Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

That's pretty neat that if you have a few planets orbiting a star, they pull on each other to end up in the same plane long term. I didn't know that was the case. So flat galaxies come about from the stars themselves pulling each other into a flat orbit and organizing the galaxy like that. So that would mean an elliptical galaxy is a young one, and a flat one is an old one, where enough pull on each other interactions have happened. I think officially they claim it the other way, that elliptical ones are the old ones. Hmm.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

We simply cannot measure the speed of gravity because we cannot get the long distance out of it with exact position and accurate force measurements on a small time scale, like we can get out of measuring light, which can be bounced around with a mirror and stays high intensity for miles. Gravity always decays by r squared, an as far as I know there are no mirrors for gravitational phenomena, or high impedance zones for reflection or refraction of gravitational waves if it does indeed propagate by waves, and finite speed. Even the Sun's gravity, which is a huge mass, is barely pulling on my hair to make it stand up when the Sun is overhead, at noon, high up in the sky. It's too far, and its effects decay by r^2. So the best way to measure the speed of gravity is not through large distances, but short distances (and the need for mass and matter density puts a limit on how close you can get in r^2, as Iridium and Osmium are the densest things that we know of, at 22 g/cm3, only twice as dense as lead, and to build up weight you need to put some distance between the objects. There are some unstable artificial nuclei in the Periodic Table right under Iridium and Osmium, which may be the heaviest, densest things in existence under the physical conditions on this planet, but you can't really measure that if all you get in a reactor is like 5 atoms total that decay in 1.7 seconds half life. But if you could get a 50 kton dot 2 micron away from another one, that would be the way to go, as even a humongous weight Sun gives you almost nothing to measure. The shorter length drops linearly the speed measurement quantity, but it increases by the square the gravity effect. And under such short distances ultrashort time measurements are needed. Whatever the limits of short time measurements are, they can be pitted against this need of measuring speed of gravity in the lab, under the shortest possible distances.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

For such an experiment to work, you have to get the ratios to do the magic, and, an exaggerated case would be having a lead ball the size of Jupiter inside the lab pulling on the spore of a plant suspended on a hair of quartz torsion spring, exerting a huge force on the spore by virtue of Jupiter's gravity. Then you suddenly pull Jupiter through the door out of the lab with a blast at the other end of the shaft outside the lab, and, because the spore does not have much inertia due to its own weight, the torsion sensor almost has to fight its own inertia as opposed to the spores, but the system is light and reacts fast to a gravitational change, you get a reaction, a sort of high speed gravitational sensor by virtue of its light weight that has just been influenced by huge gravity. If anything a super light sensor like spider web suspended stuff might be better than a quartz hair, and again you're looking for ratios, strength vs. mass, to minimize the mass of suspension equipment vs. the suspended small weight weight, and even going under a microscope to watch position vs. time of a 10 angstrom carbon nanotube suspended 1 microgram weight as a 50 kiloton "Jupiter" suddenly gets jerked out of the lab with a blast on the other end, might come up with some results. Even one significant digit, or just a hint, like a half a significant digit, might be useful, in the measurement of the speed of gravity, or at least provide a lower limit, as in is it the same or more than the speed of light. So one could budget for at least 2 light speeds, and if the experiment does not give a measurement, but comes up with no result in the sense that the speed is still infinite within the confines of the experiment and we can't measure it accurately, but definitely higher than 2 speed of lights, that would be a step forward.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

