Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Tom,

I suppose I was thinking of the response of the context, not the counterforce. The recoil isn't so much a reaction to the bullet moving the other direction, but as corresponding response to the explosion causing the bullet to move. Of course, as an action, the explosion is not linear, so my argument falls apart anyway

Regards,

John M

Tom,

""With the concept of vacuum fluctuation, you can explain energy and thus mass, arising from space.""

"You can? How?"

I'm more willing to accept space can give rise to positive and negative energy(Hawking's virtual particles), then I am that all of space arises from a point, especially since this doesn't seem to affect the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course, since I view time as simply an effect of change, there is no reason why the energy isn't eternal in the first place. Neither created or lost.

"That's what Aristotle said."

And still seems to be an unspoken assumption, given the supposed expansion isn't matched by a relativistic increase in clock rates. Aristotle was no dummy.

"Then why aren't we doing science according to Aristotle?"

There are little thought bubbles and there are big thought bubbles. Billions of people assume there is a universal deity that can still watch their every move. Cosmologists, on the other hand, believe the universe was created in a flash, 13.8 billion solar cycles ago, expanded out at many times the speed of light for a fraction of a moment, slowed down considerably for a few billion years and then started speeding up again, all based on shifts in the frequency spectrum and since their complete knowledge of all properties of light means this can only be caused by actual recession of the sources. There is no professional cost for me to be skeptical, so I chose to be.

"Really? Wow. Where can I go to study this phenomenon?"

You are certainly allowed to create your own thought bubbles. It could just be that light and mass are eternal, but I do try making some use of these ideas floating around and see how they might fit together, like errant pieces of a puzzle.

"So you propose positive and negative time. How does that work?"

That would make no more sense than a negative temperature to the other side of absolute zero. As I said, time is simply an effect of change. Stuff moves about, the configuration changes. The inertia of this physical activity mitigates against it stopping and going in the opposite direction. Positive and negative energy are counter forces.

"Nooo. Einstein uses c to represent the speed of light, not the speed of space."

The speed of light in a vacuum. The only physical property there is the light, which travels about 186,000 miles a second. That suggests to me that this vacuum is a stable dimension, at least relative to how fast light can cross it. Anything that fills this space and can otherwise slow light and thus the clock rate, would seem to be a property that affects the light, not necessarily the space. When we talk of length contraction, it is due to an accelerating frame or some other action that affects the physical form of a mass object, ie. flattening its atomic structure. That suggests some inherent drag to the moving frame. How could any frame be understood as accelerating, if not in the context of some larger frame and ultimately infinite frame? As I think we discussed before, it seems more like a democracy of frames, not an anarchy of frames. And, as I keep pointing out, when they talk about the expansion of space, based on redshift, they forget that for it to be relativistic, there has to be a corresponding increase in the propagation rate and thus clock rate, on order for the speed of light to remain constant.

"Because the Earth rotates, the apex of the pyramid is a fixed point, as you claim? That would mean the Earth is rotating on the fixed point of some pyramid. You really believe that?"

Relative to its local context, as I qualified. The issue was why a point in space is physically stable, but a point in time comes into being and dissolves. The question is not whether it moves about. Rather than the tip of a pyramid, try a tip of a pen. Even though it moves about the paper, it continues to exist, even if the event of it writing any particular line is a transitory phenomena.

"I don't experience time as a sequence of events. Perhaps that's why we think so differently."

How do you experience time?

I don't have a sense of reality, either. :-0

I accept my sense of reality is quite subjective and often tenuous. The sequencing becomes disconnected all too regularly. :-/

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"Because the Earth rotates, the apex of the pyramid is a fixed point, as you claim? That would mean the Earth is rotating on the fixed point of some pyramid. You really believe that?"

As I've pointed out in much earlier conversations, mathematically, any point can be viewed as the center of the universe, because it is the center of its point of perspective. Star maps only make sense from the point of view of the earth. So one could devise a cosmology with the point of a pyramid, or even you, as the center of the universe, with everything spinning around in ever more precise epicycles.

