an imaginary binary state? As you wish. :-)
| [EL]
| Painting one in black does not affect the cause of homogeneity, but serves us
to identify and distinguish it.
[RJ]
Black is the color of difference, which is unable to allow homogeneity. If it
is not different but the same, then it is white not black.
| [EL]
| In practice you shall find that one sphere can touch a maximum of twelve
spheres and not one more at the condition that they are all of the same
diameter.
[RJ]
That was an interesting point I found easy to grasp from that section of your
website -- there were very few otherwise. :-)
| [EL]
| By escalating the complexity of relations relative to the black ball, you get
an expanding curved plane referenced by the black ball as a center of .......
whatever.
[RJ]
Black, white, whatever, it is merely a beginning point for something that has no
beginning and the center of something that has no center.
| [RJ]
| In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
| beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
| remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
| existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
| gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
| construction.
| [EL]
| If both of you care to use the word chaos properly, you shall save me a
headache.
| It is absolutely contradictory logic to pin-point a point in chaos before
order emerges from chaos.
[RJ]
His usage appears correct, EL, if you consider that it can be anywhere in a
chaotic fashion, a point existing chaotically which leaves order in its wake.
:-)
| [EL]
| So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it
and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic point" it just makes no
sense.
[RJ]
It seemed that the word "chaotic" described its location.
| [EL]
| What Alun must have had in mind was the "Zero Point Field", which is in fact
an ordered field in chaos.
[RJ]
The black ball within the white?
| [EL]
| It is called Zero because it stands between opposite entities that annihilate
each other by equilibrium. Thus measuring a Zero quantity at any point within a
field, does not mean that it is nothing but could very well be the equilibrium
of two opposing great forces. If such a force is anywhere between nothingness
and absolute infinity, then that is what Alun meant by the emergence of any
indeterminate amount of energy between Zero and One.
[RJ]
Are you restating what he wrote or rewriting what he wrote? :-)
|
| | [EL]
| | So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to
| | twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into
| | one nice cake. :):)
| [RJ]
| And his presentation was indeed masterful. :-)
| [EL]
| Indeed, Alun is the same person we know as Hermital.
[RJ]
Yes! The author of "Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm"! I
understand the elegance of this latest theory now.
| [EL]
| He is a very able man with great insight.
[RJ]
Indeed he is!
| [EL]
| Yet I still reserve my right to disagree with him if I find it necessary. :)
[RJ]
Is there anyone with whom you do not reserve the right to disagree? :-)
| [RJ]
| Perhaps you could make the discussion more dialectic?
| *****************************************************************************
| One rule being --
| every time God by any appellation or inference is mentioned you lose two
points.
| :-) :-) :-)
| *****************************************************************************
| [EL]
| You just lost two points, because we can apply the rule immediately after
accepting it.
| You certainly never meant that I am the only one who abides by YOUR rule!
| You must have accepted this rule before you write it down or you would not
have written it. ;-)
[RJ]
As you certainly know, during the setting-up process the rules cannot be said to
be in effect since during that interim they are mutable. :-)
| [EL]
| Now that I have affirmed that you lost two points I must have accepted that
rule too. <g>
[RJ]
If you agree to abide by that rule I agree to take your silly hits. :-)
|
| | [EL]
| | So, you imagine all those inherited beliefs on the
| | characteristics of the divine creator then call it a singularity
| | and make it one but infinite and at no place but everywhere,
| | satisfying the chaotic fundamental demands and jumping
| | into particles world by quantifying a point and returning to
| | god by assuming the creation of energy from nothingness.
| | NO.
| | I do not like it.
| |
| | Sorry.
| [RJ]
| You see God under every comma and within every ellipsis,
| [EL]
| This is not true and you lose four points up to this.
[RJ]
Prove it is not true. :-)
| [RJ]
| just waiting there to jump out and do what, EL?
| [EL]
| What is it that shall jump out and do?
| I am not expecting anything that jumps, but if you mean that hops then yes
smart1234 does it all the time. :):):)
[RJ]
The predilection you and many others have on this group for the inane harassment
of S. is childish, no matter if he leaves himself wide open for your attacks or
not.
| [RJ]
| Deprive you of your cognitive abilities?
| [EL]
| Who? Alzheimer?
| [RJ]
| Cause you to ruin the knees of your favourite suit?
| [EL]
| I usually take off my trousers before doing anything that ruins the knees of
my favourite suit. :)
| I might keep the Jacket though, quite a view. :):):)
[RJ]
The mental image is of the classic absent-minded professor. :-)
| [RJ]
| For someone so abhorrent of the concept of God
| [EL]
| There, your points are dwindling by the bucket. :):):)
| [RJ]
| you certainly seem to have God
| [EL]
| Two buckets more. :):)
| [RJ]
| foremost in your mind.
| Your ability to notice God
| [EL]
| Here comes two more.
| You can confidently dive in the pool now after all those points and buckets.
<g>
| [RJ]
| everywhere in everything is a trait
| those who attest to a strong faith in God
| [EL]
| Ok, I must open the drain or we are going to have a small flood here. :)
[RJ]
One flooding phobia complete with trimmings coming up! :-)
R J Englund
"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IzVsUiAi...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
| In article <3b0cc...@newsa.ev1.net>, R J Englund
| <rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
| >I very much enjoyed reading the below. :-) I find it serendipitous that the
| >discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
| >attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
| >boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
| >everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence?
|
| I don't think we could ever know what the mandate of non-existence is.
I agree. Especially in the light of the existence of the mandate. :-)
But existence, in contemplating nonexistence, may come away better able to
define itself. It is most common for a thing to be clarified through the
examination of its opposite, and existence has only one logical opposite.
Therefore, what are the opposite qualities of the differing parts of existence,
and are any of them found within existence? Must we examine the impossible,
perhaps precluding the inclusion of the improbable? Following that scenario,
the search for our opposite has been a major pastime of humanity in the form of
fantasy for ages. :-)
| > Following from
| >that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
|
| Yes.
Then the "mandate" of nonexistence would be continued nonexistence. :-) If the
mandate of nonexistence were existence, "nonexistence" would be a misnomer,
since it could only be considered to be another form of existence -- albeit an
unknowable form -- qualified with "most probably". Existence, very simply, is
the presence of _something_. If there existed only potential alone, the fact
that anything of whatever type _existed_ must be considered to be a form of
existence.
| [...]
| --
| The Nothingness
| http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
I have visited and enjoyed your site in the past, and it remains a
thought-provoking read. :-)
| RC
RJ
EL
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9eo691$5ip$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
Hi EL,
[EL] Hi Alun. :)
[AW]
Thanks for your feedback. It was very constructive. You are correct about
my use of words. Much of it was very deliberate as I am attempting to
describe some new ideas and needed a common basis to start from. I decided
to use terms and concepts that people already understood, and then
manipulated them in an attempt to lead them into my own vision. As you
pointed out I was not 100% successful, although I do think that most of the
people got the general idea. If I had just jumped in with new terms and
ideas i doubt many people would have been able to make the connection.
(e.g. If you try to explain to a person how to produce a painting it is far
easier if they already understand what canvas, paint and brushes are.)
[AW]
I can see now why you correlate some of my statements with God. Again, this
is because of the language that I have used in an effort to lead people into
the Chaos Point model. I am certainly not attempting to replace God with an
equivalent principle and a clever name.
[AW]
In the Chaos Point Hypothesis, the default state is Chaos, which is singular
in nature. The word 'NOTHING' as I have used it in my previous post is not
the default state and never has and will never be the default state.
However, the logic behind the deafault state (i.e. Chaos) is that NOTHING
cannot be (only Chaos can be). this is actually what I think.
order emerges as random patterns.
We do agree on the fact that stasis cannot be the default state because the lack of motion has a zero chance to create motion. We do
agree that "nothingness" is that of order, such that "ORDER" is the "THING", which is being negated. Chaos is not order, thus, and
by word replacement we can come to conclude that chaos is not "thing", hence we can say that chaos is nothing. This is mentally
generated from our way in which perception works. We evolved to recognise items of order bounded from the infinite pool of the
background. We express the space separating two items or elements of order to be empty from such any other element. Hence, we come
to call the elements of order as "things", while the space of separation as "no-thing".
Words on paper, under inspection, makes the letters in ink look like things, while white paper is the "nothing" state (with focus on
letters as being the "thing"). Yet certainly paper IS something when the focus is on the desk or the room in which the paper is
bounded and distinguished from the background. The same rule applies to chaotic fields when we try to dig deeper into the
composition of the elements of the chaotic field.
This is the true essence of infinity.
[AW]
I do not like using the word singularity in my theory. That is why I have
called it the Chaos Point Hypothesis, as the word singularity is a well
established scientific term that does not satisfy my own description of what
it represents. However, I have used it and attempted to alter it's
properties to fit with my vision so that people have a starting point.
I am not sure that I understand the four dimensional nature of chaos that
you refer to.
[EL]
This is a good chance to talk about the theory of chaos.
Firstly, I would like to introduce a relation.
A static topology of a randomly distributed class of elements is in fact a single frame or a snapshot of the dynamic state of chaos.
The Cartesian general formula of chaotic dimensionality is [(2+2N) D]
Where N is any integer and D is a single dimension.
This formula says that chaos must have a minimum of 4D (space-time) as the basic physical expression of the possibility of any
fundamental chaotic state.
You might wish to read some of the research of Robert Kiehn from Cartan's Corner on my Q-index page from my URL
http://hemetis.freeyellow.com/./index.html
Considering the infinity of a single dimension as Length, we can represent it by a circle.
For a line to "find" itself it must go through a second dimension forming a plane.
The middle of the plane in the symmetry of infinity is constructed by a line, which in turn is infinite and can find itself by going
through an orthogonal plane, but orthogonality, demands a third dimension yet for that plane to bisect the first plane at
symmetrical triangulation. This leads by logic to the Euclidean space. If the virtual element of space was represented by the sphere
constructed from the three orthogonal circles the diameters of which are infinite dimensions, then a populous of such element is
nowhere and everywhere. It is ALL and it is the element of ALL.
In topology this is known as self-embeddedness of a world. The relationship between the elements of such a space cannot come to be
with elements in isolation from each other. To quantify the relation we need to "move" our attention along the neighbourhood,
counting elements between the being-related elements. This movement of attention demands TIME to come to play. The state of an
absolute and infinite order is the state of no order. Such as state of space stasis cannot account for the fact that events can take
place. That is why the minimum chaotic event demands a minimum of 4D to exist at all.
[AW]
You did not seem to grasp the idea of the probability of the chaos point
being within an enclosed region of space. You said:::
"
> PROBABILITY of what?
> How do you intend to apply probability for nothingness sans dimensions?
> Without space-time the probability is neither one nor zero because the
> probability of the availability of probability is zero.
"
[AW]
I don't think that you quite understood what I was getting at here and you
were still hung up on the nothingness thing.
[EL]
On the contrary, it is because I quite understood what you were saying that I brought this up to show you that what you are saying
is not what you WANT to say.
Beginning from an infinite chaotic field is not the same as forwarding a magical singularity of nothingness in stasis that for no
obvious reason decides to explode into a big-bang else than hinting at a supernatural divinity making it happen.
[AW]
What I am saying is that each
sub atomic particle, photon, quantum of energy etc is in fact the Chaos
Point, or at least one possible interpretation of it. I see the Chaos point
as being singular in nature (The default state is chaos and it is singular).
Now, we perceive that the Universe is composed of a very large number of
particles etc so I am suggesting that the Universe exists as it does because
the Chaos Point spreads itself probabilistically throughout spacetime. I am
also suggesting that it is the probabilistic propegation of the Chaos point
that we perceive as spacetime. I have correlated the probability of the
Chaos Point taking on the interpretation of a quantum of energy with mass,
(including the equivalent mass of the other forms of energy etc) Thus, if
we define the region of space under consideration as the whole universe and
assume that the Chaos Point is definatley within the universe then the
probability of the chaos point being within the region is one. In the same
way if we now take a smaller region (eg spherical region around a massive
object) we can use our previous correlation to mass in the same way. Thus
the probability of the Chaos Point existing as one of the quanta of energy
with the region at an instant in time is given by:
P= m/M
[EL]
Alun, the whole point in the theory of chaos is that chaos has no points. :)
A point is best understood as the boundary of "touch".
You cannot touch unless you define what is touching what.
Once you define the entities, which touch each other you lose chaos and you find order.
That is precisely what I hate in QM when colleagues use the expression "point-like particle", yet as least they say point-like
particle and not point-particle.
Then you come saying "A point of chaos" when chaos has no definable points.
Perhaps you wish to investigate and consider "Chaotic field elements" or "Chaotic field class members". Such elements are dynamic by
default and colliding all the time, hence touching randomly and from there we can catch a point in any emerging order in a snapshot.
In his wonderful book "CHAOS THEORY TAMED", (1997) Garnett P. Williams (a geologist) wrote in chapter 15 on page 221, "Nonchaotic
attractors generally are points, cycles, or smooth surfaces (corresponding to static, periodic, and multifrequency systems,
respectively)."
As you can see from a one to one relation Garnett considers a point to correspond to stasis. Then on page 297 he describes the point
attractor as the simplest possible type of attractor "It has a dimension of zero-we do not need any variables to describe it".
By definition a point attractor does not cause any change to ever exist. The point does not have the geometrical qualifications for
any action to take place. That is why I plead you to reconsider your usage of such an expression as "Chaos point". Instantly, any
veteran on the theory of chaos will jump to conclude that you are in contradiction, since a point attractor is on the opposite end
of the "logical rod" from the chaotic attractor, and in fact they are the extremes. What does saying "Full freedom in prison" sound
to you? Or "The maximal dynamics of stasis", should that not sound a little bit funny? :):):)
[AW]
EL
Hi again Alun. :)
Taking your "Chaos Point" with a grain of salt, I see that your "main dish" is much more edible than the appetiser that I almost
perceived as a dish of salad. :):):):):):):)
You are absolutely correct on noticing that I "peer-reviewed you"
(coming down hard on your English),
and it is because I could see merit in your ideas that I devoted the time to highlight the problems you have expressing what you
really wish to say. In fact, there is great similarity between our mutual ideas on the very same subject. So please devote the time
to read my "Quantology" page (although it is far from a paper in a final formal form), but you shall be surprised at how many common
points between your ideas and my own. At least you shall find my logical derivation of negating the possibility of nothingness. The
singularity is completely out of question and my take on the usage of the word "creation" is only due to associating it with a
singularity of stasis (sound mostly like the sleeping Zeus). :):):) This should make it very clear that I have no objection what so
ever on using the word "creation" in any other context with well defined creator and being created entities. Such a usage is almost
identical to evolution when self-inflected or synthesis when multiple factors cooperate in harmony to the act of creation, which is
more of a one-on-one concept.
Finally I take that your axiomatic set includes a bounded infinite universe due to the attempt to trace the boundary of existence
through infinity. You also obviously follow the Hubble team in accepting the hypothesis that the universe is expanding. You also
obviously follow the Hawking hypothesis on the big-bang event and consequently "THE SINGULARITY" and the age of the universe. If you
consider Feynman's formalism and Einstein's war against the Hubble constant to the limit that he abandoned his own cosmological
constant declaring that even his own constant is nonsense, you should come to reconsider that the popularity of the
"singularity-big-bang-expansion-boundary-finite-universe-drool" was never the only answer to the physical reality but the least
probable one. :) I vote for an infinite chaotic background universe, within which anything can emerge anywhere at anytime and evolve
by order inducing order and stimulating cycles of order within chaos. <g> I point my thumb down for the singularity and the bang and
the expansion of "a finite-unbounded /infinite-bounded", Universe.
Sorry Alun, understanding what you say has nothing to do with my disagreement.
You apply excellent mechanics to describe an illusion. :)
So I do not have any objections on the correctness of the process, but rather the validity of the initial hypothetical set-up and
the conditions of the process and consequently the end-results.
Kindest regards.
EL
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9ep75p$86j$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Mark Cavin
[El]
I vote for an infinite chaotic background universe, within which anything
can emerge anywhere at anytime and evolve
by order inducing order and stimulating cycles of order within chaos.
[Mark]
Sorry for the stupid question but I am going to ask anyway.
If anything can emerge anywhere at anytime in an infinite unbound universe,
then why is the universe not infinitely radiant? I am assuming infinite
volume with equal potential for emergence in every part.
Respectfully,
Mark
EL
| [EL]
| I demand an apology for overlooking the reasoning
| process I held quite strongly. :)
[RJ]
Demand as you wish, I did not overlook. :-)
[EL_2]
Then you might want to consider that you have underlooked or sidelooked. :)
I do it ALL the time. <g> ;-) :):):)
You cannot pretend to be immune against getting biased,
in fact I might begin calling you R. J. Bias. <g> :):):):)
| [RJ]
| There is no God-spider crawling in your hair,
| [EL]
| It was not crawling in MY hair, it was crawling in HIS post. ;-)
[RJ]
One sees that for which one is looking. ;-)
[EL_2]
Or overlooking or underlooking. :)
Now, boxing you in the EYE does not need from you to look at all to feel the pain.
Thus, I need not look to know that I have pain in the ass right NOW. <g> :):):):):):)
| [RJ]
| so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
| [EL]
| What makes you think I am freaking?
| Do I sound like someone who is freaking?
| Do you have any quotable proof?
[RJ]
Yes.
[EL_2]
Oh! NO! You really did not need to publish ALL THOSE THREE "Books" quoting me. :)
A Y, an eeh and an es, Oh mY...what am I gona do, where can I hide, such overwhelming evidence. :):):)
| [EL]
| Let me guess, Ah! You are still bitter for my suspicions of YOUR AGENDA.
:):):)
[RJ]
Bitter? :-) :-) :-)
Quite the contrary,
your blatant phobia has sparked my maternal instincts. :-)
[EL_2]
Providing bitter milk that is. <g>
I hope it is full of antibiotics or something. :):):)
How about bitter Campari? :):)
<snip>
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):)
[RJ]
He might think I overlooked
[EL_2]
Ahah! So you do OVERLOOK occasionally. ;-) :):):):):)ROTFLMAO
[RJ]
his premise that the beginning state would be one
that could not occur in reality once reality had been manifested; however that
is the reason I qualified my statements with the words "within reality". :-)
[EL_2]
Very cautious! How clever! Simply you cannot be wrong.
<snip>
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would really like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):):):)
[RJ]
It was more a puzzlement than a comment.
[EL_2]
Yes, I could see your bewilderment. :):):)
Now follow the road back home and don't get lost, ok? ;-)
| [RJ]
| However, numerically 0 can be classed as a set equaling all of
| the infinite numbers, both negative and positive. Continuing from that,
| could nothing contain all negative energy and all positive energy in such a
| way that nothing is not nothing but is, instead, a balance or state of
| stasis with the potential to produce everything?
| Sigh. There we are at the dreaded and damned singularity again. Stasis
| cannot be overcome or Hawking would have done it. [Please refrain from
| yelling "Fuck Hawking!"
| [EL]
| FUCK HAWKING AND PENROSE. :):)
[RJ]
And I asked so nicely. <sigh> :-)
[EL_2]
But I did what you asked so nicely and refrained from yelling "fuck Hawking" only. :):)
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
| [RJ]
| What difference to infinity would -1 make?
| [EL]
| Minus one is the difference.
| You are not comparing two infinities here.
| You are comparing an infinity with itself, before and after subtraction.
| Thus it is the evolution of the infinite in an event of unit subtraction.
| It is even acceptable to subtract an infinite number of infinities from one
infinity.
[RJ]
Resulting in mathematical gobbledygook.
[EL_2]
No, it is not difficult to grasp it at all.
If length is in itself infinite by default then you can imagine that there is an infinite number of meters within infinity length.
Each meter has an infinite number of points. Thus, the arbitrated meter stands as a boundary of infinities within (division), within
the outer infinity of meters (multiplication). This is in one dimension that is. Thus by applying this universally, we get an
infinite number of dimensions each is divisible and multipliable.
| [RJ]
| But I keep thinking of the one black
| ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
| of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
| nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
| white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
| ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
| [EL]
| Since when was stasis anything but the elusion of force equilibrium?
[RJ]
Illusion? Illusion. You have made a statement that you are not able to prove.
[EL_2]
What does my ability have to do with what is proven and in books already.
