The End of Time

John,

Here is the attachment.

Have a fun,

Bashir

John,

I appologize that the file was too large to upload. Now you can download from this URL instead;

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/EREPORTS/brooks_einstein.pdf

Have a fun,

Bashir.

Bashir,

I did read through it, but haven't had the time to fully unravel the relationships. Eventually the relationships between the attraction of gravity and the expansion of light will be better understood. My problem isn't with the basic science, but the flights of fancy which have grown up in the gaps in our knowledge.

Hi Bashir,

Happy to see you on the blogs and forums, it's cool that.

I read your post and as you know I like spheres. Logic lol that said, i have a question? do you consider a photon as a single particle or a entanglement ?

ps after the BB .....first fractalization of the main sphere with a pure finite number and a serie of correlated volumes ...implying a finite serie of spheres(a photon in logic Bashir and then it's not a single particle) after this step it's a multiplication in my line of reasoning of this ultim entanglement and its number, finite implying in a simplistic vue the space.after the rotations make the rest and permit to differenciate hv and mass but they have the same quantic number in my line of reasoning. What do you think Bashir? and what is this number(it's my headache that lol all days i search a serie to calculate this number the same for hv, m and the cosmological number of spheres(moons,stars, planets, BH....and the UNIVERSAL CENTER the serie you see Bashir id between 1 and 1 but between wawww it's the rock and roll of sciences jimmy hendrix and led zep in the physics lol?

Regards

steve

Steve,

You might say nature is laughing as well.

And nature always has the last laugh.

Blinders are a good analogy for applying scientific method to one's view of how nature works.

As opposed to thinking and acting with the caprice of a dilettante.

Tom

Dear Bashir,

My theory of spherization is always copied , that becomes ironic, many people wants my recognizing. I am tired by all that. The sphere theory there, a new model of spheres here, and others still there, oh my god, and all that for what? the vanity, the monney, I become crazzy.It's irriting and frsutrating. Already that in belgium people stole me , and that continues, it's crazzy. What a world. Have you seen on net. It's incredible the human nature.Sad and bizare. I become crazzy.

Even in Belgium people doesn't respect me and steal me.

Steve

I don't say that for you but on the net, that becomes bizare.

Regards

Steve

Always dear John, with or without our approvement. Indeed the natural evolutuion is specific.

The caprices of sciences seem lost in an ocean of opulences and ironies.

Steve

Returning for a moment to the substance of this article, I must admit to being totally baffled/puzzled by one statement made in the article.

"Because the expanding bubble that we call home is embedded in a finite universe, there is a limit on the number of different configurations it might have, says Lowe. Like a Rubik's Cube, it can only be arranged and rearranged so many ways before it begins to repeat. In 50 billion years or so--just a few multiples of the current age of the universe--the number of options open to our bubble may dwindle so far that 'things would break down into some kind of quantum pixels,' Lowe says."

If I'm reading this correctly (and the fact that no one else has raised this point leads me to suspect that I'm not) Lowe is suggesting that there may be no more than three or four conceivable ways for the configuration of the approximately 10^80 or so atoms in the universe to unfold/evolve? This comes across at first blush as constituting a deplorable failure of imagination! What am I failing to understand here?

Dan,

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I'd have appreciated it if this had been explained more clearly in the article. So then I gather that you (and others) are saying that all this could happen in the relatively brief span of a mere 50 billion years or so from now? Yikes. Maybe it's time to get serious about buying that retirement beach house after all? Carpe diem!

jcns

JCNS,

Yes indeed, with the universe's foot on the accelerator, the end is near. However, I continue to work on the details of a variant of the Standard Model that is cyclic due to the nature of black holes. Unfortunately, this does not give us a way out since the phases of the different cycles of the cosmos are distinct and separated from each other via the light barrier.

Dan

Tom,

The horse has the blinkers. The jockey doesn't.

Your dependence on the model is unquestioned, but is it a matter of logic, or faith?

You insist it is a matter of logic, but how do you know, if you have never had the blinkers off?

If Einstein were alive today and I was to make the observation to him that the problem is trying to model the narrative effect, rather than the physical process, he would either slap his head and say; Of course! Or he would say; No, because... and give a clear and logical reason as to why. There would be none of these muddled misquotes and evasions. That's the difference between wearing blinkers because they are necessary, versus being able to see clearly and focused in the first place and not needing blinkers.

Steve,

And bubbles. Don't forget the bubbles. They are the spheres that grow until they pop.

Dan,

Good luck with your work on the variant to the Standard Model of Cosmology. From the sound of things, however, you'd better get a move on. Tempus fugit.

"At my back I always hear time's winged chariot hurrying near; and yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity." (--Andrew Marvell, 'To His Coy Mistress')

As I read the articles and blogs here at FQXi I become ever more convinced that science is the coy mistress of us all.

Best,

jcns

Blinkers are used to train, John. Just as scientific method is used to train one's mind to ignore personal belief in favor of objective theory.

Personal belief leads one to all manner of distracting conclusions, such as believing that one can know what's in Einstein's mind a half century after his death.

All that one can objectively know of Einstein, however, is contained in the history and mathematics of classical physics -- in whose principles and practice Einstein was well trained by his "blinkers."

Tom

John,

With apologies for jumping into the middle of your interesting dialogue with Tom, I'd like to recommend to you (as I know I've done in the past) that you read Thomas S. Kuhn's excellent book, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.' This book speaks directly, explicitly, and eloquently to exactly the topic of your debate here. When I made this recommendation to you in the past you said you were too busy to read it. From what I've been reading here in these blogs it appears that you've somehow found or made time to read any number of other works. Just a suggestion. I think you'd like the book.

Best,

jcns

Kuhn is well worth reading. However, I take Karl Popper's side in the debate

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for that cogent summary of the Kuhn/Popper debate. It's my own view that both sides have merit and are not mutually exclusive in terms of real world, rubber meets the road advancement of science. I think no one would disagree with Popper's insistence on the importance of falsifiability as being a hallmark of science. Without that we have nothing.

The point I was hoping to make with John is that Kuhn's book does an excellent job, in my opinion, of citing numerous specific examples from the history of science to illuminate the points he's making. I suspect that some of these will resonate with John's thinking about the state of science today. Regardless of whether one agrees with every aspect of Kuhn's thesis, his book is a great and fascinating read!

Best,

jcns

It's true that Kuhn has history on his side. That very fact, however, is one of the things that Popper opposed. "Historicism," said Popper, endorses the instruments that suppress creativity. Popper was a liberal in every respect, and science, on the rationalist side of the creative process, is a most important -- though not only -- jewel in the crown of the open, liberal, rational society.

Historicism, OTOH, is always in the best interests of the authoritarian and totalitarian.

Tom