🚀 go-pugleaf

lvl@juno.com (tomgee) wrote in message
news:<f2d0fb3d.0110301222.4617fee1@posting.google.com>...

PART ONE of TWO (you write too much, Tom):

Tom, you have a fertile imagination, but that can also be
as much a hindrance to the scientific pursuit as having no
imagination at all. You reply was a bit muddled, but I will
try to hose down a few bits of mud & see if there's anything
solid under all the muck.

> > I don't know of anyone who believes in singularities.
> But I thought you believed they represent something called that, for
> lack of a better explanation and term for it.  The concept is that at
> the point where matter cannot be squeezed any further,

There's your logical stumble: Matter is NOT fundamental. Sorry:
The primitive ancient Greeks [Democritus] also thought it was;
so they termed their "point where matter cannot be squeezed
any further" = "the atom" [John Dalton]. For years afterward
it was assumed they were right, but eventually it was found that
atoms were NOT fundamental after all, just structured (composites,
plum puddings, and the like): They were made of smaller components
[electrons, neutrons, and the like]. And not long after that
it was found that the subparticles too were themselves also NOT
fundamental but composed of sub-subparticles... and so on. [The
laws of physics apply equally throughout the universe.] Therefore
we must assume that there are NO forms of matter whatsoever
which are fundamental (and that no level of the universe is stocked
with mounds and mounds of little "fundamental marbles" littered
across the fundamental floor waiting for somebody to slip on them
and break his neck.] It is rather an unfortunate reflection of the
recurringly moronic nature of man that current physics has revived
the idea of a fundamental form of matter (in the "form" of tiny little
"strings" scattered all over the fundamental "bottom" of existence
waiting for somebody to get all tangled up in them and... break his
neck). This could all have been easily avoided if thinking beings
had assumed that "the laws of physics apply equally throughout the
entire universe," but if we didn't have idiots how would we possibly
differentiate the intelligent?... so it's not a complete tragedy.

Conclusion: There is NO fundamental bottom to the universe. Sorry:
The Planck Length, for example, does not mark "so small a length
that nothing shorter could exist" but only a more humble "length
so small that it's hard for us to imagine something smaller." [The
proposal that there are "absolute anythings" INSIDE our universe
is ALWAYS wrong: This is not to be assumed merely from the fact
that our universe is imploding [and therefore impossible for it 
to contain anything endowed with any absolute quality (any more 
than from sound thoughts in sound minds)], but rather that time 
and time again human experience tells us that the assumption 
that there are fundamental anythings IN the universe has been
proven wrong and will forever continue to be proven to be wrong. 
It will not stop people from continuing to propose fundamental 
things INSIDE our universe, but neither will all the proofs 
against magic being real keep "con men" from making a good 
living by curing the sick with miracles in the fly-by-night tents 
of their endless revival crusades. [This aberration is a function 
of the superstition that ours is an exploding/expanding universe: 
As usual, religion is always extremely easy to blame.]

> we don't know
> what exists then, so let's just call it a singularity and let it go at
> that.

I am always willing to listen to insanity and let it go at that:
In fact, insanity is rather amusing, really. However, I do not
object to pointing out sanity here and there, now and again, even
if only to amuse myself at people's expense (nor am I averse to
apologizing to the insane if sanity offends them in some crazy way).

> So are you saying you do not believe something exists at the
> point where matter cannot be squeezed anymore, or are you saying what?
> - that nothing exists then, or that the matter is transformed into
> something else, or what?

Matter organizes itself at a number of different levels or strata:
Therefore we do not see planets the size of atoms or atoms the size
of planets. The black hole is not a pile of atoms, or even a pile of
stars, it is itself a particle... with its own inner structure (one
which we are yet to describe fully). And, note that (even IF or WHEN
someone proposes the black hole to be a fundamental form of matter:
he will be wrong)... the black hole has a structure and is NOT some
form of singularity. "The laws of physics apply equally throughout 
the entire universe" and not simply in those few specific places 
where we have specifically found them to apply.