Heck.:) Try even to define a stand alone state of static and you shall understand that you cannot do that without relating it to
another state and an observer, then you shall find out that stasis is the observer's averaging of the binary state.
| [EL]
| Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic background
oscillatory nature.
[RJ]
Your use of the word "primordial" _especially_ when tying it to "truth" just
cost you two points. :-) And how, my dearest EL, can this "chaotic dynamic
background" exist to oscillate? What conditions allow its existence?
[EL_2]
In the particular case of ME answering YOU, I demand a definition of existance, allowance, conditions and the question particle
"what". I expect you to play on each and every word available to obscure an answer when you have that challenging tone that you copy
right out from that damn "agenda". <g> :):):) I might even ask for a definition of "its" as a possesion related word and to what
does "its" refer to?
| [EL]
| Stasis is an imaginary boundary averaged between the limits of a binary state.
[RJ]
Stasis is not merely a state defined by numbers, should entropy have its way
stasis would be the ending state of the universe. Equilibrium is the drive of
entropy.
[EL_2]
Says who? R. J. Englund?
Even if you were the Queen of England, you need to do better than that. :):):)
| [RJ]
| Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
| extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
| white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
| One of the statements the Ouroboros makes is that all and nothing create
| each other and destroy each other. It is an ancient Egyptian symbol which
| is said to have led to the Yin-Yang. Quite an assertion, if true. Egyptian
| usage of the Ouroboros appears to predate all its subsequent uses by other
| civilizations, so you are probably aware of its meanings.
| [EL]
| Not the curvature of density, but the curvature of spatial relativistic
relations.
[RJ]
With that you are saying "all is nothing and nothing is all". Of what are these
spatial relativistic relations comprised? At some point aether must be defined.
[EL_2]
Yes, it is defined as the dynamic background chaos.
You cannot look for a simple answer to a complex issue.
| [EL]
| If you begin by assuming "homogeneity" then all your spheres should be of
equal diameters.
[RJ]
Assume an imaginary binary state? As you wish. :-)
[EL_2]
A realistic one OBVIOUSLY. :):):)
| [EL]
| Painting one in black does not affect the cause of homogeneity, but serves us
to identify and distinguish it.
[RJ]
Black is the color of difference, which is unable to allow homogeneity. If it
is not different but the same, then it is white not black.
[EL_2]
No, you are mixing the criterion of the field homogeneity existentially with an observational optical assumption that facilitates a
logical analysis. The issue was never the homogeneity of colour but that of the field of existing spheres.
| [EL]
| In practice you shall find that one sphere can touch a maximum of twelve
spheres and not one more at the condition that they are all of the same
diameter.
[RJ]
That was an interesting point I found easy to grasp from that section of your
website -- there were very few otherwise. :-)
| [EL]
| By escalating the complexity of relations relative to the black ball, you get
an expanding curved plane referenced by the black ball as a center of .......
whatever.
[RJ]
Black, white, whatever, it is merely a beginning point for something that has no
beginning and the center of something that has no center.
[EL_2]
You got that perfectly right. :):)
| [RJ]
| In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
| beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
| remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
| existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
| gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
| construction.
| [EL]
| If both of you care to use the word chaos properly, you shall save me a
headache.
| It is absolutely contradictory logic to pin-point a point in chaos before
order emerges from chaos.
[RJ]
His usage appears correct, EL, if you consider that it can be anywhere in a
chaotic fashion, a point existing chaotically which leaves order in its wake.
:-)
[EL_2]
That drivel is far from your level of intelligence, which I am sure of.
Do not be tempted by juggling words around for sake of an amusing debate. :):)
For any point to exist chaotically it enters order not leaves it.
So unsaddle that huge horse you are riding, I have a very nice pony for you. :):):)
| [EL]
| So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it
and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic point" it just makes no
sense.
[RJ]
It seemed that the word "chaotic" described its location.
[EL_2]
That drivel is far from your level of intelligence, which I am sure of.
Do not be tempted by juggling words around for sake of an amusing debate. :):)
In fact, the state of chaos is such a dynamic state in which it is impossible to pin any location of any thing, not to mention that
the emergence of order in an unstoppable dynamic fabric is by following an path or an orbit in which many elements of the field
participate to enforce time endurance for such an order to continue to exist.
So unsaddle that huge horse you are riding, I have a very nice pony for you. :):):)
| [EL]
| What Alun must have had in mind was the "Zero Point Field", which is in fact
an ordered field in chaos.
[RJ]
The black ball within the white?
[EL_2]
No, this has nothing to do with coloured balls. :)
The zero point is the imaginary point at which fields are at equilibrium.
Thus, such a "Zero" can be (1-1) or (58765489-58765489) and it is still zero.
But if we consider the imaginary pressure at any zero point inside huge masses, we realize that great forces can be "sleeping" at
what seems to be "nothing". Now the Zero Force Point is saying that there is no "resultant" tensor pointing at any direction to
promote the potential of motion (stasis), yet the true states of equilibrium is in fact oscillatory about the zero point such that
the deviation over time is infinitesimal. If that was not the case then there is no place for events to take place through an
evolutionary process in which the trivial infinitesimals can accumulate to a significant level.
| [EL]
| It is called Zero because it stands between opposite entities that annihilate
each other by equilibrium. Thus measuring a Zero quantity at any point within a
field, does not mean that it is nothing but could very well be the equilibrium
of two opposing great forces. If such a force is anywhere between nothingness
and absolute infinity, then that is what Alun meant by the emergence of any
indeterminate amount of energy between Zero and One.
[RJ]
Are you restating what he wrote or rewriting what he wrote? :-)
[EL_2]
If you fail to detect the difference between what was said and what is being said then you shall also fail to detect the similarity,
which I claimed to have found in Alun's writing and my own.
|
| | [EL]
| | So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to
| | twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into
| | one nice cake. :):)
| [RJ]
| And his presentation was indeed masterful. :-)
| [EL]
| Indeed, Alun is the same person we know as Hermital.
[RJ]
Yes! The author of "Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm"! I
understand the elegance of this latest theory now.
| [EL]
| He is a very able man with great insight.
[RJ]
Indeed he is!
| [EL]
| Yet I still reserve my right to disagree with him if I find it necessary. :)
[RJ]
Is there anyone with whom you do not reserve the right to disagree? :-)
[EL_2]
Yes, certainly, there is such one person with whom I can drop my rights instantly. :):):):):)
| [RJ]
| Deprive you of your cognitive abilities?
| [EL]
| Who? Alzheimer?
| [RJ]
| Cause you to ruin the knees of your favourite suit?
| [EL]
| I usually take off my trousers before doing anything that ruins the knees of
my favourite suit. :)
| I might keep the Jacket though, quite a view. :):):)
[RJ]
The mental image is of the classic absent-minded professor. :-)
[EL_2]
Exactly. :):)
EheheheL
EL
"Mark Cavin" <Mca...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:tr_P6.21504$we.43...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9epq3s$s44$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
[EL_1]
I vote for an infinite chaotic background universe, within which anything
can emerge anywhere at anytime and evolve
by order inducing order and stimulating cycles of order within chaos.
[Mark]
Sorry for the stupid question but I am going to ask anyway.
If anything can emerge anywhere at anytime in an infinite unbound universe,
then why is the universe not infinitely radiant? I am assuming infinite
volume with equal potential for emergence in every part.
Respectfully,
Mark
[EL_2]
Never forget the primordial rules of nature in which nature is bound.
Anything anywhere can emerge as "order" in chaos yet "APROPRIATELY".
Never think that an elephant shall pop out of an atom while an elephant needs billions of them to be.
Order stimulates the chaotic medium in which it endures and in communicating with the closest order it orders the chaotic space in
between. That is how order escalates and demonstrates the phenomena we know to exist in nature. Radiance however is the restricted
class of a phenomena related to whatever radiance is and hence must abide by the rules of that class. Whether the universe is
infinitely radiant or not depends on what we mean by what we say. It is infinitely "wave radiant indeed" but which class of waves
are we talking about? No, radiation waves are not restricted to photons only.
Kindest regards.
EL
Mark Cavin
Speaking of visible light. What prevents me from discovering a star
along any line, if there is infinite depth for a star to be?
Do the waves the stars make fade away?
Next EL
Good Night :-)
Mark
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9eq3in$5ao$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
RC
<rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:IzVsUiAi...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
>| In article <3b0cc...@newsa.ev1.net>, R J Englund
>| <rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
>| >I very much enjoyed reading the below. :-) I find it serendipitous that the
>| >discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
>| >attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
>| >boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
>| >everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence?
>|
>| I don't think we could ever know what the mandate of non-existence is.
>
>I agree. Especially in the light of the existence of the mandate. :-)
>
>But existence, in contemplating nonexistence, may come away better able to
>define itself.
It certainly helps - I prefer to think of it as Nothingness rather than
non-existence. (My next comment explains why.)
> It is most common for a thing to be clarified through the
>examination of its opposite, and existence has only one logical opposite.
Thinking about these "things" is a tricky business. Existence, which is
the Universe as caused by the Hot Big Bang, does not have an opposite.
Neither does Nothingness, which can be described as an "entity" which is
so barren it doesn't even have nothing. Nothingness has no information
to give out and it also has no links with anything else, even itself. Is
this what is "not in our Universe"?
>Therefore, what are the opposite qualities of the differing parts of existence,
>and are any of them found within existence?
From my point of view there are no opposites, but there are variations
on a theme.
> Must we examine the impossible,
>perhaps precluding the inclusion of the improbable?
I am examining things which are impossible to prove in any way, but I
would never attempt to examine impossible things.
> Following that scenario,
>the search for our opposite has been a major pastime of humanity in the form of
>fantasy for ages. :-)
That could be true, but again, from my point of view, I don't think that
opposites exist when one considers the actual *physical* Existence of a
Universe and the thing which we call Nothingness.
>| > Following from
>| >that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
>|
>| Yes.
>
>Then the "mandate" of nonexistence would be continued nonexistence. :-)
Ah, as I wrote before, this is a tricky business. :) Non-existence
(Nothingness) has no information to pass on and no connections with
anything else, so there is no mandate.... no nothing.... no anything.
> If the
>mandate of nonexistence were existence, "nonexistence" would be a misnomer,
>since it could only be considered to be another form of existence -- albeit an
>unknowable form -- qualified with "most probably". Existence, very simply, is
>the presence of _something_. If there existed only potential alone, the fact
>that anything of whatever type _existed_ must be considered to be a form of
>existence.
Ummm, yes, you've caught me here. Could the "thing" which I call
Nothingness actually be impossible? Could there only be a Nothingness
(non-existence) which *has* to possess the potential for producing
things like Universes or other examples of Existence (which we have no
idea about)?
>| [...]
>| --
>| The Nothingness
>| http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
>
>I have visited and enjoyed your site in the past, and it remains a
>thought-provoking read. :-)
Thanks. :) It is still very much a rough draft, content-wise. I hope to
develop the content further in the future.
--
The Quarks
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
EL
Speaking of visible light.
What prevents me
from discovering a star along any line,
if there is infinite depth for a star to be?
Do the waves the stars make fade away?
Dear Mark C.
Seeing stars is ruled by optics, biological anatomy and psychology.
That is why, many things can prevent you from perception.
A small cloud by night can do all the job. :)
Assuming all the assumptions that you should have but did not assume,
it would be a matter of thresholds and interferences.
Day light of a single star, our sun, illuminates the atmosphere.
The gas molecules absorb and radiate light, washing any nightly scenery.
The light waves emitted by any star undergoes clipping,
polarisation and bending, and the distance plays a big role as to what the area of the receptor can receive, then sensitivity and
threshold would take it from there.
Yet because I am good at reading minds, I am aware that all this does not answer your question. :)
In fact, if our eyes and instruments were not so limited, nothing can prevent us from finding a star in any direction, given that
the distance is not such a burden that prohibits light from arriving from source to destination. Thus, the time at which the star
was gravitationally created from the cosmic gas, the speed of light and the distance would tell if the emitted light have reached
the observer or not. You see, it is not a simple thing when it comes to handling "Infinity". Given the speed of light, what we do
see in the sky at any clear night is never a simultaneous source image and it is only a simultaneous destination interference
pattern. We receive all the pattern through a lens at once, but that does not mean that the light being interfering was emitted at
the same time, but rather distance dependant and related by "c". It is so amazing that the nearest star in the scenery dictates the
age of the image being perceived. By clipping the light of that nearest star in the scenery, we practically take the image back in
time to the next nearest star distance-time. Certainly we always see the light arriving "now", but the question of when was that
light emitted depends on the speed of light and the distance of the source. That is why the older light shall "accompany" the newer
light at more recent time before arriving at us. How old light can be for us to still see is governed by the sensitivity of the
receiving sensor and thresholds of light matter interaction, "the photoelectric effect". The minimum required energy is quantified
to be a single photon for a single electron emission, but does the brain register it significant? Does the photographic chemical
undergo a change when receiving that single photon to the limit that we can later identify it? That is the limit that prevents.
KR. :)
EL
Alun Williams
If there were a God (and I don't believe that there is). The question I
would ask is:
WHY?
Al
G=EMC^2 Glazier
understand it as others see it. Some see it through religion,Some see it
in the scientific thoughts of others. I see it in how my minds eye sees
it. Best regards to all Herb
Mark Cavin
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
[EL]
Assuming all the assumptions that you should have but did not assume,
[Mark]
It's an old habit.
[EL]
In fact, if our eyes and instruments were not so limited, nothing can
prevent us from finding a star in any direction, given that
the distance is not such a burden that prohibits light from arriving from
source to destination.
[Mark]
Thank you.
[EL]
The minimum required energy is quantified
to be a single photon for a single electron emission, but does the brain
register it significant? Does the photographic chemical
undergo a change when receiving that single photon to the limit that we can
later identify it? That is the limit that prevents.
[Mark]
I still have a problem creating a mental picture of a photon. When the
light gets dimmer fewer of the photo multipliers fire. Why does the number
of photo elements going off change? I mean, in a way that gives the idea
that fewer things are being thrown around for them to catch? How could a
wave be applied that produces the same effect?
Best Regards,
Mark
tj Frazir
Befor coffie can be in the cup , it had to be thought of.
Wild sters the hot coals if intelect with his stick of irationalisem .
We can predict and be predicted .
Did God have to create us or just energy at this rate and predict us.
Wild pulls the stick back burning ...
( befor the seed of life could be in the matter of the universe it had
to be thought about. )
At some point creation from nothing had to be predicted.
Energy fills nothingness . If thats all god had to think befor seeing
it was good,
Double00
tj Frazir <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2619-3B1...@storefull-264.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
I hope you didn't expect anyone to understand that...
Mysterious Voice
>simple alun .
> Befor coffie can be in the cup , it had to be thought of.
> Wild sters the hot coals if intelect with his stick of irationalisem .
> We can predict and be predicted .
>Did God have to create us or just energy at this rate and predict us.
> Wild pulls the stick back burning ...
Wild who?
MV
smart1234 < intelligent
tj Frazir
Project Jennifer
Hughes Glomar Explorer
The Hughes Glomar Explorer [HGE] was built in 1973 by Sun Shipbuilding
and Drydock Co. for an intricate CIA undertaking. The mission of Glomar
Explorer was to raise a Soviet nulear submarine that had sunk in the
Pacific, resting on the ocean floor nearly 17,000 ft. (5,200 m) down.
The Soviet Golf-II Class ballistic missile submarine sank on April 11,
1968, approximately 750 miles northwest of Hawaii. Naval intelligence at
Pearl Harbor had tracked the submarine and learned of its fate through
underwater listening devices. After months of futile searching by Soviet
vessels, it became apparent that only the US knew the location of the
sunken submarine.
Oceanographers have long known that parts of the Pacific sea floor at
depths between 14,000 ft. and 17,000 ft. are carpeted with so-called
manganese nodules, potato-size chunks of manganese mixed with iron,
nickel, cobalt and other useful metals. In the 1970s, Howard Hughes used
the Deep Ocean Mining Project [DOMP] search for nodules as a cover for
building the ship Glomar Explorer. Global Marine supervised construction
of the Glomar Explorer , at a cost in excess of $200 million dollars,
and operated it from 1973 to 1975 under contract to the US government.
Glomar Explorer went to sea on June 20, 1974, found the sub, and began
to bring a portion of it to the surface. The Soviets watched the
"deep-sea mining" operation with interest, but did not attempt to thwart
it. An accident during the lifting operation caused the fragile hulk to
break apart, resulting in the loss of a critical portion of the
submarine, its nuclear missles and crypto codes. However, according to
other accounts, material recovered included three nuclear missles, two
nuclear torpedoes, the ship's code machine, and various code books.
From 1978 to 1980, Global Marine operated the ship in a deep-ocean
mining test in water depths to 17,000 feet. The Explorer, which is 619
feet long and 116 feet wide, is owned by the US Navy. With the exception
of the brief stint as a manganese module miner, the vessel has since
been mothballed with the Naval Reserve Fleet in Suisun Bay CA, where it
could be seen by cars crossing the Benicia bridge on U.S. Highway 680
east of San Francisco.
After years of being mothballed, the ship was recently taken to Hunters
Point Naval Shipyard for commercial modifications, including the removal
of an 840-ton gimbal and a 608-ton cage. The vessel is on a 30-year
lease from the US Navy to Global Marine Drilling, and recently underwent
a large conversion project to one of a kind deep sea drill ship.
Conversion cost over $180 million and was completed during the first
quarter of 1998. Glomar Explorer was equipped to drill in waters of 7500
feet and with some modification up to 11,500 feet, which is 2,000 feet
more than any existing rig. The conversion included the removal of 25
million pounds of superstructure and equipment to prepare the vessel for
its conversion to a a dynamically-positioned deep sea drilling ship.
Houston-based Global Marine is one of the largest worldwide offshore
drilling contractors, with a five-year commitment from two major oil
companies for drilling in water depths up to 7,500 feet in the US Gulf
of Mexico.
The Los Angeles Times broke the story in February 1975, and by March
1975 numerous news stories linked the Hughes Glomar Explorer, a ship
publicly listed as a research vessel owned and operated by Summa
Corporation, and the secret US government operation. After subsequent
stories that the CIA had approached the news media to convince them to
discontinue publication of stories related to the Glomar Explorer,
Harriet Ann Phillippi, a journalist, filed a FOIA request with the CIA
for any records that might exist which reveal the CIA's contact with
members of the media to attempt to persuade them not to publish articles
concerning the activities of the Glomar Explorer. The CIA responded by
refusing to neither confirm nor deny the existence of any responsive
records. The CIA claimed that any records that might exist which may
reveal any CIA connection with or interest in the activities of the
Glomar Explorer, or any evidence that might reveal the existence of
records of this type would be classified, and therefore, exempt from
disclosure under exemption 1 of the FOIA. They also insisted that
exemption 3 applied, as the National Security Act of 1947 precluded them
from releasing information related to the functions of CIA personnel.
This was the first instance of an agency using the "can neither confirm
nor deny" answer in response to a FOIA request. Since then, the terms
"Glomar response," and "Glomarization" are used to describe an agency's
response when they can neither confirm nor deny whether records exist.
Specifications
Length, o.a. 618.8 ft. (188.6 m)Beam 115.8 ft. (35.3
m)Depth 51 ft. (15.5 m)Draft 35 ft. (10.7
m)Displacement50,500 ltMaximum water depth 10,000 ft.Maximum wind
speed 100 knotsMaximum drilling depth 30,000 ft.Extimated
speed at full load 10 knots
Sources and Methods
Global Marine
The Jennifer Project by Clyde W. Burleson
Matter of Risk : The Incredible Inside Story of the Cia's Hughes Glomar
Explorer Mission to Raise a Russian Submarine by Roy D. Varner
FAS | Intelligence | Programs| Collect |||| Index | Search | Join FAS
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/jennifer.htm
Created by John Pike
Maintained by Webmaster
Updated Monday, March 08, 1999 11:33:37 AM
Double00
It had nothing to do with the thread. I know you do this to avoid having to
explain what you mean when you know you're wrong, but still, it's annoying.
-regards
double00
tj Frazir
imposible
a kooks fanticy a figent of my deapest darkest mind or where ever the
boundery is ....