The fact is that while every point is its center of perspective, there is no overall point of perspective. They all dance relative to their own context.

Regards,

John M

"The fact is that while every point is its center of perspective, there is no overall point of perspective."

Yet one more "fact" that isn't. Any point can simultaneously map to any set of points, provided it is far enough away.

Between you teaching me mathematics and James teaching me physics, I am getting cross-eyed. I need to move on to more serious things.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Any point can simultaneously map to any set of points, "

How does that prove an overall perspective? You seem to be merely restating my point. You need a point of view, a frame, a theory even, to locate your information. Otherwise it just goes to white noise.

There are certainly much more serious conversations out there; multiverses, firewalls, super symmetry, the list is endless, but not infinite. You know you are doing a good deed here though. The cloisters need someone standing guard over the sacred canon, to keep the unwashed and general riffraff from soiling it with their ignorant minds and to be sure they keep bowing silently and tithing.

Regards,

John M

John,

I'm no defender of orthodoxy in any form. There are certain standards of understanding that have to be met in order to have an exchange of ideas. With you, James and Peter, I spend all my time trying to explain the standards and I have no chance to even propose any original ideas of my own.

Even this latest claim of yours gives me a headache -- "You seem to be merely restating my point. You need a point of view, a frame, a theory even, to locate your information. Otherwise it just goes to white noise."

You (and the others in different contexts) speak as if you know what you're talking about -- but you don't. It's a most elementary arithmetic theorem: "Any point can simultaneously map to any set of points provided it is far enough away."

"How does that prove an overall perspective?" you ask. It's so simple that we teach it to elementary school children learning to draw -- every line of the 2-dimensional frame converges on a point at infinity to create 3-dimension perspective. That's certainly an "overall perspective." If you don't understand it for even a 2 dimension plane, what chance do I have that you will grasp its extension to a 4-dimension object?

I can't keep spinning my wheels forever. Sometime or another I'd like to contact a solid surface and actually get somewhere. Call me selfish.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

While agreeing your 'perspective' point you've now set new standards of unwarranted arrogance with;

"I'm no defender of orthodoxy in any form. There are certain standards of understanding that have to be met in order to have an exchange of ideas. With you, James and Peter, I spend all my time trying to explain the standards and I have no chance to even propose any original ideas of my own."

I know you can't see this from your own viewpoint, but when 'looking in' from the rest of the universe, almost all you ever do is endlessly repeat and defend orthodoxy, and orthodoxy that certainly I for one, already perfectly understand and use as the basis for comparison and evaluation of new ideas. Nothing is absolutely 'set as fact' in physics, so we're all only postulating. Behaving like you're teaching kids is poor contribution.

It may help if you are more self-aware that your continued suggestions that all other ideas are automatically wrong just because they're 'different' (to the orthodox theories you 'believe') is extremely tiresome and pointless. It is also NOT objective science! I've pointed this out as gently as possible before, but you always avoid the matter.

Your claim above made me smile. I hope it helps to be aware that you're only fooling yourself if you really believe it. I have seen that you're capable of far better standards from your written work. I hope this knowledge helps set you free and allows the more 'solid surface' you seek. I'd far prefer to hear your free thinking 'original ideas'.

Best wishes

Peter

" ... orthodoxy that certainly I for one, already perfectly understand ..."

Really, Peter?

Tom,

'Really?' Yes, and for very many years.

But I learned nobody can learn and agree on all of science. So I learnt theory as 'theory' not as 'facts'. Was that the difference?

Now you know that - I hope we may better progress. So do postulate your ideas!