Perhaps the case of the black hole may even make it easier for us
to finally understand that there are no fundamental forms of matter
when we find we can follow the "putting together" of such "huge" a
particle, and take close note (as "closely" as we can, being so very
tiny in comparison to it)... take close note of the many observable
separate structures of its complex organization.

> > >  I must agree here against you, SDR.
> > Thank you: My lifework hath been pointing out to mathematicians
> > that IF (1+1=2) does not equal (self-evidence), then (every goofy
> > thing in the universe) can equal (every other goofy thing there).
> No No.  I was agreeing AGAinst you, not with you.

Yes. Yes: That was precisely the reason I was thanking you!

> > Ah, the "aether" ... which is the refuge for all those who propose
> > the aether! But, please see Einstein's explanation of the photon as
> > a quantum particle. He wrote it some years ago now; and, if you
> > pay attention to what he's saying, it will show you that the aether
> > was a figment of the imagination of beachcomber physicists who liked
> > to watch the waves coming ashore near their beach huts.
> Okay, I read it and paid close attention to what he's saying, but it
> doesn't show what you said it would show me.

It doesn't surprise me, I'm afraid. Let me see if I can put it
in simpler terms... the laws of physics say that you can't get
something for nothing (conservation of energy). And yet you (and,
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this: your aether is
just everybody else's aether in your own peculiar garb)... yet
you paint a universe which, in a less complex analogy, consists of
nothing but lightbulbs... across which electrical flashes run
lighting up bulbs and creating the illusion that it is the "light"
that's moving. And I tell you that if you already have Einstein's
explanation of the photon as traveling like a particle, you do not
require an infinitely more complex explanation of how it can travel
as a wave or as a squirrel. The photon is a particle as Einstein
described it in his Special Relativity elaboration of his earlier
explanation for the photoelectric effect: "Philip Lenard found
that when light hit certain metals, the metals emitted electrons
as if the force of the light alone was able to kick electrons out
of the atoms: To their surprise, physicists discovered next that
increasing the intensity of the light did NOT give the electrons
being kicked out more energy: But changing the wavelength of the
light did. [Electrons being kicked out by a very dim blue light
traveled with greater speed than electrons being kicked out by a
much brighter yellow light, even if the very dim blue light caused
fewer electrons to be kicked out than did the bright yellow light.
While, no matter how bright, red light seemed to fail to cause any
electrons to be kicked out at all from some metals.] Einstein then
explained it in terms of Planck's quantum theory: To absorb enough
energy to be able to break away from "the metal surface" an electron
needs to be "hit" by a quantum of a specific minimum size: For
example, an electron held very weakly by its atom (as in the cesium
atom) needed to be hit only by red light, while an electron being
held more strongly required to be hit by blue or even ultraviolet
light for its atom to be made to give up any electrons." [If you've
ever heard of the Mchelson-Morley interferometer experiment
you understand that way back then it was found that either the
so-called aether was moving with the earth, or there really is no
such a thing at all [and we're talking 1887]: Einstein simply
described a basis by which the photon can move as elegantly
independent of any "aether" as does your average baseball.
All loose ends tied: Not only was there no aether, but there was
no need anywhere for any aether. Go on to the next problem.

> Einstein argued against
> the then-current idea that light was a wave.  He claimed light was
> also a particle, just like quanta, which he renamed as photons.  His
> explanation was taken practically word-for-word from the quanta
> explanation.  But just like you say that everyone else but you
> believes wrongly that the u. is expanding outward, I contend that
> everyone thinks, wrongly, that the photon is a particle that moves
> along with the light wave.