Just when you thought x rays could not find gold from space .. Just
when you thought
the elderoto be raised like pulling a tooth
was the idia of a crackpot .......
The whale engine . What is your real gut ?
Get a bit and a byte on what is more important .
It dose not matter who we are .
Its what we do. Can we break energy down like we break the forces of
the universe down.
The chalage is pro equal . Energy having international priority.
I sent and posted doe . that is does energy conversion chart.
If we dont save the planet no one can.
( fired up ) bush administration works
Double00
> imposible
> a kooks fanticy a figent of my deapest darkest mind or where ever the
> boundery is ....
Are you saying it seemed impossible?
> Just when you thought x rays could not find gold from space .. Just
> when you thought
> the elderoto be raised like pulling a tooth
> was the idia of a crackpot .......
I've never heard of any "elderoto." And 'pulling a tooth' would seem to
indicate that it was hard to do.
> The whale engine . What is your real gut ?
Grand Unified Theory? Haven't worked on creating one yet... I decided to
learn more about physics before coming up with "theories."
> Get a bit and a byte on what is more important .
Out of the two, a bit would be more important than a byte, because a byte is
made of 8 bits.
> It dose not matter who we are .
> Its what we do. Can we break energy down like we break the forces of
> the universe down.
I don't know. Haven't gotten that far with my studies yet.
> The chalage is pro equal . Energy having international priority.
Waiiiit a minute. If the president of the United States said it was
important, that doesn't mean that it's important internationally. The US is
creating most of the problem.
> I sent and posted doe . that is does energy conversion chart.
> If we dont save the planet no one can.
> ( fired up ) bush administration works
If who doesn't? Besides, I'm not yet convinced that the planet is in danger.
tj Frazir
Find falt with my engine ... none found so far .
none found so far
it dose run dont it ?
In fact it runs beter than anything else on earth. It will even out
last you !
even hardend the barings on my boat whale.
Iohne MacDhaibhidh
You are starting to bore me... You claim you built one, where's the fucking
picture? Moron!
<translation into tj-ese>
Yu ar startng two boar mee. Yooclame yew bilt won wairs thu fukng pikchur
moorawn. big bote big boet. lite iz a sownd in spays. its wayvs kolyde
mayks enerrjy its wave roal over it tayks enerjee. Im 19 feat tal. Im
richer thin gayts. thu presher uv space iz grvitee in tyme god.
conspirasee... cunspeeracee... tyme 2 taek pylz... nurs hear now
</translation into tj-ese>
Double00
tj Frazir <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10197-3B...@storefull-267.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Find falt with my engine ... none found so far .
> none found so far
Correction. Friction.
> it dose run dont it ?
You haven't proven this.
> In fact it runs beter than anything else on earth. It will even out
> last you !
You definitely haven't proven this.
> even hardend the barings on my boat whale.
Randomly inserting a noun at the end of the sentence isn't good grammar.
tj Frazir
You can see the boat .. look at it .
Or you pretend you did not see it after without
any fact you call me a lier and say the whale will not run. But fact is
you do not retain the facts. your a dumbfuckstick.
Just because you cant imagine it dose not make it falts. Fact is
there is the boat.
There is the rod down 17000 feet. improved .
There is the imposible done befor your eyes done befor you could say its
crazzy . Then confronted with facts you are ingorant of
your calling one of the planets richest people he is a lier because you
are ignorant . Then you say theres no god and your still ignorant .
Now your pulled from the shelter of your igorance into reality where
facts dont care about who you are or what you think but rather what are
the facts. Fact is the imaginary boat
had a face lift of $ 200 milion making it a 500 milion dolar boat .
Fact is that is doe s energy conversion chart I posted . Fact is you
never post any .
tj Frazir
You have yet to show any flaw in it .
All you have shown is ignorance and inabilit to retain facts .
Double00
Just out of curiosity, who is "nasgull"? Or are you talking to someone's
sig?
> You can see the boat .. look at it .
Wow, you've made it invisible too!
> Or you pretend you did not see it after without
> any fact you call me a lier and say the whale will not run. But fact is
> you do not retain the facts. your a dumbfuckstick.
You talk like a cornered person. You can't show us a picture of it; you
resort to puerile behavior.
> Just because you cant imagine it dose not make it falts. Fact is
> there is the boat.
We wouldn't have to imagine it if it was real.
> There is the rod down 17000 feet. improved .
> There is the imposible done befor your eyes done befor you could say its
> crazzy . Then confronted with facts you are ingorant of
> your calling one of the planets richest people he is a lier because you
> are ignorant . Then you say theres no god and your still ignorant .
So, you're one of the planet's richest humans AND an angel of God? Wow...
can I have your autograph?
> Now your pulled from the shelter of your igorance into reality where
> facts dont care about who you are or what you think but rather what are
> the facts.
Oddly enough, our lives seem to follow set rules instead of the whim of our
minds... How 'bout yours?
> Fact is the imaginary boat
Hehe... here's a quote!
> had a face lift of $ 200 milion making it a 500 milion dolar boat .
> Fact is that is doe s energy conversion chart I posted . Fact is you
> never post any .
The energy conversion chart was wrong.
Double00
> you clame it wount work prove it .
> You have yet to show any flaw in it .
> All you have shown is ignorance and inabilit to retain facts .
You should be able to see our ability to retain facts in that we use your
own "facts" to pick holes in your theories. Flaw? Friction. Flaw? Your
energy conversion chart was either wrong or misinterpreted. there are
more... but you won't listen.
If you claim to have invented something, the burden of proof is on you. YOU
must prove that you CAN do it, it is not up to us to disprove you (although
we seem to have done a good job at shooting holes through your theory
posts...)
-regards
double00
tj Frazir
Mail message
From : Project Jennifer / Hughes Glomar Explorer
Included Page: Project Jennifer / Hughes Glomar Explorer
go see .
200 milion refit ... the imposible , imaginary is what you called this
tj explorer
and what it dose you said was imposible .
Double00
We didn't say refitting a boat was impossible. We said your engine design
was. There IS a difference.
tj Frazir
¥È©v©R²z¡·¶Wµ´¥j¤µ
¹ñ·s¾Ç³N¡·©Û¥Í±Â®{
¡E±Ð ¾Ç ¸ê °T¡E
½Ò¡@µ{
¤º ®e ² ¤¶
®É¶¡
¥È©v¤K¦r¾Ç
¤K¤j¤f³Z.½×¥»©R.Â_¤j¹B.§P¬y¦~.ºâ¬y¤ë¥È©v¥Î¯«.
´I¶Q³h½â
8 ¶g
©ö¸g¼Æ¦r¾Ç
¹B¥Î¹q¸Ü.¦æ°Ê.¨®µP.±K½Xµ¥¸¹½X¹F¨ì¨D°].¤l®§.¤å©÷.
¶Q¤H.«Ã½tµ¥¥Ø¼Ð
8 ¶g
¤j¤»¤Ðºâ©R¾Ç
Áp¦Ò¬ì¨t
¤j¤»¤Ð°ò¥»²z½×.°t¦X¯µÓD.¦Óª¾¥»©RÀ³¿ïŪ¶i׬ì¨t
8 ¶g
¤j¤»¤Ðºâ©R¾Ç
¥»©R¾·~
¤j¤»¤Ð°ò¥»²z½×.°t¦X¯µÓD.¦Óª¾¥»©RÀ³¿ï¾Ü¾·~ºØÃþ
8 ¶g
§g¤ý©m¦W¾Ç
Á`®æ251¼Æ²z.°t¼Æ¤§³Z.¦rÅ餦æ©ú·t¤G¦¡Â_³Z.....
8 ¶g
©ö¸g¾Ü¤é¾Ç
©ö¸g¤K¦r¨ö²z.®É¤À¦N¤¿¹B¥Î.¤è¦ìÁͦN¶Ê¤Æ§@¥Î......
8 ¶g
¼Æ¦r¯«¨ö¾Ç
©ö¸g¨ö²z.¼Æ¦r¹B¥Î¯µ³Z.¸U¨Æ¥i¤R¤§±M·~¹B¥Î......
8 ¶g
¥È©v¦]ªG¾Ç
ºî¦X¤K¦r.¤j¤»¤Ð.¤T©R³q·|.¦ò¹D¾Ç°Ý¤Î¥j¥N¦]ªGºâªk
12 ¶g
¤j¤»¤Ð¯«¨ö¾Ç
¤j¤»¤Ð°ò¥»²z½×.°_¤Ñ¦a½L.¤Q¤G®c¯«·Ù½L.....µ¥
8 ¶g
¶§¦v·¤ô¾Ç
ºî¦X¤T¦X.¤T¤¸.¤E¬P....µ¥¾Ç.°t¦X¤º¥~®æ§½§G«Ø....
12 ¶g
¤l¥¤K¦r¬ã¨s¯Z
¶·¨ã¤l¥¤K¦rªì¯Å¥H¤Wµ{«×.¶Ç±Â¾·~Â_³Z»P·tÂäK¦r
12 ¶g
¶}À]³Ð·~¯Z
¶Ç±Â¥þ³¡¤³Nµ´¾Ç¡A´¼¼zª©Åv¡A¥ÃÄò¸ê·½¡AÀç¹B³W¹º
24 ¶g
¡¹±Ð¾Ç¤è¦¡:(A)¤@¹ï¤@ (B)¤p¯Z¨î
(C)¹ÎÅé©Û¥Í.(¥ô¿ï¤@ºØ,½Ð¥ý¹w¬ùµn°O³ø¦W)¡C
¡¹¬ã²ß±ø¥ó:¨ã¤³N¿³½ìªÌ,»Ý¥ý¤J·|µn°O,¦A¸ÕÅ¥¬ã²ß,¥i³æ¶µ¿ïשΥþ¶µ±Â®{¡C
¡¹«OÃÒ¥þ·s¿W³Ð¾Ç³N,±Ä¬ì¾Ç¤½¦¡¤Æ,²³æ©ö¾Ç,²³¦h¾Çûªù¥Í¥i¸êÃÒ©ú¡C
¡¹¤@§Þ¦b¨--³Ó¹L¸U³e®a°]¡C
¡¹³Ì±j¶Õ¤S´¼¼z©Êªº²Ä¤G±Mªø,¤£¨ü´º®ð¼vÅT,¤£©È¥¢·~¤§W¡C
¡¹¥«³õ¤j.¼ç¤O±j,³Ì¨Î³Ð·~¡D°Æ·~¤§¿ï¾Ü,¥B¤u§@»´ÃP¡D¦Û¥Ñ¡D°ª¦¬¤J¡C
¡¹¥»ªù¦b¦U¿¤¥«¨µ°j±Â½Ò,¦]½tÅã²{,¾÷·|Ãø±o,¿ãÅD°Ñ»P,«OÃÒ±N±aµ¹§A¤@½ú¤lªº¦¨¥\»P
°]´I¡C
¡¹¥H¤W½Ò¥Ø,§¡Ãؤd¦~¤£¶Ç¤§¯µÓD¡C
¡¹¦U¿¤¥«§¡³]¦³Á¿°ó(¥x¥_¡D®ç¶é¡D·s¦Ë¡D¥x¤¤¡D¹Å¸q¡D¥x«n¡D°ª¶¯¡D«ÌªF¡D¥xªF)¡¹
¡E©Û ¥Í ±Â ®{¡E
§AÁÙ¦b´À¤H¥´«÷¡Aº¡¸¡©e¦±¡I¹ï¥¼¨Ó»»»»µL´Á¶Ü¡H
³Ð·~¡B¶iצ󥲪á¤j¿ú¡A¦Û¤v·íÀY®a¡C
±z¬Û«H§Ú¡AªÖ¶Ô¾Çµu´Á¶¡¡A±N±aµ¹§A¤@½ú¤lªº¦¨¥\»P°]´I¡C
¥»ªù¤w¦b¦U¿¤¥«©Û¥Í¶Ç±Â²Ä¤G¥N¶Ç¤H¡A¦¨®Ä´´µM¡A¥B³°Äò¶}À]Àç·~¤¤¡C
¨H½÷·×¡B§õ¬L¿o¡B§d¶³¬¯¡B¿à¥Ã©M¡BªLª÷¥Ð¡B·¨¯qºa¡B§ù¤¯Än¡BðÄRµ^¡B§d«T¦ö¡B
³¯´I´ü¡B§d¼y¤å¡B´¿¯À®e¡B½²´º®p¡B³¯ß¬ºÂ¡B°ª¸©ú¡B§d²[ÂסB¾G¥Ã©[¡BÃC¯C¿³¡B
±i®¶¥Á¡Bù²Ý·O¡B¼B«T¨}¡BĬªK¬u¡B¤ý°ê´¡B³¯«C®ü¡B³¯ÃÙµ¾¡B´¿§Ó¾Ç¡B½²©¨§»¡B
³¢¥É´D¡B´^¹p¡B§dªY ¡B§õ®Û«Ì....
µ¥¦Ê¾lªù¥Í¡A¾Ç¦Ó¦³¦¨¡A¯«¼C¤ÆÀs¡C
Ãö©ó
±M°Ï
¹êÃÒ
µo©ú
±Ð¾Ç
¯«ºâº¶
·¨¦Ñ®vº¶
looks like
but do
we understand
each other now
nazgul ¿
Iohne MacDhaibhidh
> nasgull has no coment on the fact I posted the boat dumbass .
> You can see the boat .. look at it .
I would gladly look at your pictures, but you've not related _WHERE_ you
posted these pictures. perhaps you ought to just e-mail the directly to me
I'd gladly look at your pictures.
> Or you pretend you did not see it after without
> any fact you call me a lier and say the whale will not run. But fact is
I call you a liar because you are a liar. For example, you above claimed
that you posted the pictures, but I'm not aware of any pictures.
> you do not retain the facts. your a dumbfuckstick.
I retain facts just fine. In fact I often retain too many facts and annoy
my friends and family with the random regurgitation of little-known facts...
> Just because you cant imagine it dose not make it falts. Fact is
Perhaps this is true, but, just because you can imagine it doesn't make it
true!
> there is the boat.
There's lot's of boats, of that I'm sure. I just doubt the fantastical
stories of _your_ boat.
> There is the rod down 17000 feet. improved .
> There is the imposible done befor your eyes done befor you could say its
> crazzy . Then confronted with facts you are ingorant of
> your calling one of the planets richest people he is a lier because you
> are ignorant . Then you say theres no god and your still ignorant .
> Now your pulled from the shelter of your igorance into reality where
> facts dont care about who you are or what you think but rather what are
> the facts. Fact is the imaginary boat
> had a face lift of $ 200 milion making it a 500 milion dolar boat .
> Fact is that is doe s energy conversion chart I posted . Fact is you
> never post any .
>
I can post all the incorrect shit I wish. BUT I choose not to litter this
NG with bull shit like you.
Iohne MacDhaibhidh
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6771-3B...@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
玄宗命理◎超絕古今
嶄新學術◎招生授徒
‧教 學 資 訊‧
課 程
內 容 簡 介
時間
玄宗八字學
八大口訣.論本命.斷大運.判流年.算流月玄宗用神.
富貴貧賤
8 週
易經數字學
運用電話.行動.車牌.密碼等號碼達到求財.子息.文昌.
貴人.姻緣等目標
8 週
大六壬算命學
聯考科系
大六壬基本理論.配合秘笈.而知本命應選讀進修科系
8 週
大六壬算命學
本命職業
大六壬基本理論.配合秘笈.而知本命應選擇職業種類
8 週
君王姓名學
總格251數理.配數之訣.字體五行明暗二式斷訣.....
8 週
易經擇日學
易經八字卦理.時分吉凶運用.方位趨吉催化作用......
8 週
數字神卦學
易經卦理.數字運用秘訣.萬事可卜之專業運用......
8 週
玄宗因果學
綜合八字.大六壬.三命通會.佛道學問及古代因果算法
12 週
大六壬神卦學
大六壬基本理論.起天地盤.十二宮神煞盤.....等
8 週
陽宅風水學
綜合三合.三元.九星....等學.配合內外格局佈建....
12 週
子平八字研究班
須具子平八字初級以上程度.傳授職業斷訣與暗藏八字
12 週
開館創業班
傳授全部五術絕學，智慧版權，永續資源，營運規劃
24 週
★教學方式:(A)一對一 (B)小班制
(C)團體招生.(任選一種,請先預約登記報名)。
★研習條件:具五術興趣者,需先入會登記,再試聽研習,可單項選修或全項授徒。
★保證全新獨創學術,採科學公式化,簡單易學,眾多學員門生可資證明。
★一技在身--勝過萬貫家財。
★最強勢又智慧性的第二專長,不受景氣影響,不怕失業之苦。
★市場大.潛力強,最佳創業．副業之選擇,且工作輕鬆．自由．高收入。
★本門在各縣市巡迴授課,因緣顯現,機會難得,踴躍參與,保證將帶給你一輩子的成功與
財富。
★以上課目,均贈千年不傳之秘笈。
★各縣市均設有講堂(台北．桃園．新竹．台中．嘉義．台南．高雄．屏東．台東)★
‧招 生 授 徒‧
你還在替人打拼，滿腹委曲！對未來遙遙無期嗎？
創業、進修何必花大錢，自己當頭家。
您相信我，肯勤學短期間，將帶給你一輩子的成功與財富。
本門已在各縣市招生傳授第二代傳人，成效斐然，且陸續開館營業中。
沈輝煌、李昭穎、吳雲炫、賴永和、林金田、楊益榮、杜仁瓏、唐麗琴、吳俊佑、
陳富渝、吳慶文、曾素容、蔡景峰、陳葶甄、高飛明、吳涵豐、鄭永坤、顏浚興、
張振民、羅翌慈、劉俊良、蘇枝泉、王國揚、陳青海、陳贊翔、曾志學、蔡岳宏、
郭玉媛、彭雷、吳欣 、李桂屏....
等百餘門生，學而有成，神劍化龍。
關於
專區
實證
發明
教學
神算首頁
楊老師首頁
looks like
but do
we understand
each other now
nazgul �
Double00
doesn't look that way to us. Maybe he has the same "my computer is the exact
same as everyone else's" mentality as smart...
Iohne MacDhaibhidh <iohne_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:thcqivl...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Mays
Double00 wrote:
--
"I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London." - Wernher von Braun
tj Frazir
I muts be stupid I dont speak english like you do. OK . There is 4
languages not one .
I bet you cant tell one from the other .
Do you even know what I was talking about ?
Is it fair I must think in english wile you all make fun of me out of
your ignorance .
Maybe I should have used french.
Point is if my english sucks then you use my lang for a wile . Having
problems ?
I bet youd sound like a dumbass in china .
Youd say you were into pet arobics when you
ment physics . Youd be an alian from the land beond the sea. AN ALIAN
heheheheh
Was I crazy because U were ingnorant ?
Double00
> you dont like my poor english .
> I muts be stupid I dont speak english like you do.
Never said that. You show your stupidity in other ways.
> OK . There is 4
> languages not one .
There are a lot more languages than that.
> I bet you cant tell one from the other .
> Do you even know what I was talking about ?
You have a history of not being able to make yourself understood, yes. I
don't know what 4 languages you are talking about, no.
> Is it fair I must think in english wile you all make fun of me out of
> your ignorance .
If you think in english, you should be able to express yourself much better
in it.
Our ignorance of what?
> Maybe I should have used french.
Probably. I could have brushed up on my french then...
> Point is if my english sucks then you use my lang for a wile . Having
> problems ?
> I bet youd sound like a dumbass in china .
No, I wouldn't. I would just speak english instead of chinese (which I have
never learned.)
> Youd say you were into pet arobics when you
> ment physics .
Not if I wasn't trying to speak chinese.
>Youd be an alian from the land beond the sea. AN ALIAN
> heheheheh
Yes, the chinese have a history of ethnocentrism. So do all cultures. And a
person moving from one culture to another naturally is different for a
while.
"I'm an alien - you're an alien - it's a beautiful rain" - bush
(Sorry, just had to insert that. Good song.)
> Was I crazy because U were ingnorant ?
Again, ignorant of what?
JeffMo
>you dont like my poor english .
> I muts be stupid I dont speak english like you do. OK . There is 4
>languages not one .
> I bet you cant tell one from the other .
> Do you even know what I was talking about ?
> Is it fair I must think in english wile you all make fun of me out of
>your ignorance .