If by GR you mean general relativity, it does not conclude or arrive at as a result, but postulates, presupposes, just like special relativity does, as an axiom, that the speed of light is constant. Also I just read the speed of gravity wikipedia page, and it smells like absolute bullshit, other than Laplace saying something that the speed of gravity must be 7x10^6 times the speed of light, which is an interesting number, but I don't know how he arrived at it. Then the page goes on discussing how Earth would be attracted to where the Sun was a while ago, as I assume, just like we see light get to us from the Sun in 8 minutes, so we see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and would have no idea if it disappeared or some extraterrestrial invaders suddenly stole it from us and towed it away, 2 minutes ago, for another 6 minutes, and see where it is now. Duh. But the arguments that finite speed of gravity would make the Earth spiral out of orbit is ludicrous. It is the direction and intensity of force vector that matters as it is encountered by Earth, and just because you see where the Sun was 8 minutes ago, and with gravity you feel where the Sun was distance/speed ago, it does not mean you get a forward or backward pull, because, where ever you are on the orbit, you meet up with the force or wave the Sun sent there 8 minutes ago, pulling you in a direction and intensity just right to maintain the same orbit as if it was sent 1 minute ago or 2 minutes ago, or even two millenia ago if that's how slow gravity propagated, or even instantaneously, you see the same force vector, pointing in the same direction at that point, with the same intensity. So why do you care it was sent right now or a while ago if it does the same thing? There is a lot of fallacy around this. Also observing a quasar as Jupiter passes in front of it, to measure the speed of gravity? What a fucking quack! A quasar and Jupiter are not gravitationally interacting, nor are you with the Quasar or Jupiter, practically speaking. The quasar does interact with its nearby objects. You can't measure speed of gravity between distant galactic objects, they don't interact, unless the mass you're dealing with is huge, and their corresponding distance is very small, so you're dealing with huge gravity forces, and almost the same dots in the picture image from the Hubble telescope. Then theoretically you could get some time measurements, as Kepler kept record, and once you calculate the GM (gravitational constant x mass) for the interacting objects, and can predict their orbits in the Kepler-like relativistic way, and then measure distance accurately too of a 3rd object flying by so close that it's a 3-body system instead of two, and affecting the quasars time periods by turning them into this 3-body system, and plotting the quasar frequency vs. distance of the 3rd object as it collides with them, and knowing the accurate distance, could let you calculate the speed of gravity. There are no accurate ways to measure distances in far galaxies. And good luck waiting out such a collision as they take millions of years to happen, and you need one that slams into a quasar with a timing on the order of the quasars pulses, so that's very fast, and the chances of catching one of these happenings in the sky, i.e. a 2 second event, colliding object position accurately plotted vs. time for those 2 seconds, while it blasted away the quasar, the chances of seeing one of these are pretty much zero in a lifetime, probably zero in a millenium too.

So quit trying to measure the speed of gravity waiting for and hoping to catch high speed gravitational events far away in the sky, and accurately plotting positions too, or computing them from a system of equations, for which you still need measurements of some kind, even if less accurate, for all the 7 actors involved in the system of 7 equations). So the best chances to measure speed of gravity are in the lab, repeating Cavendish's experiments (see the wikipedia page). Just like in the formula for attraction between electric charges, F=k.q1.q2/r^2, k is the Coulomb constant, equal to 1/(4.Pi.epsilon), you could measure the speed of light by jerking either the large charge or the small charge and plotting the force on the other vs. distance of charge on a high speed camera, you might be able to do the same experiment with the Cavendish setup relating to masses instead of electric charges, where F=k.m1.m2/r^2, k is the gravitational constant measured when the masses are sitting still compared to each. However it's really hard to get sensitive force measurements down to picograms on tons of weight (as in measuring weight to 2153.0000000000000000017 kg accuracy, that's too many digits), and while with charges you can concentrate a lot of charge and have small weight into a small object, easily jerked and position changed suddenly, with gravity you must have a heavy ball that's hard to jerk if you want to measure the quartz hair suspended torsion force on the smaller one, at say 0.0215300000000000017 kg. It's like you have to blast the heavy ball away from the sensitively suspended little one with an explosive pull through a strong shaft that does not shatter from the pull (you have to pull, you can't push by having an explosion blast going on between the balls), (capturing its motion on an ultrahighspeed camera,) to get a sudden effect, and then watch as the little balls inertia damps almost all of it away, and barely starts moving the torsional sensor. The torsional recovery force accelerating the mass back is extremely small, but you might be able to compute when it started from plotting and extrapolating back the accelerating positions vs.time. Such an experiment is extremely impossible to conduct, as even with the measurement of light, such as Fizeau, he gets a couple miles of distance by sending light out of the lab with a mirror for a few miles, then back into the lab, and now he's got a couple miles of path length vs. time, as opposed to the Cavendish experiment of 2 inches or 2 feet.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