Well, all I am saying is that the photon in an imploding universe
requires no special "strings" to fly: It simply moves like any
other particle (except that it moves a little less quickly). But
this is simply saying that a cork moves through water less quickly
than a bullet (and NOT that it requires a host of magical strings
to do so). The problem is this: IF the photon moves like every
other particle, then we can concentrate on describing the ways in
which the structure of the photon may differ from the structure of
all those other particles. But if, as you claim, the photon is only
an illusion and what we're really seeing is all those lightbulbs
quickly blinking on\off (creating the illusion of traveling light)
then it's pointless to talk about the photon, and what you must do
is forget about the photon itself and instead describe the "lightbulb
universe" which supports the illusion of a photon: At this point you
will be trying to describe a universe which is not only impossible
to study first hand, but which is as essential to the explanation
of OUR universe as is the universe of Alice in Wonderland. [I am
always left wondering whether "you" really understand this simple
principle: Think of it this way, if what moves the photon is 
somebody carrying it in his jockstrap, then the photon has become 
as interesting to physics as your average potato, and the guy 
with the jockstrap-full has become the central effect of the 
scientific discipline: Who is he? What is he? And, why a jock-
strap, and not boxer shorts...?] And, as you might glimpse from 
the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will also need to explain 
how all those lightbulbs manage to move exactly with the earth 
(and with the moon and Sun and et al).

Perhaps this will help: "The laws of physics apply equally 
throughout the entire universe." ALL motion requires energy.
Not just this motion or that motion, but ALL motions. When 
waves are propagated in a medium they require the constant 
infusion of energy for their motion, or they drop dead right 
on the spot after they move, using up their energy: In the 
ocean you see waves moving horizontally across huge stretches 
of surface "without apparently loosing any energy" ... and 
it becomes very tempting to imagine that what we see is also
the explanation behind it. But consider a theoretical ocean 
somehow devoid of gravity... and try to create a surface 
wave in it the same way you'd create a surface wave in our 
planet's ocean: by plunging your hand into it... Splash! 
Only, instead of your pushing down on the water here and 
causing the water there to rise, now water shoots out of 
that "ocean" in all directions (most of it flying right off 
into outer space, some causing the entire ocean itself to 
move in the opposite direction... even if infinitesimally 
so). But no surface wave will result because surface waves
on our planet are sustained by a continuous infusion of 
energy from our planet's gravity, and all those waves you 
watch running horizontally over the ocean's surface are 
really being run vertically by the same principle that 
all orbiting bodies "fly" and and which makes everything 
that goes up come down.

> I find magic  rather boring,

So you claim. And then you display a most boring attitude 
toward "the mundane," and try to create excitement in the 
exploits of cleverness! But too much imagination can 
interfere in the scientific process as much as no 
imagination at all: In science you have to take a square
peg and a square hole, step back, and see how it all goes 
together; and what you ought not to do is put the square 
hole and the square peg aside... while you try to imagine
what sort of marvelous intervening schemes may do the job 
with wires & warmed-over chewing gum (of which overly-
clever imagination there is such an overabundance today 
in the world of physics that practically all its 
connections are wires and warmed-over chewing gum, 
unfortunately).

> and if it were not used so much to brainwash people
> with, I would ignore it completely.

"Don't believe anything anybody tells you" is not the same 
as "don't believe anything." It really means: "Discriminate" 
in a nice way, of course.

> But as you know, to ignore it is
> only to invite its success at overwhelming reason and compassion, and
> thus at enslaving us, and so it is our duty at least to fight it.

Square hole + square peg. In science geniuses get in 
as much trouble as do all the other morons. It's just
as easy for the guy with five legs to trip as it is 
for the guy with only one (leg).

> But
> today we fighting two new fronts in these ngs: the metaphysicians and
> the religious.  Both groups have invaded the sci. ngs and managed to
> inundate us with their inanities of false knowledge and fallacious
> arguments, so much so that I find it difficult to see anything there
> worth responding to anymore.

"If it's not worth fighting for, it's probably not 
worth much." --Anon.

> The way they have done that is a tiny
> example of how they will treat us if we ever let them get the upper
> hand over us again:  they will treat us just like they treated us back
> in the Dark Ages.

You seem to overlook the fact that the Dark Ages 
are in the past: This should properly inspire you
with an unconquerable conviction that eventually 
"the solutions that work" will always beat out 
"solutions that don't work." No matter how long
people hold on to the latter, for their own whatever 
reasons, the world belongs to the former. And
eventually worships their proofs.