> Maybe I should have used french.
I'm sure we could find someone to point out your mistaken ideas about
physics in French, as well...
> Point is if my english sucks then you use my lang for a wile . Having
>problems ?
> I bet youd sound like a dumbass in china .
...or Mandarin.
JeffMo
"Energy is not the same thing as matter." -- smart1234
"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind." -- Albert Einstein
tj Frazir
The friction is not enouph to stop the enormus force pushing it . I
pointed out the v6 you drive has much more friction .
Do you have an automatic trans ? What about the fuid drive friction
? If your going to skin one cat do the other.
tj Frazir
Its reality not a dream .
Double00
> thats not my energy chart . You missed the fact thats DOE energy chart.
Then it was misinterpreted.
> The friction is not enouph to stop the enormus force pushing it .
It wouldn't stop it, just slow it down enough to make it inefficient.
> I
> pointed out the v6 you drive has much more friction .
For one, I don't drive a V6. For another, there's oil in it. For a third, my
vehicle does not try to shove water under high pressure through a water
wheel...
> Do you have an automatic trans ?
Yes.
> What about the fuid drive friction
> ? If your going to skin one cat do the other.
You mean the transmission fluid? I'm not sure exactly how my transmission
works. All I know is that it switches from one gear to another
automatically. Naturally there is friction with gears. There's friction with
any two moving pieces of materiel touching each other. You do not seem to
realize this...
Double00
> oh and DOO the whale is not a theorie it runs .
> Its reality not a dream .
The fact that this appeared as an afterthought just proves that it's a lie.
You have not, and can not prove it.
Iohne MacDhaibhidh
"Double00" <doub...@panet.net> wrote in message
news:PxRR6.459$bd.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
And this friction is being used to transmit the rotational energy of the
engine to the wheels. Without friction in the transmission, the engine
would spin, but the car wouldn't move.
Iohne MacDhaibhidh
Besides, the fact that you claim to have posted pictures when you clearly
did not doesn't lend much to your credence either. I told you tj, that you
can send me your pictures... I have yet to see a single one.
tj Frazir
drilling. Atlantic Marine installed the full drilling package and made
additional modifications on this complex conversion. This is the 4th
such conversion Atlantic Marine - Mobile has completed in the last 3
years.
Just type GLOMAR EXPLORER and Im
standing starbord top next to the small dude
( hes 6 foot ) that big thing next to him is me .
8 foot 460 lb
Double00
I followed your instructions. I saw nobody, just pictures of the boat. Big
suprise there.
tj Frazir
no point talking to your dumb fucking ass.
you dont comprehend a fucking thing shithead
Double00
> oo your stupid .
Yet another statement that you can't prove. Big suprise there.
> I posted in 4 langs and yo cant tell whe...fuck it .
Where are the posts in the other languages? I've only seen you post in
english.
> no point talking to your dumb fucking ass.
No, talking to my ears would be more intelligent.
> you dont comprehend a fucking thing shithead
And this explains perfectly why the rest of the people here agree with me on
many things about science.
Mark Cavin
Come back tomorrow and I will teach you how to breath with your mouth shut.
"tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11494-3B1...@storefull-268.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> shure it dose .
R J Englund
have spawned from my local newserver. RJ]
Reality and existence are two separate things, although they are interwoven.
Perhaps it is more reality that I seek to uncover. There is no argument that
will convince me of the logic of the ability of existence to be. Words like
"eternity" and "infinity" demand the ability to exist, as neither has meaning
otherwise.
You assert "I am examining things which are impossible to prove in any way, but
I would never attempt to examine impossible things." To this I must reply
according to my own perception, which is that to examine anything is to examine
the impossible.
This subject is more than a closed door, it is an impervious wall. A big box
bound by eternity and infinity, but still a box. On the other side is nothing,
because there is no other side, and that is the whole point. This is not a
physical application of the word "nothing", for there may be something outside
what we call our "universe".
Thank you for the discussion.
RJ
"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jun2zKA1...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
| In article <3b105...@newsa.ev1.net>, R J Englund
| <rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
| >
| >"RC" <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| >news:IzVsUiAi...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk...
| >| In article <3b0cc...@newsa.ev1.net>, R J Englund
| >| <rjen...@hotmail.com> writes
| >| >I very much enjoyed reading the below. :-) I find it serendipitous that
the
| >| >discussion in this thread fits so well with the discussion we were
| >| >attempting in another thread entitled "go figure". If I have correctly
| >| >boiled down what you have stated in the first concerning the existence of
| >| >everything -- The mandate of nonexistence is existence?
| >|
| >| I don't think we could ever know what the mandate of non-existence is.
| >
| >I agree. Especially in the light of the existence of the mandate. :-)
| >
| >But existence, in contemplating nonexistence, may come away better able to
| >define itself.
|
| It certainly helps - I prefer to think of it as Nothingness rather than
| non-existence. (My next comment explains why.)
|
| > It is most common for a thing to be clarified through the
| >examination of its opposite, and existence has only one logical opposite.
|
| Thinking about these "things" is a tricky business. Existence, which is
| the Universe as caused by the Hot Big Bang, does not have an opposite.
| Neither does Nothingness, which can be described as an "entity" which is
| so barren it doesn't even have nothing. Nothingness has no information
| to give out and it also has no links with anything else, even itself. Is
| this what is "not in our Universe"?
|
| >Therefore, what are the opposite qualities of the differing parts of
existence,
| >and are any of them found within existence?
|
| From my point of view there are no opposites, but there are variations
| on a theme.
|
| > Must we examine the impossible,
| >perhaps precluding the inclusion of the improbable?
|
| I am examining things which are impossible to prove in any way, but I
| would never attempt to examine impossible things.
|
| > Following that scenario,
| >the search for our opposite has been a major pastime of humanity in the form
of
| >fantasy for ages. :-)
|
| That could be true, but again, from my point of view, I don't think that
| opposites exist when one considers the actual *physical* Existence of a
| Universe and the thing which we call Nothingness.
|
| >| > Following from
| >| >that -- The mandate of existence is continued existence?
| >|
| >| Yes.
| >
| >Then the "mandate" of nonexistence would be continued nonexistence. :-)
|
| Ah, as I wrote before, this is a tricky business. :) Non-existence
| (Nothingness) has no information to pass on and no connections with
| anything else, so there is no mandate.... no nothing.... no anything.
|
| > If the
| >mandate of nonexistence were existence, "nonexistence" would be a misnomer,
| >since it could only be considered to be another form of existence -- albeit
an
| >unknowable form -- qualified with "most probably". Existence, very simply,
is
| >the presence of _something_. If there existed only potential alone, the fact
| >that anything of whatever type _existed_ must be considered to be a form of
| >existence.
|
| Ummm, yes, you've caught me here. Could the "thing" which I call
| Nothingness actually be impossible? Could there only be a Nothingness
| (non-existence) which *has* to possess the potential for producing
| things like Universes or other examples of Existence (which we have no
| idea about)?
|
| >| [...]
| >| --
| >| The Nothingness
| >| http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
| >
| >I have visited and enjoyed your site in the past, and it remains a
| >thought-provoking read. :-)
|
| Thanks. :) It is still very much a rough draft, content-wise. I hope to
| develop the content further in the future.
| --
| The Quarks
| http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
| RC
R J Englund
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ep75p$86j$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
| From reading the discussion thread it appears to me that our individual
| understanding of what chaos is, and where it came from and what
| nothing/infinity is etc, only differs very subtly.
|
| EL has taken the text in my original post and he has broken it down into
| logical grammatical english. The English that I used does not translate
| exactly into the concept that I was putting forward. However, it does lay
| down the idea using some common terms which I think helps to create the
| initial picture.
|
| R J, I believe you have interpreted my idea well, and are now commenting on
| ELs response to his interpretation of the English. EL obviously breaks down
| the words very logically (almost like a computer), which is not how I write.
Thank you. :-) I am very glad I did understand you correctly.
| What I was really trying to say when I said that Chaos and nothing are
| indistinguishable, is that chaos is the default state and the logic for it
| being so, is that nothing cannot exist. But if I had used the previous
| sentence alone then it would not make sense to anyone.
It would have made perfect sense to me, although I would disagree with you. If
nothing cannot be, then something cannot be. There are no one-sided coins. The
thesis cannot exist without its antithesis. One defines the other. If all is
light, then there is no light. If all is dark, then there is no dark. But when
you speak of existence you must have a beginning, even if you are EL and your
beginning is merely some random point in the middle. :-)
| I have used the term
| Chaos Point because I do not like the term singularity. The word
| singularity is well established and differs greatly from what I am trying to
| explain. However, it is useful as a starting point as we can then modify
| it's properties to reflect the Chaos Point.
Your Chaos Point seemed to have little in common with a singularity.
| The term Chaos Point was
| something I pulled out of the air for the following reasons. The default
| state is chaos, which is not something that is easy to describe. Within
| Chaos all concepts become meaningless, including time, and spatial
| dimensions hence Chaos POINT (EL might not agree with me here).
| If I were you I would not get too hung up on the terms at this stage.
The unique entity you were attempting to define had no place within the order it
builds, it itself was "placeless" or "unordered", therefore it must be assumed
to be "chaotic" in that respect, yet it followed definite laws, making it
ordered in its actions.
| Our universe and all the energy within it is a part of the infinite (Chaos
| Point). That which is beyond our Universe plus our Universe is equal to
| infinity. Again this has to be true, else there would be more than
| infinity. Ok I hope this is becoming more clear.
It was quite clear to me before. :-) Perhaps the philosophical logic of it is
what I grasped so well.
| The model I am constructing
| begins with the 'CREATION' of a particle. NB we could argue that
| the energy which constitutes this particle already existed at the Chaos
| Point and is simply taking on the form of a particle/quantum of energy. (EL
| please note that I just like using the word 'create') The appearance of
| this quantum of energy is the initial event (NB not the initial event of all
| events, but the initial event that defines our universe). Associated with
| this quantum of energy are the laws that govern its existence and structure
| etc etc. Thus all subsequent events associated with the first quantum of
| energy must conform to the laws embedded within it. Then the original
| particle decays into other particles, because it can be represented in more
| than just one single way (as described in my first post on this subject).
| Thus the Universe as we know it is formed. Now in my hypothesis our
| universe is finite, but forms a part of the infinite. Thus it has a finite
| mass, energy, size etc etc and conforms to logical rules. i.e Order out of
| chaos.
Why is "order out of chaos" such an imperative? For there to be such a thing
would require tremendous heat succumbing to cooling. Fermions, when cooled to
just above absolute zero, move less and less, eventually losing their fermion
quality of individuality, taking on the characteristics of bosons, and merge
into each other.
| I will not repeat the whole of my original post here, but you should be able
| to get a handle on the rest. i.e that each component part of our universe
| is simply one possible interpretation of the Chaos Point based on the logic
| of the original quantum of energy, and that the Chaos Point could only do
| this if it spreads itself probabilistically throughout spacetime. Thus the
| propagation of the Chaos Point (chaos Point field) is what we perceive as
| spacetime itself. Therefore we can never know exactly where the Chaos Point
| is at any instant, but can correlate it's location probabilistically in
| terms of mass or energy.
Quite elegant train of logic. :-)
| Lets consider the next step:
|
| In my previous post I developed some simple equations for the rate at which
| the Chaos Point Propagates:
|
| Ri = k.m/M ....1
| Ro = k .............2
|
| (look up previous post for explanation)
|
| Combining equations 1 & 2 we get:
|
| Ri = Ro.m/M .....3
|
| Let Qi = Chaos Point Flux, i.e the rate at which the chaos Point propagates
| into any enclosed region of space per unit area of surface of the boundary.
| Thus:
|
| Qi = Ro.m/M.A.....4 Where A is the surface area of the enclosed region of
| space being considered.
|
| In equation 4, Ro is the rate at which the Chaos point propagates away from
| the enclosed region of space such that it can sustain the existence of all
| the component parts of the universe (including every single photon).
| Therefore, the rate at which the Chaos Point will need to propagate will
| depend on the spatial characteristics and distribution of the components
| throughout the Universe. So, if the Universe is not static and is in fact
| expanding, then the rate at which the Chaos Point propagates away from any
| enclosed region can be expressed as the rate of change of volumetric
| expansion of the universe.
|
| Ro = C.dA/dT +C.dA/dTIt=o ......5
|
| where dA/dT is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary,
| dA/dTIt=o is the rate of change of surface area of the universal boundary at
| T=0, C is the speed of light and T is the age of the universe in seconds.
|
| Now if the surface of the expanding boundary moves at speed C, then at time
| T (seconds), the surface area is given by:
|
| A = 4pi(CT)^2 + constant which represents the surface area around the
| original quantum of energy at T=0
|
| Therefore dA/dT = 8pi.C^2.T....5
|
| Therefore we can write Ro =8pi.C^3T + k'...7
|
| Where k' is the initial rate of expansion of the universe at time T=0, (i.e.
| k' = C.dA/dTIt=o) Note: for large values of T, k' will only be a very small
| fraction of Ro as k' will be dependant on the initial surface area of the
| universal boundary which is likely to be very small indeed.
|
| We can now substitute Ro back into Eqn 3 & 4
|
| Ri = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/M ...8 or Qi = (8pi.C^3T + k').m/A.M ...9
|
| we can substitute the factor A = 4pi.R^2 into equation 9
|
| Where R is the fixed radius of the enclosed region being considered.
|
| Therefore we have:
|
| Qi = (8pi.C^3T +k'). m....10
| 4pi.M R^2
|
| For large values of T, k' will be insignificant, therefore we can write:
|
| Qi = (2.C^3T ) m....11 when T is large and m<<M
| M R^2
|
| At this stage it would be useful to compare equation 11 with Newton's
| equation for the intensity of a gravitational field:
|
| Ep = G. m ...12
| R^2
|
| We can see that both equations 11 & 12 are very similar. Now if the Chaos
| point flux is characteristic of the Intensity of the gravitational field
| then we can see by comparison that the Universal Gravitational Constant G,
| is represented in equation 11 by :
|
| G = 2.C^3.T/M ....13
|
| We can do a quick and very rough check of equation 13 as follows:
|
| If you re-arrange Eqn 13 and solve for M (total mass of Universe) assuming
| that the Universe is approx 15 billion years old we get:
|
| M= 3.82 x 10^53 Kg
|
| Lets assume that astronomical data is fairly accurate and that there are
| approx 100 billion stars in a galaxy, and that there are at least/approx
| 125 billion galaxies, and lets take the mass of our sun to be fairly
| typical. ie. 2 x 10^30Kg
|
| Then we get 100 x 10^9. X 125 x 10^9 X 2 x 10^30 = 2.5 x 10^52 Kg
|
| I hope this all makes sense!!!!! please forgive any poor use of english.
Yes, it does make sense. There is nothing wrong with your english and your math
is easy enough to grasp as well; although the latter hit me like a heated battle
scene from a fast-paced novel, and I must admit I skimmed most of it without
working through it. :-) EL would certainly have chopped it to ribbons if it had
been inaccurate.
| Al
RJ
R J Englund
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9eq1dm$3rk$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
| "R J Englund"
| <rjen...@hotmail.com>
| wrote in message
| news:3b103...@newsa.ev1.net...
|
| | [EL]
| | I demand an apology for overlooking the reasoning
| | process I held quite strongly. :)
| [RJ]
| Demand as you wish, I did not overlook. :-)
| [EL_2]
| Then you might want to consider that you have underlooked or sidelooked. :)
| I do it ALL the time. <g> ;-) :):):)
| You cannot pretend to be immune against getting biased,
| in fact I might begin calling you R. J. Bias. <g> :):):):)
[RJ]
You might begin to call me anything, however that would not indicate the chosen
appellation was accurate. :-)
| | [RJ]
| | There is no God-spider crawling in your hair,
| | [EL]
| | It was not crawling in MY hair, it was crawling in HIS post. ;-)
| [RJ]
| One sees that for which one is looking. ;-)
| [EL_2]
| Or overlooking or underlooking. :)
| Now, boxing you in the EYE does not need from you to look at all to
| feel the pain.
| Thus, I need not look to know that I have pain in the ass right NOW.
| <g> :):):):):):)
[RJ]
Me heart fair _bleeds_ fer ye on this matter o' yer own personal problems.
Thankee fer sharin'. :-)
| | [RJ]
| | so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
| | [EL]
| | What makes you think I am freaking?
| | Do I sound like someone who is freaking?
| | Do you have any quotable proof?
| [RJ]
| Yes.
| [EL_2]
| Oh! NO! You really did not need to publish ALL THOSE THREE
| "Books" quoting me.:)
| A Y, an eeh and an es, Oh mY...what am I gona do, where can I hide,
| such overwhelming evidence. :):):)
[RJ]
The trial is Thursday. :-)
| | [EL]
| | Let me guess, Ah! You are still bitter for my suspicions of YOUR AGENDA.
| | :):):)
| [RJ]
| Bitter? :-) :-) :-)
| Quite the contrary,
| your blatant phobia has sparked my maternal instincts. :-)
| [EL_2]
| Providing bitter milk that is. <g>
| I hope it is full of antibiotics or something. :):):)
[RJ]
Colostrum is only for the most infantile stages of development. :-)
| [EL]
| How about bitter Campari? :):)
[RJ]
How should I know? I have never eaten squid -- ;-) :-D
| [RJ]
| his premise that the beginning state would be one
| that could not occur in reality once reality had been manifested; however that
| is the reason I qualified my statements with the words "within reality". :-)
| [EL_2]
| Very cautious! How clever! Simply you cannot be wrong.
[RJ]
uuuuuuuuuh ----- RIGHT! EXACTLY! You BETCHA! :-)
And how clever of _you_ to realize that! :-)
| <snip>
[RJ]
OUCH!
| | [EL]
| | :):):)
| | I would really like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):):):)
| [RJ]
| It was more a puzzlement than a comment.
| [EL_2]
| Yes, I could see your bewilderment. :):):)
| Now follow the road back home and don't get lost, ok? ;-)
[RJ]
<Insert derogatory, primarily expletive string here>
| | [RJ]
| | What difference to infinity would -1 make?
| | [EL]
| | Minus one is the difference.
| | You are not comparing two infinities here.
| | You are comparing an infinity with itself, before and after subtraction.
| | Thus it is the evolution of the infinite in an event of unit subtraction.
| | It is even acceptable to subtract an infinite number of infinities from one
| | infinity.
| [RJ]
| Resulting in mathematical gobbledygook.
| [EL_2]
| No, it is not difficult to grasp it at all.
[RJ]
Did I say that it was difficult to grasp? You do seem to enjoy walking the
slippery edge.
| [EL]
| If length is in itself infinite by default then you can imagine that there is
an infinite number of meters within infinity length.
[RJ]
Yes, Daddy.
| [EL]
| Each meter has an infinite number of points. Thus, the arbitrated meter stands
as a boundary of infinities within (division), within the outer infinity of
meters (multiplication). This is in one dimension that is. Thus by applying this
universally, we get an infinite number of dimensions each is divisible and
multipliable.
[RJ]
Please forgive me, Daddy, but the special bus is here to pick me up. I must
attempt to grasp all this really hard stuff later.
| | [RJ]
| | But I keep thinking of the one black
| | ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
| | of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
| | nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
| | white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
| | ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
| | [EL]
| | Since when was stasis anything but the elusion of force equilibrium?
| [RJ]
| Illusion? Illusion. You have made a statement that you are not able to
| prove.
| [EL_2]
| What does my ability have to do with what is proven and in books already.
[RJ]
And in those books do they qualify with dynamic influences? What are those
dynamic influences and what are they attempting to do? If all dynamic
influences were satisfied, what would remain? How can books do more than
hypothesis on such a subject? I was addressing the hypothesized primordial
stasis that has stumped Hawking.
| [EL]
| Heck.:) Try even to define a stand alone state of static. . .
[RJ]
That definition can be found in books :-) -- under "Singularity".
| [EL]
| and you shall understand that you cannot do that without relating it to
another state and an observer, then you shall find out that stasis is the
observer's averaging of the binary state.