OK, you're right. So I correct myself: In absolute void the speed of light is not infinite, but just simply does not exist, because it's undefined, 0/0 division, and there is actually no wave at all, because there is no medium to carry it. The speed of any wave is the square root of a driving force term divided by an inertial term, as in sqrt((1/epsilon) / mu) for electromagnetic waves, or sqrt(E/Rho) for mechanical waves, E being the Young modulus, or stiffness (potential energy), rho the mass density (inertia), epsilon the dielectric permittivity(potential energy), mu the magnetic permeability(inertia). In an almost perfect void inertial terms are zero, or very nearly so, infinitesimal, but we don't know how zero the potential terms are. It is the ratio of these residual infinitesimal quantities that determines the speed of the wave, and for light the potential energy inverse permittivity factor is much greater than the magnetic inertia factor, that's how we have a huge velocity. Obviously, in absolute void there is neither inertia nor potential energy, just as there is sound in air, but in absence of a medium, such as in outer space, you can yell all you want in your space suit, the other astronomers can't hear it, there is no air to propagate it, but through a radio that transmits waves through the non-perfect-void between you two he can, because the "aether", the electromagnetic medium between you two is still present, and were it not, there would be no means of communication such as light or radio, you'd be immersed in a completely blind and deaf world, other than actually shooting dee deet dah dah Morse code bullets at each other and maintaining the sense of touch, or even various chemicals, to maintain the sense of taste (imagine you were a metal robot with HF-like(hydrofluoric acid-reacting like) heavy liquid, that does not boil in outer space vaccuum, acid saliva, tasting rocks.) As a different view, imagine you only had ears like bats, and you were in outer space, and you did not even know light existed, so without air you can't see anything with your ultrasound ears, or talk to each other, but if you use a bunch of ping pong balls to shoot around you instead of ultrasound, and a sensor to detect if any bounce back at you, you got a rough image, and your buddy can ping ping some balls at you in a tee tee tah tah Morse code fashion and communicate. So in absolute void there is no wave of any kind, because there is no transmission medium of any kind. It's like saying what is the speed of sound in outer space? It is zero. It stops at the interface of the sound propagating medium, the hull of your spacesuit, and the high or low impedance outer space, with total reflection. I'm not sure the concept of "aether" that has been abandoned as a scientific concept deemed superfluous because we can't measure our speed against it in the Michelson Morley experiment, so it would require complicated behavior to adapt to these experiments, so I'm not sure this concept is useless, because it does provide a medium to discuss, through which a wave propagates. Enabling it with funky but complicated behavior might be an worthwhile thing to do, and maintain Newtonian absolute time and space, and all electromagnetic things bending in it according to the Lorentz rules, but space itself or time itself would not bend. If you can find any non-electromagnetic objects around you (good luck), you could see if that cares about the constancy of speed of light or not. We still don't know what Newtonian gravity is, is it a force that propagates through a medium, and then what are the potential and inertial terms of that medium that would determine the speed. Obviously gravity propagates either infinitely fast, or very fast, as a simple force measuring experiment along the lines of Eotvos Lorant suspending 50 kg lead Pb balls via a quartz hair, and a mirror to bounce light to measure the torsion and force, you could measure how fast the force signal reacts when you suddenly remove the gravitationally interacting objects, vs. initial distance, i.e. how long it took the other ball to realize the first ball disappeared or got moved away. It's really difficult to move big weights really fast, or get any kind of gravity between widely separated objects, as it decays by r-square. So gravity may or may not move through electromagnetic "aether", and once you have a medium, you have one type of wave, as in sound is sound, and you can't really have transverse oscillations as sound, but interestingly, in aether you can have transverse and polarized waves, like on a water surface. On the water below it you could have a longitudinal wave, and the two waves propagate with different velocities, as the potential energy terms - one dependent on the gravity of earth or moon or space station you're one, the other one the Young modulus of water - are different from each other. So is there a way to also send longitudinal waves through "aether", and what would those be like? A charge exerts an electric field in an inverse r square just like gravity does, but there is two kinds of charges, and one kind of gravity, and magnetism arises only when you move not along the charge lines, but perpendicular to them, so "aether" must be some really funky substance or thing or model, and it may be a useful model just like caloric and phlogiston were for a while, until its deficiencies are highlighted. But we need a medium to intuit a wave with our stupid minds, and absolute void should mean no wave, and possibly no action at a distance?