> They will never change, as their motives are
> aberrations of our will to survive, and so we will always have to
> struggle to prevail.

That sort of struggle belongs to the religions, not 
to science: When your struggle is defined strictly 
by whether you win or lose: all your other principles 
have become corrupted and there is no longer any 
constraints on their being sacrificed for the sake 
of winning.

Science is the principle that all things are as they 
are, no matter who thinks they are otherwise (and NOT,
as is the case with religion, that the beauty of 
creativity beats the simple facts). The former will 
kill many wrong facts we might have brought up quite
beautifully, the latter will kill many beautiful 
human beings we might have brought up wrongly.

> > > But in order for em waves to become light, they must be encounter and
> > > crash into the VPs of space, and that subjects them to other forces,
> > > and so they need a propulsion mechanism which my model above explains.
> > Have you ever tried to think through something much more fundamental:
> > "Why is it that even the most perfect vacuum imaginable in our universe
> > is so crammed with all manner of exotic energy?"
> Yes, I have, and it led me to the idea that if the BB occurred, it
> propagated into Absolute space, which then became the space of our
> universe, which is made up of "all manner of exotic energy" and
> matter.  Why do you ask?

Oh, no reason. I just thought that thinking through 
how things get concentrated vs. how things become 
diluted [and provided you might have finally recognized 
that the laws of physics always apply equally throughout 
the universe, of course] would dissuade you from
leaping the chasm from "it (the Big Bang) propagated 
into Absolute space" to "which then became the space 
of our universe, which is made up of "all manner of 
exotic energy" and matter." I thought maybe most 
persons might yet grow to believe that one crams a
place with stuff NOT so much by diluting the place 
as by actually cramming full of stuffs... but that's 
just me...

> But do you think that bhs are a new phenomena?

Well, they MUST follow stars, since they are made of 
stars... so it would be hard for me to envision them 
existing before there were stars. Atoms now... I betcha 
they were around before there we stars, and it's also 
a pretty safe bet that the stars preceded the galaxies.

> Just cause we just thought of them doesn't mean they haven't existed
> for eons and so they would not necessarily be an advanced evolutionary
> process, but simply part of the standard evo. process, having started
> way way back.

You think they are around during The Jazz Age?!

> > Einstein: That's what made him famous, for curing young fellows like you
> > from wasting their time trying weave aethers out of the... aether.
> I wish you would be more specific as to your meaning.  Did E ever
> address the ether issue to that extent?

Yes. His crystallizing the photon as independent of 
aethers effectively removed any and all requirement 
for any/all aethers (you do not require an aether 
to explain how people travel in bicycles).

> > > The wave
> > > immediately encounters a VP and the VP is transformed into a photon.
> > > The wave moves on crashing into other VPs and maintaining it
> > > propulsion impetus, or inertia, by the tiny bit of matter in it, and
> > > as it crashes into VP after VP, light is created.
> > And they said that perpetual motion mechanisms were impossible under
> > our laws of physics! Why don't you patent this contraption of yerns:
> > Petroleum is running out, you know.
> Well, wouldn't you say that the concept of light moving is the concept
> of perpetual motion?

No. It simply illustrates my point that if you believe 
the laws of physics do not apply equally throughout 
the universe, it becomes possible to imagine that 
there could be places where the conservation of energy 
law is violated as easily as people run red lights 
where cops don't ticket'em. Singularities, objects 
with more than or less than three dimensions, and
every other kind of disgusting monstrosity will 
become things of the past like dragons and communism 
& every other hard proof of man's stupidity.