[RJ]
We are talking about two different things. Yours is apparently real-world, mine
was not, since the singularity is not within our space-time continuum if one
should exist or at one time existed.
| | [EL]
| | Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic
| | background oscillatory nature.
| [RJ]
| Your use of the word "primordial" _especially_ when tying it to "truth" just
| cost you two points. :-) And how, my dearest EL, can this "chaotic dynamic
| background" exist to oscillate? What conditions allow its existence?
| [EL_2]
| In the particular case of ME answering YOU, I demand a definition of
existence, allowance, conditions and the question particle "what". I expect you
to play on each and every word available to obscure an answer when you have that
challenging tone that you copy right out from that damn "agenda". <g> :):):) I
might even ask for a definition of "its" as a possession related word and to
what does "its" refer to?
[RJ]
That was an awful lot of verbiage to shrug, "How should I know?" You assume an
ever-existing state for the chaos from which you say our reality is built.
Logical assumption if you also assume unimaginable, everlasting heat on the
order of that proposed for the Big Bang. Not what I was asking. It seems I was
asking a question with no answer, as opposed to a question with an unknown
answer, if what I have come up with here is representative of the larger scale.
| | [EL]
| | Stasis is an imaginary boundary averaged between the limits of a binary
| | state.
| [RJ]
| Stasis is not merely a state defined by numbers, should entropy have its way
| stasis would be the ending state of the universe. Equilibrium is the drive of
| entropy.
| [EL_2]
| Says who? R. J. Englund?
| Even if you were the Queen of England, you need to do better than that. :):):)
[RJ]
Quote sources? Is the definition of "entropy" I was using not clear?
Here, from Dictionary.com --
From one def. --
"4. A hypothetical tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve
toward a state of inert uniformity."
From another def. --
"1: (thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is
available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe
degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
Each of the above concerns the state of "Ultimate Entropy" I spoke of in one of
our email discussions where I mentioned an hypothesis, not mine although I agree
with the logic of it, that this state and the singularity state are the same
state. If one state is possible then the other state must be.
| | [RJ]
| | Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
| | extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
| | white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
| | [EL]
| | Not the curvature of density, but the curvature of spatial relativistic
| relations.
| [RJ]
| With that you are saying "all is nothing and nothing is all". Of what are
| these spatial relativistic relations comprised? At some point aether must
| be defined.
| [EL_2]
| Yes, it is defined as the dynamic background chaos.
| You cannot look for a simple answer to a complex issue.
[RJ]
The Higgs field?
Why is chaos a necessary beginning state? Entropy? Entropy, if it could play
out, would theoretically end with order. What indication is there that order
was wrested from chaos? Where is there an indication of a type of plasma that
is everlasting? All plasma of which we are aware is a finite, excited state of
energy. Heat seems to be a temporary chaotic reaction to catastrophic action,
and heat loss seems to lead to order. As long as the movement heat causes
remains, a large part of that order is matter.
The universe seems to be in differing states of order built by the war between
temporary heat and everlasting cold. When fermions are super-cooled to near
absolute zero they become very still, eventually assuming a boson-like state,
losing their fermion quality of individuality and merging into each other. That
alone should indicate the solidity of matter is an artificial construct of the
motion generated by heat. If anything, what lies beyond the GR generated event
horizon is one unimaginably cold, unimaginably dense, unimaginably still,
boson-like super-particle.
| | [EL]
| | If you begin by assuming "homogeneity" then all your spheres should be
| | of equal diameters.
| [RJ]
| Assume an imaginary binary state? As you wish. :-)
| [EL_2]
| A realistic one OBVIOUSLY. :):):)
[RJ]
:-) :-) :-)
| | [EL]
| | Painting one in black does not affect the cause of homogeneity, but serves
| | us to identify and distinguish it.
| [RJ]
| Black is the color of difference, which is unable to allow homogeneity. If it
| is not different but the same, then it is white not black.
| [EL_2]
| No, you are mixing the criterion of the field homogeneity existentially with
an observational optical assumption that facilitates a logical analysis. The
issue was never the homogeneity of colour but that of the field of existing
spheres.
[RJ]
No. You are _assuming_ that is what I was doing. Previously I was assuming an
actual difference when there was none. Color is a difference, since light is
involved, though I was not considering the difference to be color, nonetheless I
was expecting some type of difference. _Any_ actual difference prevents true
homogeneity.
| | [EL]
| | By escalating the complexity of relations relative to the black ball, you
| | get an expanding curved plane referenced by the black ball as a center
| | of .......
| | whatever.
| [RJ]
| Black, white, whatever, it is merely a beginning point for something that
| has no beginning and the center of something that has no center.
| [EL_2]
| You got that perfectly right. :):)
[RJ]
I know. :-)
| | [RJ]
| | In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
| | beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
| | remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
| | existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
| | gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
| | construction.
| | [EL]
| | If both of you care to use the word chaos properly, you shall save me a
| | headache.
| | It is absolutely contradictory logic to pin-point a point in chaos before
| order emerges from chaos.
| [RJ]
| His usage appears correct, EL, if you consider that it can be anywhere in a
| chaotic fashion, a point existing chaotically which leaves order in its wake.
| :-)
| [EL_2]
| That drivel is far from your level of intelligence, which I am sure of.
| Do not be tempted by juggling words around for sake of an amusing debate. :):)
| For any point to exist chaotically it enters order not leaves it.
| So unsaddle that huge horse you are riding, I have a very nice pony for you.
| :):):)
[RJ]
What point within order that cannot be integrated into that order but instead
builds that order in its wake can be called order? "Order" infers "place". A
point lacking a place is unordered, or "chaotic". :-) But I will concede to
your greater knowledge, as I wish you to explain in more detail your statement,
"For any point to exist chaotically it enters order not leaves it." This seems
to be what Mr. Williams' Chaos Point was doing on a universal scale.
| | [EL]
| | So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it
| | and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic point" it just makes
| | no sense.
| [RJ]
| It seemed that the word "chaotic" described its location.
| [EL_2]
| That drivel is far from your level of intelligence, which I am sure of.
| Do not be tempted by juggling words around for sake of an amusing debate. :):)
| In fact, the state of chaos is such a dynamic state in which it is impossible
to pin any location of any thing, not to mention that the emergence of order in
an unstoppable dynamic fabric is by following a path or an orbit in which many
elements of the field participate to enforce time endurance for such an order to
continue to exist.
[RJ]
Spontaneous, self-sustaining order within chaos? :-) That will be another
2-point loss for you. :-)
| [EL]
| So unsaddle that huge horse you are riding, I have a very nice pony for you.
| :):):)
[RJ]
I once had a wild pony I broke and trained to body-rein in the indians' style.
:-)
| | [EL]
| | What Alun must have had in mind was the "Zero Point Field", which is in
| | fact an ordered field in chaos.
| [RJ]
| The black ball within the white?
| [EL_2]
| No, this has nothing to do with coloured balls. :)
[RJ]
Good. I would be alarmed if it did, since an actual colored ball was not what I
meant. :-)
| [EL]
| The zero point is the imaginary point at which fields are at equilibrium.
| Thus, such a "Zero" can be (1-1) or (58765489-58765489) and it is still zero.
[RJ]
My, my -- who woulda thunk? Is the normal level of knowledge really that low on
this newsgroup, or is all this specifically aimed at stupid li'l ol' me?
| [EL]
| But if we consider the imaginary pressure at any zero point inside huge
masses, we realize that great forces can be "sleeping" at what seems to be
"nothing". Now the Zero Force Point is saying that there is no "resultant"
tensor pointing at any direction to promote the potential of motion (stasis),
yet the true states of equilibrium is in fact oscillatory about the zero point
such that the deviation over time is infinitesimal. If that was not the case
then there is no place for events to take place through an evolutionary process
in which the trivial infinitesimals can accumulate to a significant level.
[RJ]
And this is the state I was indicating previously for the imaginary Big Bang
singularity. The initiator of a Big Bang could be as simple as reaching
"stasis - 1", since without time, everything "happens" at once. :-)
| | [EL]
| | It is called Zero because it stands between opposite entities that
| | annihilate each other by equilibrium. Thus measuring a Zero quantity at
| | any point within a field, does not mean that it is nothing but could very
| | well be the equilibrium of two opposing great forces. If such a force is
| | anywhere between nothingness and absolute infinity, then that is what
| | Alun meant by the emergence of any indeterminate amount of energy
| | between Zero and One.
| [RJ]
| Are you restating what he wrote or rewriting what he wrote? :-)
| [EL_2]
| If you fail to detect the difference between what was said and what is being
said. . .
[RJ]
I believe that detection is what led to my comment. :-)
| [EL]
| then you shall also fail to detect the similarity, which I claimed to have
found in Alun's writing and my own.
[RJ]
To some limited degree, I previously noted a similarity. As you know, I
struggle with your work. I make no apologies for my inability, especially since
I am making headway in comprehending more of what you have written.
| | [EL]
| | Yet I still reserve my right to disagree with him if I find it necessary. :)
| [RJ]
| Is there anyone with whom you do not reserve the right to disagree? :-)
| [EL_2]
| Yes, certainly, there is such one person with whom I can drop my rights
instantly. :):):):):)
[RJ]
And what would be left? Certainly nothing _I_ would be interested in. :-) :-)
:-)
| EheheheL
RJay
|
_________________________________________________
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9eo64u$1rl$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
| "R J Englund"
| <rjen...@hotmail.com>
| wrote in message
| news:3b0f6...@newsa.ev1.net...
|
| [RJ]
| Your phobia is showing again, my dearest EL.
| [EL]
| Phobia does not coexist with logical proof.
[RJ]
Indeed it does not exist with logic.
| [EL]
| I demand an apology for overlooking the reasoning process I held quite
strongly. :)
[RJ]
Demand as you wish, I did not overlook. :-)
| [RJ]
| There is no God-spider crawling in your hair,
| [EL]
| It was not crawling in MY hair, it was crawling in HIS post. ;-)
[RJ]
One sees that for which one is looking. ;-)
| [RJ]
| so there is no need for you to freak-out. :-)
| [EL]
| What makes you think I am freaking?
| Do I sound like someone who is freaking?
| Do you have any quotable proof?
[RJ]
Yes.
| [EL]
| Let me guess, Ah! You are still bitter for my suspicions of YOUR AGENDA.
:):):)
[RJ]
Bitter? :-) :-) :-) Quite the contrary, your blatant phobia has sparked my
maternal instincts. :-)
| [RJ]
| Another interpretation of his thesis might be that nothing ever left the
| "singularity", and its internal seething is what has built reality. :-)
| Very simple math says 0 beginning states within reality that have nothing
| other than 0 with which to work may only include --
| 0 + 0 = 0
| 0 - 0 = 0
| 0 x 0 = 0
| 0 / 0 = 0
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):)
[RJ]
He might think I overlooked his premise that the beginning state would be one
that could not occur in reality once reality had been manifested; however that
is the reason I qualified my statements with the words "within reality". :-)
| [RJ]
| Therefore these are impossible 0 beginning states within reality since they
| must assume the coexistence of 1 in order to utilize it --
| 0 + 1 = 1
| 1 + 0 = 1
| 0 - 1 = -1
| 1 - 0 = 1
| 0 x 1 = 0
| 1 x 0 = 0
| 0 / 1 = 0
| 1 / 0 = infinity (the screaming e divide by 0 error)
| It seems that Mr. Williams is using 1 / 0 = infinity as the main thrust of
| his thesis.
| [EL]
| So you do think that his foundation is based on an error??!!!!
[RJ]
No, I think I am not qualified to stand in judgment. :-) The above was merely
an introduction for my statements that followed, and a product of the reasoning
found in his theory that the beginning "impossible" condition could not
logically be reproduced once our reality formed. One of the impossibles I
mentioned above might be representative of his theorized beginning state.
| [EL]
| :):):)
| I would really like to read Alun's comment on your interpretation. :):):):)
[RJ]
It was more a puzzlement than a comment.
| [RJ]
| However, numerically 0 can be classed as a set equaling all of
| the infinite numbers, both negative and positive. Continuing from that,
| could nothing contain all negative energy and all positive energy in such a
| way that nothing is not nothing but is, instead, a balance or state of
| stasis with the potential to produce everything?
| Sigh. There we are at the dreaded and damned singularity again. Stasis
| cannot be overcome or Hawking would have done it. [Please refrain from
| yelling "Fuck Hawking!"
| [EL]
| FUCK HAWKING AND PENROSE. :):)
[RJ]
And I asked so nicely. <sigh> :-)
| [RJ]
| I know where you stand.] Unless infinity was
| infinitesimally flawed, such as in infinity - 1, which strips infinity of
| its completeness and therefore never allows for an exact balance.
| "Infinity - 1". Is it a viable concept?
| [EL]
| Yes.
| [RJ]
| It seem ludicrous.
| [EL]
| Not to me.
[RJ]
:-)
| [RJ]
| What difference to infinity would -1 make?
| [EL]
| Minus one is the difference.
| You are not comparing two infinities here.
| You are comparing an infinity with itself, before and after subtraction.
| Thus it is the evolution of the infinite in an event of unit subtraction.
| It is even acceptable to subtract an infinite number of infinities from one
infinity.
[RJ]
Resulting in mathematical gobbledygook.
| [RJ]
| But I keep thinking of the one black
| ball lost in an infinite sea of white balls you mentioned. The infinite sea
| of white balls did not keep the black ball from existing and could do
| nothing to erase it. Which would mean that an infinite sea of nothing but
| white balls would be more infinitely white than one containing the one black
| ball. Could such a tiny imbalance prevent stasis?
| [EL]
| Since when was stasis anything but the elusion of force equilibrium?
[RJ]
Illusion? Illusion. You have made a statement that you are not able to prove.
| [EL]
| Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic background
oscillatory nature.
[RJ]
Your use of the word "primordial" _especially_ when tying it to "truth" just
cost you two points. :-) And how, my dearest EL, can this "chaotic dynamic
background" exist to oscillate? What conditions allow its existence?
| [EL]
| Stasis is an imaginary boundary averaged between the limits of a binary state.
[RJ]
Stasis is not merely a state defined by numbers, should entropy have its way
stasis would be the ending state of the universe. Equilibrium is the drive of
entropy.
| [RJ]
| Forbidden ground -- I visualize the special time that must be, in order to
| extrude the curvature of density, ticking along the curve, white ball after
| white ball, until it suddenly encounters the black ball.
| One of the statements the Ouroboros makes is that all and nothing create
| each other and destroy each other. It is an ancient Egyptian symbol which
| is said to have led to the Yin-Yang. Quite an assertion, if true. Egyptian
| usage of the Ouroboros appears to predate all its subsequent uses by other
| civilizations, so you are probably aware of its meanings.
| [EL]
| Not the curvature of density, but the curvature of spatial relativistic
relations.
[RJ]
With that you are saying "all is nothing and nothing is all". Of what are these
spatial relativistic relations comprised? At some point aether must be defined.
| [EL]
| If you begin by assuming "homogeneity" then all your spheres should be of
equal diameters.
[RJ]
Assume an imaginary binary state? As you wish. :-)
| [EL]
| Painting one in black does not affect the cause of homogeneity, but serves us
to identify and distinguish it.
[RJ]
Black is the color of difference, which is unable to allow homogeneity. If it
is not different but the same, then it is white not black.
| [EL]
| In practice you shall find that one sphere can touch a maximum of twelve
spheres and not one more at the condition that they are all of the same
diameter.
[RJ]
That was an interesting point I found easy to grasp from that section of your
website -- there were very few otherwise. :-)
| [EL]
| By escalating the complexity of relations relative to the black ball, you get
an expanding curved plane referenced by the black ball as a center of .......
whatever.
[RJ]
Black, white, whatever, it is merely a beginning point for something that has no
beginning and the center of something that has no center.
| [RJ]
| In the light of the Ouroboros, what Mr. Williams has set forth at the
| beginning is not so revolutionary in its concept. What I found most
| remarkable was his ability to logically tie his Chaos Point to all levels of
| existence within his theory, even managing to explain time dilation and
| gravity quite believably. His theory is a very logical and methodical
| construction.
| [EL]
| If both of you care to use the word chaos properly, you shall save me a
headache.
| It is absolutely contradictory logic to pin-point a point in chaos before
order emerges from chaos.
[RJ]
His usage appears correct, EL, if you consider that it can be anywhere in a
chaotic fashion, a point existing chaotically which leaves order in its wake.
:-)
| [EL]
| So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it
and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic point" it just makes no
sense.
[RJ]
It seemed that the word "chaotic" described its location.
| [EL]
| What Alun must have had in mind was the "Zero Point Field", which is in fact
an ordered field in chaos.
[RJ]
The black ball within the white?
| [EL]
| It is called Zero because it stands between opposite entities that annihilate
each other by equilibrium. Thus measuring a Zero quantity at any point within a
field, does not mean that it is nothing but could very well be the equilibrium
of two opposing great forces. If such a force is anywhere between nothingness
and absolute infinity, then that is what Alun meant by the emergence of any
indeterminate amount of energy between Zero and One.
[RJ]
Are you restating what he wrote or rewriting what he wrote? :-)
|
| | [EL]
| | So, you are utilising your masterful hold of the language to
| | twist and redefine all the popular words and concepts into
| | one nice cake. :):)
| [RJ]
| And his presentation was indeed masterful. :-)
| [EL]
| Indeed, Alun is the same person we know as Hermital.
[RJ]
Yes! The author of "Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm"! I
understand the elegance of this latest theory now.
| [EL]
| He is a very able man with great insight.
[RJ]
Indeed he is!
| [EL]
| Yet I still reserve my right to disagree with him if I find it necessary. :)
[RJ]
Is there anyone with whom you do not reserve the right to disagree? :-)
| [RJ]
| Perhaps you could make the discussion more dialectic?
| *****************************************************************************
| One rule being --
| every time God by any appellation or inference is mentioned you lose two
points.
| :-) :-) :-)
| *****************************************************************************
| [EL]
| You just lost two points, because we can apply the rule immediately after
accepting it.
| You certainly never meant that I am the only one who abides by YOUR rule!
| You must have accepted this rule before you write it down or you would not
have written it. ;-)
[RJ]
As you certainly know, during the setting-up process the rules cannot be said to
be in effect since during that interim they are mutable. :-)
| [EL]
| Now that I have affirmed that you lost two points I must have accepted that
rule too. <g>
[RJ]
If you agree to abide by that rule I agree to take your silly hits. :-)
|
| | [EL]
| | So, you imagine all those inherited beliefs on the
| | characteristics of the divine creator then call it a singularity
| | and make it one but infinite and at no place but everywhere,
| | satisfying the chaotic fundamental demands and jumping
| | into particles world by quantifying a point and returning to
| | god by assuming the creation of energy from nothingness.
| | NO.
| | I do not like it.
| |
| | Sorry.
| [RJ]
| You see God under every comma and within every ellipsis,
| [EL]
| This is not true and you lose four points up to this.
[RJ]
Prove it is not true. :-)
| [RJ]
| just waiting there to jump out and do what, EL?
| [EL]
| What is it that shall jump out and do?
| I am not expecting anything that jumps, but if you mean that hops then yes
smart1234 does it all the time. :):):)
[RJ]
The predilection you and many others have on this group for the inane harassment
of S. is childish, no matter if he leaves himself wide open for your attacks or
not.
| [RJ]
| Deprive you of your cognitive abilities?
| [EL]
| Who? Alzheimer?
| [RJ]
| Cause you to ruin the knees of your favourite suit?
| [EL]
| I usually take off my trousers before doing anything that ruins the knees of
my favourite suit. :)
| I might keep the Jacket though, quite a view. :):):)
[RJ]
The mental image is of the classic absent-minded professor. :-)
| [RJ]
| For someone so abhorrent of the concept of God
| [EL]
| There, your points are dwindling by the bucket. :):):)
| [RJ]
| you certainly seem to have God
| [EL]
| Two buckets more. :):)
| [RJ]
| foremost in your mind.
| Your ability to notice God
| [EL]
| Here comes two more.
| You can confidently dive in the pool now after all those points and buckets.
<g>
| [RJ]
| everywhere in everything is a trait
| those who attest to a strong faith in God
| [EL]
| Ok, I must open the drain or we are going to have a small flood here. :)
[RJ]
One flooding phobia complete with trimmings coming up! :-)
| [RJ]
| would find admirable and hope to emulate.
| ;-)
| |
| | EL
| RJay
|
|
Alun Williams
I am so interested in the theories surrounding the increasing luminosity of
our Sun with time, (i.e. 10% increase every billion years). However, I
haven't been able to find any theories explaining it. If you know of any,
please let me know.