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, if you learned relativity theory, you learned the fact that it is mathematically complete. Given that fact, there are are no alterations that one may add, subtract or interpret into being without destroying the theory. That's why we can't come to an understanding.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

"Fact"? No, I only ever learnt 'scientific theory', that there are no 'facts' in science, and that despite apparently complete mathematics Einstein was clear that relativity theory was incomplete without a physical mechanism. Maths is all very well but Einstein knew there was more, so considering maths alone is just 'cherry picking'. He would not agree with your suggestion.;

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

"...we should never stop questioning"

"...I firmly believe (and) hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis..."

I've said agree with him that; "The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction."

All Einstein's thoughts and concepts support my propositions. Even if the maths have to be junked completely to get a physical analogue he would have been ecstatic. But even that surely counts for nought against correspondence with observation and predictive power, including to mop up the dozens of unresolved anomalies around.

All I suggest is that the propositions need objective scientific falsification, so without relying just on recourse to prior theory and 'beliefs'.

So 'mathematically complete' it may be (though many disagree) but I propose 100% physically correct it may not be.

Peter

Tom,

"Any point can simultaneously map to any set of points provided it is far enough away."

The fact is this is perspective. You can see a large building from a distance much better than up close. Much as a historian can have a better perspective on events than a particular participant in those events. The operative term here, for that particular perspective is, "far enough away."

We have had this same debate in many different forms; the general view vs. the specialized view, etc.

The reality is they are all particular points of view. There is no God's eye perspective which can combine all possible perspectives. The signals get washed out by the flood of noise.

Much like simply leaving the shutter open longer on a camera gives you more information carrying energy/light, but detail gets washed out.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

Given the human proclivity for getting caught up in herd like behavior, it might also mean someone who is "far enough away" might have a more objective perspective on the actions of a particular group, than someone more deeply involved in the activities of the group.

Regards,

John M

Ps,

Even if they are not as informed of the details and minutiae within the group, they are generally given a better perspective of the larger context and larger patterns which may not be readily apparent to those within.

" ... they are generally given a better perspective of the larger context and larger patterns ..."

Not if the patterns are scale invariant and infinitely self similar.

Tom,

And one of those patterns are waves of complexity that build up until they become unstable, nebulous and unsustainable, like foam on a cresting wave.

Then it's back down to a more stable level, from which the energy input starts the process again.

Regards,

John M

More on the relationship between pight and mass;

Quantum condensation was predicted in the 1920s by Bose and Einstein, who theorised that particles will form a condensate at very low temperatures. The first experimental demonstration of the quantum condensate followed in the 1990s, when a gas of atoms was cooled to just a few billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-273°C). The need for such an extremely low temperature is related to the mass of the particles: the heavier the particles, the lower the temperature at which condensation occurs. This motivated an ongoing search for light particles that may condense at higher temperatures than atoms. The eventual goal is to find particles that form a condensate at room temperature.

The researchers have created a particle that is a potential candidate for fulfilling the quest: the extremely light plasmon-exciton-polariton (PEP). This particle is hybrid between light and matter particles. It consists of photons (light particles), plasmons (particles composed of electrons oscillating in metallic nanoparticles) and excitons (charged particles in organic molecules).

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-particle-quantum-condensation-room-temperature.html#jCp

And this;

Electrons can occupy topological edge states because they are charged particles whose energy spectrum can be dramatically modified by large magnetic fields. To simplify, a magnetic interaction is key for realizing quantum Hall states. The question here to ask is how researchers can design a material where photons---massless, charge-free, packets of energy--- flow as if they are being manipulated by a super strong magnet. To put it another way, how can the energy spectrum of light be modified to support robust topological states? And what do these photonic edge states look like?

In the JQI design, the light moves through a 2D landscape consisting of nearly flat ring-shaped silicon waveguides called resonators. By comparison, the arena for electrons is typically at the two-dimensional interface between two sheets of semiconductor. What the JQI scientists showed was that indeed light can, under the right circumstances, circulate around the edge of the silicon chip, without significant loss of energy, and do so even in the presence of defects.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-topological-edge.html#jCp

That's light and mass....

More on the relationship between pight and mass;

_______________

[url=http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php]http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php[/url]