Fear not: Someday physicists will realize that the laws 
of physics apply equally throughout the universe, and 
then they will stop proposing physical impossibilities. 
Then they will see that matter can't even so much as 
exist without the expenditure of vast amounts of energy, 
and they will inquire into how all that energy is being 
trasported about (conserved), and before you can say 
Bob-is-your-uncle... they will realize that vast amounts 
of energy would be "escaping" from matter in an imploding
universe: Every solution must wait for the proper question 
to be asked. And not everybody has had the freedom I have 
had to ask all the questions I've asked myself. Nor been 
confined to only those answers allowed by the assumption
that the laws of physics (reality by any other name) 
apply equally throughout the universe... and not merely 
only where we might imagine they do:

In an imploding universe model (where there is an additional 
requirement that any explanation for an observable phenomena 
take into account the nature of a much more limiting reality)
... there is but one way the photon can possibly move, and 
it is for the same reason a baseball moves (the laws of 
gravitation alone); and there is but one way it slows down 
much more than does ordinary matter... and that reason 
is the same reason a piece of cork slows down while 
traveling through water more than does a bullet... a matter
of mass alone (nothing fancier than just that... nor more 
elegant a solution).

> Until it is absorbed or otherwise blocked, that
> is.  I can't patent that cause it is in the public domain, and
> besides, I didn't invent it, Nature did.  In clear space, light is the
> perpetual motion concept incarnate, I would say.

In an imploding universe EVERYTHING is forever consuming 
(using up, or "conserving" or transferring) energy AND 
--surprise!-- everything is also "shrinking" [E=MC^2]. 
The photon is NOT eternal, just very-long-lasting,
especially in comparison with a burp.

>>>> 5) And, most magical of all: The "speed" of photons is
independent of
>>>>  source in the absolute. SO a photon with the speed of [a car
being
>>>>  driven by a teenager] which suddenly finds itself traveling
through
>>>>  a jar of molasses at the "speed" of [a 100-year-old man with a
cane]
>>>>  will, after exiting from [the jar of molasses] SUDDENLY regain
its
>>>>  previous "speed" as if the teenager had simply stepped on the
gas!
>>>>  Such a phenomena is IMPOSSIBLE to explain sanely, rationally.
>>> See, one should never say never.  My model above explains the
>>> phenomena in a rational and logical fashion that is even simpler
to
>>> understand and to explain than what has been explained until now,
and
>>> that even complies with the principle that the simpler explanatin
is
>>> most likely the better idea.
>> Simple as it may seem to you to explain such things as Tarzan-like
photons
>> swinging frictionless from virtual particle to virtual particle
without
>> once losing any energy... it may be a little less simple to explain
where
>> all your virtual particles are getting the energy to do all that
swinging
>> (or where their gas-stations are getting their energy, and then
their gas-
>> tankers are getting theirs, and then where their refiners... and
not to
>> mention all them A-rabs) ad infinitum. There: You've forced me to
mention it!
> Thanks for your question:  My photons do not swing from particle to
> particle, although I can see where you got that idea.  Remember that I
> said it is the em wave that "swings" thru virtual particles which THEN
> become photons.  My photons are the end result of the collisions
> between the em waves and the virtual particles.  Thus, the VPs do not
> use energy to move, the em waves use their energy to move thru space

You are describing a HUGE amount of actions and reactions: 
NONE of these can happen without their being fueled by HUGE
amounts of energy!!!!! Even the tiniest of "transitions"
requires the conversion of energy, and even that conversion 
requires energy: Your "photon illusions" would require so
much more energy for their conveyance (than if they were 
being conveyed in trains) that it might be cheaper to 
just buy them seats on the Concorde. The laws of physics 
apply equally throughout the universe: Motion requires
energy. And no matter who tells you Magic! is possible
inside our universe. Everywhere one looks in this universe 
it is "using up" monstrous amounts of energy, so the FIRST 
thing a physical sciences practician must do is account
for the transfers of all that energy! [The first question 
that the first persons who saw a horse-less carriage 
asked was NOT about its architecture but about what had 
taken the place of the horse. People are naturally logical,
provided they are not brought up specifically to not so be.]

> (and thru VPs, since my space is made up of VPs).  I contend that the
> em waves impart some energy to the energyless VPs at the point of
> collision, and that energy transforms them into real partilces which
> we and Einstein call photons.  The photon does not exist except at the
> point of impact with an em wave.