Cheers
Al
R J Englund
disinterest, that is far from the truth. My previous replies did not spawn from
my local newserver.
As to the sun's increasing brightness -- Perhaps it might be due to the length
of time involved [10,000,000 years] for the light its core reactions produce to
reach its surface. Since its gravity attempts to force the sun to collaspe in
upon itself, the counterforces of the reactions generated within the core are
constantly increasing, which in turn generate more light.
Thank you for the discussion.
RJ
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9fgi2p$8sp$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
EL
[RJ]
OUCH!
[EL]
I snip but I go to the point you are after, thus my scissors is similar to that of a beauty parlour. :)
Now If I hear you complaining once more while cutting your fuzzy hair I shall leave the session to any of my helpers who can spoil
you and smile while you pretend to be hurt and feeling pain for cutting your hair. <g>
<snip> :)
[RJ]
I was addressing the hypothesized primordial stasis that has stumped Hawking.
[EL]
The core subject is: "what is stasis?".
Is there such a thing as an absolute stasis? :::::::::::::::::::::::(1).
| [EL]
| Heck.:) Try even to define a stand alone state of static. . .
[RJ]
That definition can be found in books :-) -- under "Singularity".
[EL]
No, that would be awfully wrong, and a biased definition.
It is illegal to use the issue being debated to define what defines what is being debated.
Remember that we arrived at stasis as being the state of a singularity in an attempt to define singularity. Thus it would be
ridiculous to define stasis as that state of a singularity.
| [EL]
| and you shall understand that you cannot do that without relating it to
another state and an observer, then you shall find out that stasis is the
observer's averaging of the binary state.
[RJ]
We are talking about two different things. Yours is apparently real-world, mine
was not, since the singularity is not within our space-time continuum if one
should exist or at one time existed.
[EL]
Now you force your way through crippled words.
We debate the singularity, and my position is that it never existed because its definition fails to fulfil the basic requirements of
existence as defined by being an observable order in a chaotic background. Claiming that the singularity is not within our
space-time continuum is saying that it is fiction but in the most twisted way, which is borrowed from the language designed by the
writers who write for Startrek and voyage to the beginning of time. I hate to see science dwindling into mental fornication levels
by assuming the existence of the nonexistent by allowing an imaginary parallel set of systems for holding all what does not exist to
temporarily exist in a nonexistent imaginative world to start with. If you are seeking science, you shall have to abide by the
disciplines of science.
The scientific definition of stasis as being a state of equilibrium dismisses the fantasy of the singularity at the most basic
level. There is no such logical equilibrium for less than two opposing entities, hence the singularity as projected by Hawking is
only a reckless fantasy.
| | [EL]
| | Existence is founded on the primordial truth of the chaotic dynamic
| | background oscillatory nature.
| [RJ]
| Your use of the word "primordial" _especially_ when tying it to "truth" just
| cost you two points. :-) And how, my dearest EL, can this "chaotic dynamic
| background" exist to oscillate? What conditions allow its existence?
| [EL_2]
| In the particular case of ME answering YOU, I demand a definition of
existence, allowance, conditions and the question particle "what". I expect you
to play on each and every word available to obscure an answer when you have that
challenging tone that you copy right out from that damn "agenda". <g> :):):) I
might even ask for a definition of "its" as a possession related word and to
what does "its" refer to?
[RJ]
That was an awful lot of verbiage to shrug, "How should I know?" You assume an
ever-existing state for the chaos from which you say our reality is built.
Logical assumption if you also assume unimaginable, everlasting heat on the
order of that proposed for the Big Bang. Not what I was asking. It seems I was
asking a question with no answer, as opposed to a question with an unknown
answer, if what I have come up with here is representative of the larger scale.
[EL]
You have just demonstrated total failure to pin down the criterion for existence.
Chaos IS the state of non-existence. Things are nonexistent when they are chaotic, and existent when they are ordered into an
observable order that can be observed as an emerging durable and observable set, within the chaotic nonexistent continuum that
contains the emerging ordered set that is being observed as existent. Chaos is there at nowhere, it is always because it isn't.
On logical comparison if there was no observable difference, then what is the difference?
Zero, null, nothing and nonexistent. So if there was NO difference then a difference is nonexistent, and when there is difference
then a difference does exist. Chaos is the field in which no differences could ever be detected as long as the field is absolutely
chaotic. Therefore, chaos is there but nowhere and always because it isn't. Remember the arrow's paradox of Zeno of Elea. If the
arrow was really moving then it must be where it is not, because if it is where it is at each and every instance then it could not
be moving, which we know to be false. What Zeno did was defining the order of the arrow in terms of the containing background where
no references could be ever taken, thus the existence of the arrow is emerging from the infinite background and its motion is
existence in non-existence, hence it is where it is not is true. Zeno's paradoxes had a purpose, and it was to support Parmenides,
who denied plurality, and asserted that all is one. Does this ring a bell? ;-)
To resolve Zeno's paradoxes we are forced to admit the factual concept of the infinite.
The opposite of plurality is .......................................? :):):)
Parmenides the philosopher taught that all is one and that equates the modern concept of the infinite. Zeno supported Parmenides,
and we can see that too in the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. In that paradox Zeno forced the Pythagoreans to admit that
lines are not composed of a finite number of points. This eventually leads to the concept of infinity of space. The arrow paradox on
the other hand was targeting the infinity of time, because motion is a sequence that was thought to be a queue of points in time,
which is obviously an error, and the arrow paradox could not be resolved unless we admit that time is a continuum as well as space.
To admit that space-time is a continuum as opposed to finite quanta is to admit that the universe is an infinite singularity.
Zeno won. :):):)
<snip> :)
[RJ]
Quote sources? Is the definition of "entropy" I was using not clear?
Here, from Dictionary.com --
From one def. --
"4. A hypothetical tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve
toward a state of inert uniformity."
From another def. --
"1: (thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is
available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe
degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
Each of the above concerns the state of "Ultimate Entropy" I spoke of in one of
our email discussions where I mentioned an hypothesis, not mine although I agree
with the logic of it, that this state and the singularity state are the same
state. If one state is possible then the other state must be.
[EL]
Yes for the dictionary, no for what came after. :)
What you shall not find in dictionaries is that a thermodynamic state at finite temperatures corresponds to many microstates
statistically. That number of microstates decrease with temperature. The Nernst theorem implies that at zero temperature there is
only one "singular" microstate.
This is exactly what we get for superconductivity at near absolute zero temperatures, where ferromagnetic materials assume full
magnetisation in an almost singular state entropy.
You see, singularity of state is completely different from science fiction's singularity.
<snip> :)
[RJ]
Why is chaos a necessary beginning state?
Entropy?
Entropy, if it could play out, would theoretically end with order.
[EL]
Not necessarily.
The microstates could be chaotic while the sum of the states compose the entropy.
What you are having difficulty to grasp is that the whole universe's entropy is based on the equilibrium of an infinity of
microstates not a singular microstate, which is the absolute opposite.
The singularity of the totality never implied the singularity of the composition. The infinite universe is a singular entity by
default, but we are forbidden from describing it as being at equilibrium because it could not be singular if it was. The infinite
microstates within the singular universe are what is in equilibrium not the universe. The equilibrium of entropy is unrelated to any
order and thus you are making an irrelevant connection.
[RJ]
What indication is there that order was wrested from chaos?
[EL]
Indications!!!
If the universal background space-time continuum is nothingness, which is chaos by definition then anything we observe is obviously
order in chaos.
The most interesting concept of all, is that the relation is not a simplistic binary relation.
There is order within chaos, but then there is more chaos within that order, and further more we have yet order within the chaos
within the order within the chaos. That is how we have an infinite variety of existing entities at infinite levels of complexity.
[RJ]
Where is there an indication of a type of plasma that is everlasting?
[EL]
!!!!!???
[RJ]
All plasma of which we are aware is a finite, excited state of energy.
Heat seems to be a temporary chaotic reaction to catastrophic action,
and heat loss seems to lead to order. As long as the movement heat causes
remains, a large part of that order is matter.
[EL]
I think you are getting close enough to the correct relation between "energy" and "matter".
[RJ]
The universe seems to be in differing states of order built by the war between
temporary heat and everlasting cold.
[EL]
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO. :)
Temporary implies order, hence heat IS order.
The increase of heat in a level is the increase of the order that causes chaos in the upper level.
The everlasting "cold" at our level of events is the state of absolute chaos which is caused by absolute order of the sublevel in
which its heat is causing the cold state in our level. :)
Please relate temperature to a state of enthalpy. It is measured by causing change of state.
A mercury thermometer shall show a change in the volume of mercury (expansion) when measuring a temperature greater than the initial
state temperature in which the mercury was. Thus, the molecular arrangement of mercury undergoes a chaotic redistribution in the
space-time continuum taking more space at the "same time" due to the increase in the velocity of motion, hence expanding.
If volume was confined and restricted, then we have more time (frequency) in the "same space", which raises the pressure. This is
what entropy is all about, being bound to temperature and expressing the finite energy available for doing work.
[RJ]
When fermions are super-cooled to near
absolute zero they become very still,
eventually assuming a boson-like state,
losing their fermion quality of individuality and merging into each other.
[EL]
What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:):)
Noooooooooooo.
You are messing the logical sequence of the causational chain here.
Slowing down the fermions shall increase the time of fermion-fermion coupling.
The thermal reaction shall tend to the formation of bosons due to the increase of the time occupied by the coherent coupling of
fermions
let us assume that a boson is an even number "6" and the component fermions are each "3".
Then 3 + 3 <==> 6 (as a reversible reaction).
Heat shall favour dissociation, that is why cooling down to near absolute zero favours association.
Therefore it is by merging that they lose the fermion qualities and not the other way around.
First they slow down then they merge then they are bosons. They do not become bosons and then merge.
[RJ]
That alone should indicate the solidity of matter is an artificial construct of the
motion generated by heat.
[EL]
Again the logic here is inverted.
Stability of space-time structures is inversly proportional to the thermodynamic properties and heat content, thus we expect gasses
to be at higher temperatures than the corresponing liquid and solid states of the same element.
[RJ]
If anything, what lies beyond the GR generated event
horizon is one unimaginably cold, unimaginably dense, unimaginably still,
boson-like super-particle.
[EL]
Here, your intuitive conclusion is surprisingly perfect and excellent!
Yes, this is true, and that is why it is the absolute opposite of a hole.
That is why it has volume, and that is why it can explode when core matter is converted to pure energy when pressure is enough to
raise the frequency of particle motion beyond particle order frames way before it could become a trap that non could escape.
<snip> :)
[RJ]
What point within order that cannot be integrated into that order but instead
builds that order in its wake can be called order? "Order" infers "place". A
point lacking a place is unordered, or "chaotic". :-) But I will concede to
your greater knowledge, as I wish you to explain in more detail your statement,
"For any point to exist chaotically it enters order not leaves it." This seems
to be what Mr. Williams' Chaos Point was doing on a universal scale.
| | [EL]
| | So we can talk about a point of order in chaos because we can distinguish it
| | and observe it. Yet we can not call anything a "chaotic point" it just makes
| | no sense.
[EL]
Chaos is the essence of infinity ...... Parmenides & Zeno.
Points are the essence of finite quanta......Pythagoras.
A "Chaos Point" shall be philosophically equivalent to a finite infinity.
Does that make sense to you or to anyone?
"A point in chaos" is synonymous to order in chaos.
There is no chaotic order or ordered chaos, there is chaos IN order and order IN chaos.
There is no tidy mess or messy tidiness, there is mess among the tidy and tidy among the messy.
There are no liquid solids or solid liquids, there are liquids in solids and solids in liquids.
There are no black holes in nothingness but things in nothingness, those things are the opposite of what a hole is, extreme
solidity. A gravitational anchor in space-time.
There are not a singularity inside a universe, there is a singular universe.
Singularity Universe is infinite and is impossible to bang, big or small, as there is no where beyond infinity to go. The
singularity of the universe is the infinite of what can and cannot be.
There is no moving stisis or still motion, there is motion within stisis and stasis within motion.
Any attempt to drive me crazy shall result in me driving all of you crazy too. :):):)
So be very carful. :):):)
Kind regards RJ. :)
EL
tj Frazir
disapates .
back ground e radiation .
Mater is condenced energy lowering the energy of its space as space
expands and condenced liquified energy befor the BB became a balloon
where elements formed in layers of dencity being crushed by gravity
cause by the low energy rate the presents of mater makes in space time
eliminating space.
The nucleus spins in space time making vibrations oval paths and waves
in space .
The key holder cast a seed.
Alun Williams
It seems that I have missed a very interesting debate :o( Probably the most
intellectual debate that I have ever seen on this news group :o) I must
have been sleeping or something!!!! I have to admit that I really enjoyed
reading through the discussion thread.
There are a few things that I would like to comment on:
El said that you can define a point of order out of chaos, but you cannot
define a chaotic point. The logic of this is quite clear to me. Except,
the statement seems incomplete. There seems to be something missing from
the end. You said that you can define a point of order out of chaos
(agreed), but, you cannot define a chaotic point (out of what? Order?) If
this is the case, then what are we are trying to do? Are we not within our
theories attempting to define chaos? And yet we occupy a place that appears
to be ordered. The fact that, we are using the terminology POINT is not
particularly relevant. Could we amend the statement to: We can define
order out of chaos, but cannot define chaos? The geometry of the argument
does not seem relevant. How could we possibly use any geometry to define
chaos? If we try to associate dimensions of any kind with chaos, then we
are introducing order. To define a dimension, we need a method to describe
it. Units of distance? Units of time? How do we define these units in the
realm of chaos? This is how I have formulated my Chaos Point. I know that
to use the word point isn't accurate either, but it helps me to visualise
it.
The Chaos Point can be described as follows:
The Chaos Point is responsible for the existence of all things. It has no
definite mass or energy. It has no definite position. It has no limits.
The reason I have described the Chaos Point in the singular, is because
there is no other logical way to describe it. We cannot separate the Chaos
Point into discrete parts. How could we do this? If we cut it into two,
would we have two equally infinite halves? The only logical way to describe
it is as a singular whole.
RJ wrote:
What point within order that cannot be integrated into that order but
instead
builds that order in its wake can be called order? "Order" infers "place".
A
point lacking a place is unordered, or "chaotic". :-)
What can I say. RJ, you have hit the nail on the head :o). Your statement
reflects exactly what I have defined as the Chaos Point. Although, EL is
strictly correct that even the use of the word point is not truly valid.
Buy, I think we need something to describe it as we are visual sensory
creatures and point seems to work for me in conjuring up the image?
Very interesting debate guys. I much enjoyed it.
Cheers
Al
EL
Hi Alun. :)
When we use the English language in a philosophical way to express a scientific idea,
we are bound by the verbal meanings that words convey, thus we have to escape from ambiguity.
Firstly, I would like to drive your attention to something you have mastered already through your profession, and it is the concept
of a field versus the concept of a quantum. When we focus mentally on the concept of a field we do not visualise any points, but
when we calculate the field we are forced to assume that it is a field of an infinite number of elements, which mathematically can
be called points. Nevertheless, once the concept of a point is expressed within the physical context we instantly switch to a point
like particle entity, which is order in chaos.
We can plot mathematical points in a chaotic field at a time interval that tends to zero as a limit.
These points are dimensionless imaginary boundary points of the set, unlike a physical point, which could be divided into smaller
parts, hence it must be order as defined by its boundaries.
A better way to put it is to give the title of "Chaotic field elements" (in the plural).
Let me reconstruct what I said so far to express it in a different way so that I give you a wider perspective. When we talk about
the chaotic field of water molecules we should notice that each element in the field is a perfectly ordered molecule, which has a
perfectly defined structure we call H2O. Each element is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Each atom has a perfectly
defined order of subatomic particles, so where is the chaos???????
Let us go back and up in the worlds then forget the concept of a molecule and watch the water field in a glass of water before you
drink. You never see molecules that you can count, you have no sense of points at all, what you have is a sense of a field. The
coordinates of each molecule in space-time continuum must have a perfectly defined magnitude from a reference in time and a
reference in space, but within the field itself the relation between any two molecules is chaotic, and we fail to define any
particular relation that can be sustained from one moment to the next.
Now go up in worlds and notice that all the water is contained in a perfectly defined glass of water which is order again. So what
we have here is order in chaos in order, as molecules in water in a glass.
Each molecule is a point of order in chaos (water), which is in a point of order (the glass).
Within chaos the concept of point is forbidden, and once you analyse chaos down to its chaotically distributed elements you hit the
points concept once more when the focus is the element itself rather than the field of the elements. Therefore there is no such
thing as a chaotic point but there is a chaotic field of points. The field is chaotic, the point is not chaotic. The field has no
order the point is a point because of its order. We have a point of order, but we do not have a field of order.
In the later case we introduce the concept of a lattice or a crystal structure.
In my lectures on chaos in chemical reactions I demonstrated "equations" that leads to such chaotic fields (on the short term not on
the long term). Firstly, we need to understand what physical property is fundamental to chaos. Vibration.
Vibration is critically fundamental to chaotic distributions and mathematically we call this behaviour "non monotonic". When we stir
a solution continuously and constantly we aid homogeneity which is a global order, but when we shake the solution we increase the
chaotic factor and the rate of reaction by increasing the probability of chaotic encounter. Long term chaos has no equation
whatsoever, that is why there is no such thing as a chaotic point. Short term chaos have been demonstrated to follow a possible type
of non-linear equations that alternate signs per iteration with varying complex magnitudes in the planes. The same equations on the
long term tend to accumulate a pattern of order. Ultimately, there is no equation for chaos, and if there is no equation of
coordinate probability then there is no point.
Alun, if you have a growing interest in a deep study on chaos then you might wish to know about the chaotic attractor and the
emergence of fractal structures, and the dependence on the initial conditions.
At this point I have to recall entropy as a measure of a system's inaccessible energy. High entropy means that that much of a
system's energy can't be used to do work. This gives insight into the flexibility of chaos. Absolute entropy would be absolute chaos
where all the energy is dedicated to keep chaos exclusively chaotic. Doing work involves directing chaotic fields in the direction
of the work to be done, and that is how the distance along which the force acts to produce work is traversed given enough time to
traverse. By ordered migration of the chaotic force fields work is done and emergence takes place and fractal patterns are spawn
from chaos.
Cheers
EL
********
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:9fja32$8pn$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
R J Englund
real substance out of you.
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9fh5ej$jji$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
| | <snip>
| [RJ]
| OUCH!
| [EL]
| I snip but I go to the point you are after, thus my scissors is similar to
that of a beauty parlour. :)
| Now If I hear you complaining once more while cutting your fuzzy hair I shall
leave the session to any of my helpers who can spoil you and smile while you
pretend to be hurt and feeling pain for cutting your hair. <g>
[RJ]
If I was not basically masochistic I would not adore your beatings as I do. :-)
:-) :-)
| [RJ]
| I was addressing the hypothesized primordial stasis that has stumped Hawking.
| [EL]
| The core subject is: "what is stasis?".
[RJ]
I am certain among all your books there is a dictionary you have most probably
committed to memory. :-) So, why have you chosen to pound this
widely-understood definition?
| [EL]
| Is there such a thing as an absolute stasis? :::::::::::::::::::::::(1).
[RJ]
And this is a different thing. Stasis is understood; absolute stasis is
understood. Of the existence of the latter, how could anyone ever say with
certainty? Such a thing can only be postulated since, if it were possible, it
would only be possible outside our universe.
| | [EL]
| | Heck.:) Try even to define a stand alone state of static. . .
| [RJ]
| That definition can be found in books :-) -- under "Singularity".
| [EL]
| No, that would be awfully wrong, and a biased definition.
[RJ]
But a very popular scientific definition nonetheless.
| [EL]
| It is illegal to use the issue being debated to define what defines what is
being debated.
[RJ]
Rules? To hell with rules. ;-)
| [EL]
| Remember that we arrived at stasis as being the state of a singularity in an
attempt to define singularity. Thus it would be ridiculous to define stasis as
that state of a singularity.
[RJ]
True, and I would bear such guilt humbly if that is what I had done.
| | [EL]
| | and you shall understand that you cannot do that without relating it to
| another state and an observer, then you shall find out that stasis is the
| observer's averaging of the binary state.
| [RJ]
| We are talking about two different things. Yours is apparently real-world,
mine
| was not, since the singularity is not within our space-time continuum if one
| should exist or at one time existed.
| [EL]
| Now you force your way through crippled words.
[RJ]
So you say.
| [EL]
| We debate the singularity, and my position is that it never existed because
its definition fails to fulfill the basic requirements of existence as defined
by being an observable order in a chaotic background.
[RJ]
Do you use nose-plugs in preparation for sticking your head in the sand? :-) To
say it is not as defined is one thing; to say the definition is irrelevant due
to its requirement of extra-space-time existence is quite another which has
repercussions into many other areas of speculation. However, since it is
defined as a _point_ of infinitely curved, infinite mass density it is, as you
have insisted, order within chaos, since you have insisted that _any_ single
point must be defined as order.
Shall we define "chaos" before we go further?
"2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme;
especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the
creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS"
"often Chaos -- The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space
supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe."
These accepted definitions of chaos better fit my assertions regarding its
properties. It would seem the term "unformed matter" can only mean a
plasma-like state since, as energy cools, it organizes into regular patterns,
forming into matter.
| [EL]
| Claiming that the singularity is not within our space-time continuum is saying
that it is fiction but in the most twisted way, which is borrowed from the
language designed by the writers who write for Startrek and voyage to the
beginning of time.
[RJ]
I disagree. If you hold to the position that there are only three spatial
dimensions and one of time, then you might say that. I do not hold to that
position, perhaps even regarding time.
As to voyaging to the beginning of time, I have a whole other nit to pick in
that area of discussion, as you know. :-)
| [EL]
| I hate to see science dwindling into mental fornication levels by assuming the
existence of the nonexistent by allowing an imaginary parallel set of systems
for holding all what does not exist to temporarily exist in a nonexistent
imaginative world to start with. If you are seeking science, you shall have to
abide by the disciplines of science.
[RJ]
I am not outside the realm of accepted science. Please stop implying to the
contrary. The numbers that so often supercede reality until reality proves or
disproves their worth insist on the existence of dimensions well in excess of
our well-loved four. The singularity as classically defined remains tied to our
reality by at least one of our known dimensions.
The fact remains that _IF_ [and I do not mean IFF] there is such a thing as a
"classically defined" singularity, it _must_ prove the existence of another
state of existence of a type unknown outside the parameters of our known
existence. Now, the qualities that form that extra-space-time state could
possibly interweave our space-time without perceived interaction, with the
effect that each exists "amongst" the other, with the extra-space-time existence
even being subject to some of the same forces, most obviously gravity as one
choice, and the most basic constituents of energy for another. However, they
must also be sufficiently separate from each other so as to prevent the proposed
"infinite" gravity [that is such a ludicrous assumption] of the singularity's
realm from overpowering the entirety of our space-time.
| [EL]
| The scientific definition of stasis as being a state of equilibrium dismisses
the fantasy of the singularity at the most basic level. There is no such logical
equilibrium for less than two opposing entities, hence the singularity as
projected by Hawking is only a reckless fantasy.
[RJ]
Look at what is said to cause that stasis. Everyone becomes extremely verbally
creative in tip-toeing around what perforce must be the presumptive cause --
infinite gravity. Gravity of such force as to pull mass into a hole and then
pull the hole in behind it. If ever there was a force that could instigate and
then maintain absolute stasis it must be infinite gravity.
[RJ]
EL, your explanation may be _the_ answer, but not for the question I was asking.
:-) I was not seeking "the criterion for existence", that is defined by
existence, I was seeking a logical reason there could _BE_ criteria or anything
else. It was not a chicken or egg consideration, but how could there _BE_ a
chicken or egg to become anything.
| [EL]
| Chaos IS the state of non-existence. Things are nonexistent when they are
chaotic, and existent when they are ordered into an observable order that can be
observed as an emerging durable and observable set, within the chaotic
nonexistent continuum that contains the emerging ordered set that is being
observed as existent. Chaos is there at nowhere, it is always because it isn't.
[RJ]
"chaotic nonexistent continuum"? I presume you have a wealth of live-dead cats
roaming and not-roaming about the house not-house. :-)
Are there points within that chaos? Does that chaos contain the precursors of
our space-time existence? If these things are there within it, then chaos _IS_,
even should energy, space, corner markets, and live-dead cats be nowhere to be
found within it, it is _still_ a form of existence. If chaos _IS_, then it
exists. How?
| [EL]
| On logical comparison if there was no observable difference, then what is the
difference?
[RJ]
Solipsistic response. Descartes nailed us to existence, he did not nail
existence to us.
| [EL]
| Zero, null, nothing and nonexistent. So if there was NO difference then a
difference is nonexistent, and when there is difference then a difference does
exist.
[RJ]
You are grouping unlikes. "Zero", "null", and in some respects "nothing" are
pregnant somethings with a place; they denote an emptiness, incompleteness, or
depletion, a void; a void indicates the lack of the presence of something that
was there previously or will be there in the future. "Nonexistent" has no
place, no time, nowhere from which to begin, and nothing with which to begin.
There are no elements, chaotic or otherwise to nonexistence.
| [EL]
| Chaos is the field in which no differences could ever be detected as long as
the field is absolutely chaotic.
[RJ]
"Chaos is the field". Chaos "is".
| [EL]
| Therefore, chaos is there but nowhere and always because it isn't.
[RJ]
A beautiful word dance to ponder in the quiet of a Zen garden. :-) But from the
pondering one must conclude that "is" and "always" supercede the negatives,
which only sidestep the true admission of the statement. Did you mean perhaps
"There is only Is or Is Not"? If so then, by your own admission, chaos IS,
therefore it cannot be Is Not.
Let us focus on chaos and its very ability to be. Why can it be? Locked in an
eternity box bounded by infinity? Size and duration certify ability to exist?
| [EL]
| Remember the arrow's paradox of Zeno of Elea. If the arrow was really moving
then it must be where it is not, because if it is where it is at each and every
instance then it could not be moving, which we know to be false. What Zeno did
was defining the order of the arrow in terms of the containing background where
no references could be ever taken, thus the existence of the arrow is emerging
from the infinite background and its motion is existence in non-existence, hence
it is where it is not is true. [RJ]
However, dearest EL, the assertion "motion is existence in non-existence" is
oxymoronic. It is the alternate of attempting to pinpoint Now. There is no
Now. There is only Will Be or Has Been, outside the bounds of a picture frame.
Motion is time, and time is only past or future.
| [EL]
| Zeno's paradoxes had a purpose, and it was to support Parmenides, who denied
plurality, and asserted that all is one. Does this ring a bell? ;-)
| To resolve Zeno's paradoxes we are forced to admit the factual concept of the
infinite.
[RJ]
AND the factual existence of a totality that is greater than the sum of its
parts. :-)
| [EL]
| The opposite of plurality is .......................................? :):):)
[RJ]
Singularity? :-) :-) :-)
| [EL]
| Parmenides the philosopher taught that all is one and that equates the modern
concept of the infinite. Zeno supported Parmenides, and we can see that too in
the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. In that paradox Zeno forced the
Pythagoreans to admit that lines are not composed of a finite number of points.
This eventually leads to the concept of infinity of space. The arrow paradox on
the other hand was targeting the infinity of time, because motion is a sequence
that was thought to be a queue of points in time, which is obviously an error,
and the arrow paradox could not be resolved unless we admit that time is a
continuum as well as space.
| To admit that space-time is a continuum as opposed to finite quanta is to
admit that the universe is an infinite singularity.
| Zeno won. :):):)
[RJ]
So there you have it. Our universe never left singularity state. :-) :-) :-)
| [RJ]
| Quote sources? Is the definition of "entropy" I was using not clear?
|
| Here, from Dictionary.com --
| From one def. --
| "4. A hypothetical tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to
evolve
| toward a state of inert uniformity."
| From another def. --
| "1: (thermodynamics) a measure of the amount of energy in a system that is
| available for doing work; entropy increases as matter and energy in the
universe
| degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
|
| Each of the above concerns the state of "Ultimate Entropy" I spoke of in one
of
| our email discussions where I mentioned an hypothesis, not mine although I
agree
| with the logic of it, that this state and the singularity state are the same
| state. If one state is possible then the other state must be.
| [EL]
| Yes for the dictionary, no for what came after. :)
[RJ]
I said "If". :-)
| [EL]
| What you shall not find in dictionaries is that a thermodynamic state at
finite temperatures corresponds to many microstates statistically. That number
of microstates decrease with temperature. The Nernst theorem implies that at
zero temperature there is only one "singular" microstate.
[RJ]
:-)
| [EL]
| This is exactly what we get for superconductivity at near absolute zero
temperatures, where ferromagnetic materials assume full magnetisation in an
almost singular state entropy.
| You see, singularity of state is completely different from science fiction's
singularity.
[RJ]
Schwarzchild's hospital bed calculations, you mean, or what was extrapolated
from them? Or both?
| [RJ]
| Why is chaos a necessary beginning state?
| Entropy?
| Entropy, if it could play out, would theoretically end with order.
| [EL]
| Not necessarily.
| The microstates could be chaotic while the sum of the states compose the
entropy.
| What you are having difficulty to grasp is that the whole universe's entropy
is based on the equilibrium of an infinity of
| microstates not a singular microstate, which is the absolute opposite.
[RJ]
Nicely said, but wait a minute. At absolute zero the sum of the micro-states is
1. At the point of Ultimate Entropy all heat and thus all motion has been
depleted, therefore all micro-states have been resolved. Reality is unbuilt.
Space-time ceases to exist. Singularity state, EL.
I must make clear that I do not think this state is a viable proposition on a
universal scale, though it may be, as anything is possible -- just look at all
those live-dead cats sleeping not-sleeping in your chair not-chair. :-)
| [EL]
| The singularity of the totality never implied the singularity of the
composition.
[RJ]
I do not think "singularity of composition" was necessarily implied, though it
might have been erroneously assumed.
| [EL]
| The infinite universe is a singular entity by default, but we are forbidden
from describing it as being at equilibrium because it could not be singular if
it was. The infinite microstates within the singular universe are what is in
equilibrium not the universe. The equilibrium of entropy is unrelated to any
order and thus you are making an irrelevant connection.
[RJ]
:-) :-) I am, am I? When did I use the word "equilibrium"?
| [RJ]
| What indication is there that order was wrested from chaos?
| [EL]
| Indications!!!
| If the universal background space-time continuum is nothingness, which is
chaos by definition then anything we observe is obviously order in chaos.
[RJ]
Circular. Something defined within something undefined is still something
within something. Is it your assertion that chaos is temporal or nontemporal?
| [EL]
| The most interesting concept of all, is that the relation is not a simplistic
binary relation.
| There is order within chaos, but then there is more chaos within that order,
and further more we have yet order within the chaos within the order within the
chaos. That is how we have an infinite variety of existing entities at infinite
levels of complexity.
[RJ]
Nesting differing types of existence merely obfuscates; interestingly, I must
admit, but obfuscation nonetheless.
| [RJ]
| Where is there an indication of a type of plasma that is everlasting?
| [EL]
| !!!!!???
[RJ]
"Chaos". Moves around. Here, there, everywhere. Never stops. Never rests.
Keeps things stirred up. Generates heat. Rather like the ultimate
three-year-old. :-)
| [RJ]
| All plasma of which we are aware is a finite, excited state of energy.
| Heat seems to be a temporary chaotic reaction to catastrophic action,
| and heat loss seems to lead to order. As long as the movement heat causes
| remains, a large part of that order is matter.
| [EL]
| I think you are getting close enough to the correct relation between "energy"
and "matter".
[RJ]
:-) :-)
| [RJ]
| The universe seems to be in differing states of order built by the war between
| temporary heat and everlasting cold.
| [EL]
| No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, NO. :)
| Temporary implies order, hence heat IS order.
| The increase of heat in a level is the increase of the order that causes chaos
in the upper level.
[RJ]
I miss the differentiation you are atempting between what I said and what you
said. It seems as though you said "NO!" then repeated exactly what I said in
different words! As far as our space-time goes, heat definitely creates order
since it generates fermions; but it is the _war_between_heat_and_cold_ that
builds our space-time. If all were heat, then no space-time as we know it could
exist; if all were cold then no space-time as we know it could exist.
| [EL]
| The everlasting "cold" at our level of events is the state of absolute chaos
which is caused by absolute order of the sublevel in
| which its heat is causing the cold state in our level. :)
[RJ]
uuuuuuuuuhhhhhhh ------------------- what? Hawa, Nute, and Adaam? Rings within
rings moving in opposition to each other, each causing the next to move?
Action-reaction?
| [EL]
| Please relate temperature to a state of enthalpy. It is measured by causing
change of state.
[RJ]
Okay.
| [EL]
| A mercury thermometer shall show a change in the volume of mercury (expansion)
when measuring a temperature greater than the initial state temperature in which
the mercury was. Thus, the molecular arrangement of mercury undergoes a chaotic
redistribution in the space-time continuum taking more space at the "same time"
due to the increase in the velocity of motion, hence expanding.
[RJ]
Very succinct.
| [EL]
| If volume was confined and restricted, then we have more time (frequency) in
the "same space", which raises the pressure.
[RJ]
If heat is added to the system.
| [EL]
| This is what entropy is all about, being bound to temperature and expressing
the finite energy available for doing work.
[RJ]
Where are you going with this? Entropy in a closed system such as our universe
is achieved by a lessening of motion due to heat loss -- and the heat loss has
been documented.
| [RJ]
| When fermions are super-cooled to near
| absolute zero they become very still,
| eventually assuming a boson-like state,
| losing their fermion quality of individuality and merging into each other.
| [EL]
| What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| :):)
| Noooooooooooo.
| You are messing the logical sequence of the causational chain here.
| Slowing down the fermions shall increase the time of fermion-fermion coupling.
| The thermal reaction shall tend to the formation of bosons due to the increase
of the time occupied by the coherent coupling of fermions let us assume that a
boson is an even number "6" and the component fermions are each "3".
| Then 3 + 3 <==> 6 (as a reversible reaction).
| Heat shall favour dissociation, that is why cooling down to near absolute zero
favours association.
| Therefore it is by merging that they lose the fermion qualities and not the
other way around.
| First they slow down then they merge then they are bosons. They do not become
bosons and then merge.
[RJ]
Forgive my inept statement construction. :-)
I never thought they actually _become_ bosons; it was my understanding they
merely become boson-like, unfermion-acting fermions.
| [RJ]
| That alone should indicate the solidity of matter is an artificial construct
of the
| motion generated by heat.
| [EL]
| Again the logic here is inverted.
[RJ]
Incorrect. :-)
| [EL]
| Stability of space-time structures is inversely proportional to the
thermodynamic properties and heat content, thus we expect gasses to be at higher
temperatures than the corresponding liquid and solid states of the same element.
[RJ]
Of course, but you have overlooked the main thrust of my statement, which
concerned the solidity of matter; the reference to heat was applied specifically
in that context within that sentence. Are you denying that fermions maintain
their individuality through the machinations of heat?
| [RJ]
| If anything, what lies beyond the GR generated event
| horizon is one unimaginably cold, unimaginably dense, unimaginably still,
| boson-like super-particle.
| [EL]
| Here, your intuitive conclusion is surprisingly perfect and excellent!
[RJ]
:-) :-) :-) It is what I was leading to from the first, faltering though my
journey may have been.
| [EL]
| Yes, this is true, and that is why it is the absolute opposite of a hole.
| That is why it has volume, and that is why it can explode when core matter is
converted to pure energy when pressure is enough to raise the frequency of
particle motion beyond particle order frames way before it could become a trap
that none could escape.
[RJ]
Could you be more verbose on this? :-) Why can it explode? It reaches a point
of maximum density at which time heat is spontaneously generated due to what?
An attempt at further collapse? Where is gravity in all of this? The base
causality?
[RJ]
Catsup is a "solquid". :-) :-) :-)
Okay. _OKAY_! You have made your point. :-) :-) :-)
| [EL]
| There are no black holes in nothingness but things in nothingness, those
things are the opposite of what a hole is, extreme
| solidity. A gravitational anchor in space-time.
[RJ]
PERFECT! :-) :-) :-)
| [EL]
| There is not a singularity inside a universe, there is a singular universe.
[RJ]
It was never said singularities [that plurality makes the concept nonsensical]
exist inside our space-time, quite the opposite actually.
| [EL]
| Singularity Universe is infinite and is impossible to bang, big or small, as
there is no where beyond infinity to go. The
| singularity of the universe is the infinite of what can and cannot be.
[RJ]
I agree. What is often referred to as our universe as contained within another
existence cannot be called a universe. The universe is indeed everything inside
and outside our space-time. That is what the word "universe" means.
| [EL]
| There is no moving stasis or still motion, there is motion within stasis and
stasis within motion.
| Any attempt to drive me crazy shall result in me driving all of you crazy too.
:):):)
| So be very careful. :):):)
[RJ]
I was careful before, my dear EL, and it got me empty banter. My abandon
resulted in this reply from you. Do you seriously think such a magnificent
reward for my lack of self-control will result in my regaining any self-control?
Be logical. ;-) :-) :-)
| Kind regards RJ. :)
My most kind and respectful regards to you in return, dear Professor. :-)
| EL
RJay
|
|
|
|
R J Englund
| expanding energy ( space ) chilled against the nothingness where energy
dissipates. back ground e radiation.
"dissipates"?
| Matter is condensed energy lowering the energy of its space as space
expands and condensed liquified energy before the BB became a balloon where
elements formed in layers of density being crushed by gravity caused by the low
energy rate the presence of matter makes in space-time eliminating space.
Why?
| The nucleus spins in space-time making vibrations oval paths and waves in
space.
Yes.
| The key holder casts a seed.
I have such a seed which I found upon the shore many years ago. It is in the
shape of a sealed, smooth, very hard mollusk shell; dark brown in color with a
black band around the majority of its widest circumference, which is one inch in
diameter. Perhaps if I put it in soil it would grow, but the plant might not
survive the local climate. I would rather continue to enjoy it as a live
possibility than have reason to regret it as a dead failure. I might plant it
if someone could give me a few horticultural tips concerning it.
RJ
R J Englund
"Alun Williams" <alun.wi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9fja32$8pn$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
|
| It seems that I have missed a very interesting debate :o( Probably the most
| intellectual debate that I have ever seen on this news group :o) I must
| have been sleeping or something!!!! I have to admit that I really enjoyed
| reading through the discussion thread.
Thank you very much! :-) I hope you are still in the discussion.
| There are a few things that I would like to comment on:
|
| El said that you can define a point of order out of chaos, but you cannot
| define a chaotic point. The logic of this is quite clear to me. Except,
| the statement seems incomplete. There seems to be something missing from
| the end. You said that you can define a point of order out of chaos
| (agreed), but, you cannot define a chaotic point (out of what? Order?) If
| this is the case, then what are we are trying to do? Are we not within our
| theories attempting to define chaos? And yet we occupy a place that appears
| to be ordered. The fact that, we are using the terminology POINT is not
| particularly relevant. Could we amend the statement to: We can define
| order out of chaos, but cannot define chaos? The geometry of the argument
| does not seem relevant. How could we possibly use any geometry to define
| chaos? If we try to associate dimensions of any kind with chaos, then we
| are introducing order. To define a dimension, we need a method to describe
| it. Units of distance? Units of time? How do we define these units in the
| realm of chaos? This is how I have formulated my Chaos Point. I know that
| to use the word point isn't accurate either, but it helps me to visualise
| it.
Perhaps "universal reality point" or just "reality point", since it builds
reality in it wake and is responsible for the maintenance of all that is
reality? :-) I will be interested to see what you can come up with to match the
clarity of "Chaos Point".
| The Chaos Point can be described as follows:
|
| The Chaos Point is responsible for the existence of all things. It has no
| definite mass or energy. It has no definite position. It has no limits.
|
| The reason I have described the Chaos Point in the singular, is because
| there is no other logical way to describe it. We cannot separate the Chaos
| Point into discrete parts. How could we do this? If we cut it into two,
| would we have two equally infinite halves? The only logical way to describe
| it is as a singular whole.
|
| RJ wrote:
|
| What point within order that cannot be integrated into that order but
| instead builds that order in its wake can be called order? "Order"
| infers "place". A point lacking a place is unordered, or "chaotic". :-)
|
|
| What can I say. RJ, you have hit the nail on the head :o). Your statement
| reflects exactly what I have defined as the Chaos Point. Although, EL is
| strictly correct that even the use of the word point is not truly valid.
| But, I think we need something to describe it as we are visual sensory
| creatures and point seems to work for me in conjuring up the image?