That is too much hammering taking place without any tired muscles.

> All that I claim is what currently exists in our knowledge banks of
> experience and experiment.  I am only saying that if there are virtual
> particles we cannot see, like positrons, particle pairs, gravitons,
> etc., there can also be such things as what I call potential, or
> latent, photon particles in the group of particles which we call
> virtual particles.

Actually there are some marvelous photographs of atoms. 
And gravitons are those impossible little fundamental 
marbles rolling around the bottom of a fundamental 
universe waiting to break someone's neck: The universe
does not have a cellar filled with beautiful little 
marbles like that. Sorry. And remember that knowledge 
is like that too: There is no fundamental knowledge 
in the human experience... only transitional knowledge 
(waiting to be replaced by better knowledge). It's 
the nature of human progress, actually.

> > Radiation is not possible to explain in an exploding/expanding universe
> > without resorting to descriptions of Magic! (which do not account for
> > the energy being expended), as you yourself know from personal experience.
> Not so.  My essay explains emr quite easily and sans magic.  But I
> must warn you that it is a different idea than what currently
> prevails, so try to negate your negative reaction to change, please.
> And remember that the following is copyrighted 1996 All Rights
> Reserved The Time And Motion Relationship by Thomas Garcia:

Fear not: The copyright laws now state that once 
you set copyrightable material in any permanent form
... it's copyrighted. [I believe you actually have to 
specifically put it in the public domain for it to 
get there.]

> Einstein claimed that radiation is particulate and that it consists of
> the propagation of particles through space.  He argued against the
> wave theory of light, at first.
> He failed to explain, however, how
> matter particles could move thru space along with lightwaves.

Gravity: A body does not require a ladder to drop down. 
[This could be one of those concepts which are just 
too simple for most people to grasp.] Think of it 
this way: A photon is a particle with a frequency (wave).

> Today,
> there is the magic of the massless photon (which you apparently
> believe in),

Nope: I've pointed out many times that if something is 
greatly affected my gravity it has great amounts of mass, 
and if it's only affected a little bit by gravity 
it only has a little bit of mass: The photon is very 
definitely very infinitesimally affected by gravity,
but it IS affected by gravity. The assumption is 
self-evident.

> but my model does not require magic 'cause it uses the
> fact of virtual particles becoming real particles and thus visible as
> photons.  But how can photons move at lightspeed?  They cannot.

That's going to be news to Einstein's twisting corpse!

> They
> are originally essentially stationary VPs, due to being the stuff
> space is made of, and when they are impacted by em waves, they are
> transformed into real particles and become visible to us as photons.

Forget photons: Explain why a "space" which has been 
diluting for billions & billions of years should vomit 
forth an ever thicker/denser universe of particles....

Waves moving over the ocean: Think this through! IF 
waves moving over the ocean are doing so ONLY because 
gravity is fueling their motion, what FORCE is fueling 
the existence of your VPs? [The only reason "waves" are
able to propagate is because all the energy requirements
of that propagation are taken up by the medium across 
which they propagate: That is the physical definition of
a wave, for if a wave had to expend its own energy in
its propagation... it'd die from the git go.]

And, the concentration (the very existence) of all sorts 
of exotic forms of energy (matter, really) in outer space
might be easily understood in an imploding universe. But 
it's a blatant description of magic in an exploding/
expanding universe: You are describing the creation of 
matter from nothingness in a constant process that refills 
the "space" which is constantly becoming more and more 
diluted as every bit of matter moves away from every other 
bit of matter in your exploding/expanding universe: The 
laws of physics tell me it just ain't happening (energy 
conservation). You would need to FIRST come up with 
the laws of physics at work here. (And, more important still, 
why/how they work here in ways that they obviously don't work 
elsewhere in the universe.) Good luck!

S D Rodrian
poems.sdrodrian.com
physics.sdrodrian.com

cont/

ALSO SEE:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rodrian+AND+surface+AND+finger&hl=en&scoring=date&rnum=1&selm=7783c078.0106242336.69585045%40posting.google.com