You are correct. As my grasp of your intent must prove, the name you chose gave
an immediate image of a definite thing that could be everywhere and nowhere. :-)
| Very interesting debate guys. I much enjoyed it.
Lavish praise indeed from a thinker of your high standards. :-)
| Cheers
Thank you, and in return to you. :-)
| Al
RJ
|
R J Englund
I must clarify this before it drives me crazy. What you said was exactly what I
said, however I was a bit terse, and that led to a woeful lack of clarity on my
part.
Of course it never crossed my mind they _became_ bosons and then merged! I
cannot let that impression stand as it is ridiculous! It never crossed my mind
they ever became bosons, their state only mimicked the boson state. When I said
below that they eventually assume a boson-like state, that was meant as the
culmination of the cooling process. I should have reconstructed my statement.
I will be more meticulous in future, you slave-driver. :-)
RJ
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9fh5ej$jji$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
EL
| [EL]
| Is there such a thing as an absolute stasis? :::::::::::::::::::::::(1).
[RJ]
And this is a different thing. Stasis is understood; absolute stasis is
understood. Of the existence of the latter, how could anyone ever say with
certainty? Such a thing can only be postulated since, if it were possible, it
would only be possible outside our universe.
[EL]
Warning, drivel detected. The infinite and only verse has no outer sides.
Any more drivel detection shall trigger the "d-snipper". :):)
The correct response should have been, no sir, there is no such thing as absolute stasis.
If it was ever then no thing could have ever been.
<d-snipper>
<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
<d-snipper>
<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
<d-snipper>
<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
<d-snipper>
<!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
[RJ]
<d-snipper>
I was seeking a logical reason there could _BE_ criteria or anything else.
[EL]
If you asked me Why then I can ask you why why?
Infinity is a fact that emerges from the logic of because because.
There is no beyond to the universe yet you wish to go yonder.
This is a tipical malfunction in model X1234myz-DffffffffffffL. :)
Please report to the workshop for replacing the defective units. :):):)
N.B. (Warning, self generated drivel, snipping allowed) <g>
<d-snipper>
[RJ]
Could you be more verbose on this? :-) Why can it explode? It reaches a point
of maximum density at which time heat is spontaneously generated due to what?
An attempt at further collapse? Where is gravity in all of this? The base
causality?
[EL]
Gravitation is not a stand alone field, it is a function of mass and volume in motion.
This can be simplified as density of space interactions.
When a huge mass shrinks in volume, the pressure generated at the core of majestic stars can crush the fundamental structure of
matter and the frequency of vibrations would be in the order of gamma rays, no matter can sustain such frequency and what shall
happen is that the star shall degenerate at a clipping gravitation level as it shrinks until the core overcomes the shell and
explodes in a supernova.
<d-snipper>
| Kind regards RJ. :)
My most kind and respectful regards to you in return, dear Professor. :-)
| EL
RJay
==
[EL]
Yawch!
The D snipper went wham. <g>
It almost broke the screen. :)
Now work on the reasons I snipped what I snipped and find out why.
My sensors gave red alert on energy depleting drivel from a malfunctioning unit on your side.
Please slow down and focus on subjective parts, thus leading to convergence rather than divergence.
RrrrrrrrrrrregarDZ
AYE :) <g>
R J Englund
Let it be as you wish.
RJay
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9fktar$3lk$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
tj Frazir
is a patern of creation space time and time dont change . Space chages.
All energy expands at the same rate .
But none is created where matter is ( Nucleus)
as it moves in space time in the patern it eleiminates more space in
time lowering the energy presure of space . Gravity is a low energy
presure in space.
R J Englund
| To Why, two things can't be in the same place at the same time.
They can.
| Space is a pattern of creation space-time and time don't change. Space
changes.
Why do you make a distinction between space and space-time?
| All energy expands at the same rate.
It is accepted that energy expands according to the amount of heat absorbed or
generated. [Solid to liquid. Liquid to gas.] Do you propose this to be
inaccurate?
| But none is created where matter is ( Nucleus) as it moves in space-time in
the pattern it eliminates more space in time lowering the energy pressure of
space.
Shrinking space?
| Gravity is a low energy pressure in space.
The larger the hole, the wider the area of water subjected to suction? The
lower the pressure in one area the greater the rush of energy from higher
pressure areas toward the lower pressure area?
tj, I find your abstractness very refreshing, it allows for _much_ creative
extrapolation. :-)
RJ
R J Englund
Please disregard my question below, I now grasp what you meant. You were
talking basics while I was still spaced. :-)
RJ
"R J Englund" <rjen...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:9fm740$7m3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
|
| "tj Frazir" <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
| news:17337-3B...@storefull-266.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
| | All energy expands at the same rate.
Alun Williams
I have made some comments:
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9fjl13$l3a$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
> [EL]
> Hi Alun. :)
> When we use the English language in a philosophical way to express a
scientific idea,
> we are bound by the verbal meanings that words convey, thus we have to
escape from ambiguity.
[Alun]
Agreed. I am a visual person, not a verbal person. Don't always get things
the right way around.
> Firstly, I would like to drive your attention to something you have
mastered already through your profession, and it is the concept
> of a field versus the concept of a quantum. When we focus mentally on the
concept of a field we do not visualise any points, but
> when we calculate the field we are forced to assume that it is a field of
an infinite number of elements, which mathematically can
> be called points.
[Alun]
Agreed, we calculate a field by integrating over the field. We do this by
assuming the field is composed of small finite slices or tiny finite parts,
then as the limits of integration approach zero we get an infinite number of
points. Agreed. But, here we are talking about a field that we can
describe as having boundaries that are defined by a co-ordinate system.
Else, we could not evaluate the field.
Nevertheless, once the concept of a point is expressed within the physical
context we instantly switch to a point
> like particle entity, which is order in chaos.
[Alun]
I agree with this assuming that the particle can be physically described
somehow, maybe mathematically. Thus if the particle is ordered, we should
be able to observe it and record it's ordered nature. We should be able to
see patterns emerging that enable us to model it.
> We can plot mathematical points in a chaotic field at a time interval that
tends to zero as a limit.
> These points are dimensionless imaginary boundary points of the set,
unlike a physical point, which could be divided into smaller
> parts, hence it must be order as defined by its boundaries.
[Alun]
In order to plot points in a field, we require a co-ordinate system. In
other words we need a logical repeatable (ordered) method of describing the
system. If the field is truly chaotic then we could not devise such an
ordered repeatable process within it. As your time interval goes to zero.
you are still assuming the the spacial co-ordinate system still exists.
> A better way to put it is to give the title of "Chaotic field elements"
(in the plural).
> Let me reconstruct what I said so far to express it in a different way so
that I give you a wider perspective. When we talk about
> the chaotic field of water molecules we should notice that each element in
the field is a perfectly ordered molecule, which has a
> perfectly defined structure we call H2O. Each element is made of two
hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Each atom has a perfectly
> defined order of subatomic particles, so where is the chaos???????
[Alun]
I don't think that the water molecules or subatomic particles that compose
them are perfectly ordered as we also get H20 > H+ + OH-. The hyrogen ion
bonds loosley with other water molecules to give H3O+ This is not very
predictable. Also, on a sub atomic level , we cannot define the position of
the electrons and the other particles. We can only define them using
probabilstic wave equations. The deeper we look, the less we can predict.
The more chaotic things become. In your example with water, you use
seperate concepts at different levels, (i.e the position of the molecues
with respect to other molecules to describe the chaotic field case (macro),
and the structure of the molecule on the micro scale). On the macro scale,
the structure of the water is simply water. So I would only see water. On a
micro scale we see the complexity of the molecule. On the macro scale I see
chaos associated with the relative position of the water molecules (but I
can still model their diffusivities), on the micro scale I see irratic
molecules with quantised spins, bonds stretching and bending. These
molecules interact with the other molecules and I cannot now model whether
the bond is going to stretch, bend, or in which direction the molecule will
go next. However, I am building a mental picture of the concept you are
describing.
> Let us go back and up in the worlds then forget the concept of a molecule
and watch the water field in a glass of water before you
> drink. You never see molecules that you can count, you have no sense of
points at all, what you have is a sense of a field. The
> coordinates of each molecule in space-time continuum must have a perfectly
defined magnitude from a reference in time and a
> reference in space,
[Alun]
On a quantum level, we find it more and more difficult to define exactly
where the particles or molecules are. On a macro level we can easily define
the worldline of an object using our macro co-ordinate system, but a quantum
level it just becomes a mess. How could we define the worldline of an
electron? On a macro level, the water field you describe above can be
easily modeled. We can describe it as having a fixed magnitude (volume), a
fixed position relative to other objects (glass). When, we examine the
molecules within the glass, we cannot know exactly where they are, or what
they are going to do. When we examine the electrons, we can only describe
them probabilistically.
but within the field itself the relation between any two molecules is
chaotic, and we fail to define any
> particular relation that can be sustained from one moment to the next.
> Now go up in worlds and notice that all the water is contained in a
perfectly defined glass of water which is order again. So what
> we have here is order in chaos in order, as molecules in water in a glass.
> Each molecule is a point of order in chaos (water), which is in a point of
order (the glass).
> Within chaos the concept of point is forbidden, and once you analyse chaos
down to its chaotically distributed elements you hit the
> points concept once more when the focus is the element itself rather than
the field of the elements. Therefore there is no such
> thing as a chaotic point but there is a chaotic field of points. The field
is chaotic, the point is not chaotic. The field has no
> order the point is a point because of its order. We have a point of order,
but we do not have a field of order.
[Alun]
I can see where you are coming from:
Glass of water : Order
Sea of water melecules: Chaos
Molecules Themselves: Order (although you changed concepts)
Particle:Chaos
> In the later case we introduce the concept of a lattice or a crystal
structure.
> In my lectures on chaos in chemical reactions I demonstrated "equations"
that leads to such chaotic fields (on the short term not on
> the long term). Firstly, we need to understand what physical property is
fundamental to chaos. Vibration.
> Vibration is critically fundamental to chaotic distributions and
mathematically we call this behaviour "non monotonic". When we stir
> a solution continuously and constantly we aid homogeneity which is a
global order, but when we shake the solution we increase the
> chaotic factor and the rate of reaction by increasing the probability of
chaotic encounter.
[Alun]
Elegant terminology, but when we shake the liquid are we not just mixing
more efficiently? Still I get the point and agree with your description.
Long term chaos has no equation
> whatsoever, that is why there is no such thing as a chaotic point.
[Alun]
Agreed, long term chaos cannot have an equation. All the system that we
have discussed exist within the whole. The whole, being the whole of
existence. Each and every one of them can be observed and described in some
way. However, there are degrees of uncertainty associated with each of the
systems. Some of the things we have talked about are systems within
systems. Again, each of these systems is only a part of the whole. I
believe that as we go from one system, "up" to the next one, things become
more ordered and more predictable.
Short term chaos have been demonstrated to follow a possible type
> of non-linear equations that alternate signs per iteration with varying
complex magnitudes in the planes. The same equations on the
> long term tend to accumulate a pattern of order.
[Alun]
Totally agree. As we go from the sub-atomic, through to atoms, to
molecules, to materials, to planets, to solar systems, to universes, things
become much longer term and increase in order. The existence of an electron
is much more precarious. We can only define the electron probabilstically,
and have to define it's position with an amount of uncertainty. Does the
electron even exist continuously from one instant to the next? What happens
to it when it jumps between quantum energy levels? It can easily be
anhilated by a positron. The atom on the other hand is a bit more
predictable, we can even use microscopes to define their outlines. this
process of order goes on up to the planets etc, which are much more ordered.
Ultimately, there is no equation for chaos, and if there is no equation of
> coordinate probability then there is no point.
[Alun]
I cannot argue with your statement. There is no equation for chaos, and
thus, no way of decsribing a co-ordinate system, and thus no way to plot a
single defined point within it. On the same level, there is also no way to
define a chaos field. We cannot define a field without defining the
co-ordinate system that describes the field.
In my defininition of the chaos point, I have described it as a point with
no definite position. So, What is a point with no definite position? It is
neither a field nor a point.
There is something that we must not forget. The chaos point (chaos) is
unbounded. It has no definite position, shape or form, and no definite mass
or energy. However, it must be singular in nature. If it is unbounded or
infinite then there cannot be more than one of them. Also, we cannot break
it down into discrete parts. Any fraction of something that can generate an
infinite amount of energy can also in itself, generate an infinite amount of
energy, and we can't have more than infinity. The chaos point (chaos)
encompases the whole. Each system, within each system. It must do this
without violation of it's singuilar nature. It sustains the energy of our
universe,including each sub atomic particle. Now each sub atomic particle
cannot exists as a fractional part of the chaos point (chaos) as described
above. However, the chaos point (chaos) has no definite position, energy or
form. In effect each sub atomic particle could be one possible
interpretation of the chaos point. This is where the theory then follows on
from.
EL, I will have a think about the name of the theory. I can see your
'point' :o) I'll have a think about it, but for now it's late and my brain
hurts.
> Alun, if you have a growing interest in a deep study on chaos then you
might wish to know about the chaotic attractor and the
> emergence of fractal structures, and the dependence on the initial
conditions.
> At this point I have to recall entropy as a measure of a system's
inaccessible energy. High entropy means that that much of a
> system's energy can't be used to do work. This gives insight into the
flexibility of chaos. Absolute entropy would be absolute chaos
[Alun]
Yup.
Thanks for the discussion EL. It was useful and has opened up a few more
channels of investigation.
Cheers
Alun
Alun Williams
yeah I would like to continue the debate. I can understand EL's argument.
I don't want to lose the clarity that the term chaos point brings. But EL
is strictly correct. The problem is how do you describe something that
cannot be described geometrically?
I could just call it chaos, but it isn't clear enough. I am gonna have a
think about it. There is maybe one argument for keeping the term point, as
within our own universe, we have a co-ordinate system (even though the
perception of this system is a consequence of the chaos thingy). We can
perceptively describe it as a point instead of philosophically?
Or I can just call it "The Chaos Thingy hypothesis" :o)
Cheers
Al
R J Englund
| Hi RJ,
Hello, Alun. :-)
| yeah I would like to continue the debate. I can understand EL's
| argument. I don't want to lose the clarity that the term chaos point
| brings. But EL is strictly correct. The problem is how do you
| describe something that cannot be described geometrically?
My personal opinion is if you plan at any time to put it up for peer review,
then you must follow EL's guidelines, or be prepared to argue verbiage rather
than theory. For the general thinking public, a short preface with the addition
of your original description and name should be sufficient, with initializations
parenthesized or bracketed (CP) at the appropriate places in the body of your
article.
| I could just call it chaos, but it isn't clear enough. I am gonna have
| a think about it. There is maybe one argument for keeping the
| term point, as within our own universe, we have a co-ordinate
| system (even though the perception of this system is a consequence
| of the chaos thingy). We can perceptively describe it as a point
| instead of philosophically?
That same thought crossed my mind. :-) In a way it is the most "physical"
entity in the universe, for all its chaotic lack of placement, so it would seem
you could get away with "point".
| Or I can just call it "The Chaos Thingy hypothesis" :o)
I vote for that! :-) [Which immediately tells you how much my vote is worth.]
:-)
| Cheers
Returned. :-)
| Al
RJ
EL
"R J Englund" <rjen...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:9fmpg7$2j7$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
| Hi RJ,
Hello, Alun. :-)
[EL]
Believe it or not "The Chaos Thing" (TCT) is a very attractive name. :)
It has all the necessary ingredients for a brand new theory.
Look, even my (TKT) "Torus Knot Topology" sounds similar. <g>
The two letters "T" are squarish in nature as the two line segments intersect.
The "C" on the other hand is round, circular and more chaotic in nature. :)
It even reflects the truth of chaos being a state between two orders.
I am deadly serious here, because Alun did not suggest "the chaotic thingy".
Meditate about it, "THE CHAOS THING".
It almost automatically drags in the concept of "thing" versus "nothing".
Thus while we expect nothing we find thing and it drives our curiosity.
The conclusion is that your intuitive vote is very worthy indeed. :):)
I even started to prefer your intuitions over your reasoning. <g>
AY
EL
R J Englund
How could I not have liked it? "Thingy" is one of my favorite pet words. :-)
| [EL]
| I even started to prefer your intuitions over your reasoning. <g>
Have you indeed? :-)
| AY
| EL
RJay
Paul Mays
no prob to find someone that could
point out his stupidity in Sanskrit....
JeffMo wrote:
> Gravity...@webtv.net (tj Frazir) wrote:
>
> >you dont like my poor english .
> > I muts be stupid I dont speak english like you do. OK . There is 4
> >languages not one .
> > I bet you cant tell one from the other .
> > Do you even know what I was talking about ?
> > Is it fair I must think in english wile you all make fun of me out of
> >your ignorance .
> > Maybe I should have used french.
>
> I'm sure we could find someone to point out your mistaken ideas about
> physics in French, as well...
>
> > Point is if my english sucks then you use my lang for a wile . Having
> >problems ?
> > I bet youd sound like a dumbass in china .
>
> ...or Mandarin.
>
> JeffMo
>
> "Energy is not the same thing as matter." -- smart1234
>
> "It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing -- a somewhat unfamilar conception for the average mind." -- Albert Einstein
--
"I aim for the stars, but sometimes I hit London." - Wernher von Braun
Alun Williams
Yeah, it does seem to fit the description, but it is not very catchy. Maybe
something as simple as 'The Chaos Pardigm'. Or, 'Reality and the Chaos
Paradigm' mmm, now that sounds better.
Cheers
Al
"EL" <hem...@lilac.ocn.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:9fna0f$ip4$3...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
Paul Mays
tj Frazir wrote:
> oh and DOO the whale is not a theorie it runs .
> Its reality not a dream .
Nope....just a delusion
Paul Mays
a whiz Bang web site for free... (I charge
150 a page normally) supply
domain space and will add to the main search
engines....All Free..... BUT.... I must
have signed and witnessed photos for
legal reasons.... (Cause he's gona send
pics of the Glomar Explorer and say it
his boat.... He thinks he's a reincarnated
Howard Hughes)
Iohne MacDhaibhidh wrote:
> "Double00" <doub...@panet.net> wrote in message
> news:zyRR6.460$bd.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> >
> > tj Frazir <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:15837-3B...@storefull-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > > oh and DOO the whale is not a theorie it runs .
> > > Its reality not a dream .
> >
> > The fact that this appeared as an afterthought just proves that it's a
> lie.
> > You have not, and can not prove it.
> >
> >
>
> Besides, the fact that you claim to have posted pictures when you clearly
> did not doesn't lend much to your credence either. I told you tj, that you
> can send me your pictures... I have yet to see a single one.
Paul Mays
to reach the event horizon of the
black hole of stupidity
tj Frazir wrote:
> Global Marine's GLOMAR EXPLORER being converted for ultra-deepwater
> drilling. Atlantic Marine installed the full drilling package and made
> additional modifications on this complex conversion. This is the 4th
> such conversion Atlantic Marine - Mobile has completed in the last 3
> years.
> Just type GLOMAR EXPLORER and Im
> standing starbord top next to the small dude
> ( hes 6 foot ) that big thing next to him is me .
> 8 foot 460 lb
Paul Mays
toot, toot
Double00 wrote:
> tj Frazir <Gravity...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:11959-3B...@storefull-261.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > Global Marine's GLOMAR EXPLORER being converted for ultra-deepwater
> > drilling. Atlantic Marine installed the full drilling package and made
> > additional modifications on this complex conversion. This is the 4th
> > such conversion Atlantic Marine - Mobile has completed in the last 3
> > years.
> > Just type GLOMAR EXPLORER and Im
> > standing starbord top next to the small dude
> > ( hes 6 foot ) that big thing next to him is me .
> > 8 foot 460 lb
>
> I followed your instructions. I saw nobody, just pictures of the boat. Big
> suprise there.