A bat has no idea there is such a thing as light in the Universe, and misses out on looking at distant galaxies. I wonder how many such interactions there are that we have no sensors for. I mean a bat could still detect light just like we detect radio waves through a radio speaker, but it would be a hard job for him to adapt an speaker to depict Hubble telescope images in ultrasound for his ears to see. Picture a Hubble telescope image viewed in ultrasound, then transduced back into light for us. The image resolution must be horrible for bats, if they look at stuff like we look at pregnancy ultrasounds, but they are able to catch bugs with their sound vision, so maybe there is ways to go with our pregnancy images to get more quality. So just because we can't see an interaction with our present biological sensors like eyeballs and technological sensors like infrared detectors it does not mean it's not possible to transduce it to the other methods, and we probably know of all interactions there are out there, but there is always a possibility of something not very interacting escaping our attention, and it may be a while before we discover it, just like it may take thousands of years for bats with intelligence equivalent to humans, to happen upon light sensors, even if they know all about lightning strike thunders.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47571383) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
Elliptical galaxies must have a lot of collisions as stars go about in perpendicular planes to each other. As there has to be a centrifugal force keeping the stuff from falling together right away, like in a vortex the spinning sets up a delay, and keep things from collapsing into each other, in the ellipsoid's vertical plane too, not just everything going about orderly in a horizontal plane.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47571361) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
As in is there a way to create absolute vacuum, pump out the electromagnetic field, or ether, or whatever you wanna call it? In the days of Toricelli they used to wonder whether absolute metaphysical void is philosophically possible, and the 760mm Hg mercury tube was their prime example of messing with such vacuum, and how it wants to suck on things, nature abhores emptiness, til someone came around and said no, it does not, what we got is atmospheric pressure pushing down on mercury, and vacuum not pushing down on it, and if you take your Toricelli tube up the mountain side, it will abhor the metaphysical void differently.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47571337) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
And the speed of gravity may indeed be infinite, if it propagates through a medium that's empty, even empty of electromagnetic vacuum. Does that sentence even make sense? It's like saying vacuum has mass per unit volume, that retards gravity, like, if you put electrically charged obstacles in the way of light, such as a zirconia crystal of a fake diamond ring, it will slow light down, so putting a lot of sand or earth or metal in the way of gravity slows it down too? Or does gravity penetrate mass unimpeded to the mass right behind it. We know an electric field propagates only with the speed of light, and speed of light is impeded by electric charges in abundance in the way.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47571307) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
Hidden variables are the simplest way to kill a probabilistic model of reality. Like every time I think of quantum theory, I think of the randomness of Brownian motion, how 900 trillion molecules are smacking the pollen under the microscope from the left, 900 million plust 53 from the right, and that 53 is heavy enough to make it move. But luckily, by the time we found the random Brownian motion of lifeless particles, we already had the Maxwell-Boltzmann kinetic theory of gases, and its statistical rules, and the parameters, the rules, are not many in that model, but the actors are - 900 trillion of them at the same time. There may be a deterministic description to quantum theory, but you may have to come up with 900 trillion actors obeying simple rules, to accurately measure and describe at what localize point an electron wave function will decide to collapse on a screen from a double slit experiment. We have no way to measure 900 trillion different velocities and motions of things we don't even know what they are or whether they exist. By the way even into the 20th century there were prominent scientists, like Ostwald who denied the existence of atoms, and maintained that matter is continuous, and ascribed its success to just mere luck, and it will be a matter of time before we find something to disprove it as a valid theory, just like we abandoned phlogiston, caloric, vis viva, etc., but it's hard to hold such a view in face of an atomic force microscope today. We think atoms are real and Brownian motion is from 900 gazillion atoms smashing into each other at the same time. What stuff is there in vacuum, in emptiness, that acts like that? Vacuum, or complete physical void and emptiness, is definitely not empty, as far as I can tell. If it were, it would have a dielectric permittivity of zero, and the speed of light would be infinite.

Comment: Re:Can we dumb it down some more? (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47570737) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
Why combine the beams to see which path the neutrons took? Why not measure them individually? Because then you don't get the self-interference effects of the electron double-slit experiment. If you block either hole, it's easy to see that each electron wave-packet went through the other one. But if you keep both holes open, each wave-packet electron goes through both holes, and arrives at the screen in a self-diffraction pattern, with highs and lows in probability or abundance amplitudes. I.e., the modeling of the electron as a "particle", as a dot, as something limited in extent in space, is not correct, it does spread out, though I don't know if it spreads out to a mile, if that's the distance between the holes, or across the galaxy, it may be like a sound wave only spreads out to openings on a wall within a limited range, and the range, or amplitude of the unparticleness spread all over the place is limited to the nearby neighborhood, and not halfway across the globe, let alone the galaxy. But soundwaves get absorbed as thermal friction, while electrons live in an undecaying medium, and don't have a half life. So how far do the electrons spread out, halfway across the galaxy? With sound waves, in absence of decay, absence of friction, or light waves in absence of absorbance, there is an inverse square drop in amplitude vs. distance, and I assume this be the case with all waves, as the surface of a sphere is inverse square, it's where the term comes from, and such a rule represents conservation of something when it goes from a 1 cm radius to a 10 cm radius, if spherical, its amplitude as a wave drops as inverse square, but when confined to a reflecting waveguide, the aplitude is constant. Electron microscopy probably shows that electrons behave like other waves of sound, light, etc., and something is conserved, and they follow the inverse square law in a sphere, and a consant law if you can make a waveguide. So the electron self diffracts, and maybe these guys didn't have a neutron-screen to observe the diffraction effects, but a single neutron probe somewhere, so when they were expecting an increase in something, they measured a decrease, as the patterns get a little more complicated with diffraction, based on path length. They need a neutron "display screen", and even if they can't get 800x600 SVGA pixels, maybe 24x24 would be nice. That's a lot of neutron detectors. So even 2x2=4, 3x3=9 or 10x10=100 is better than just 1.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47570555) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
By the way, I forgot to add, that it amazes me how every galaxy is flat, or most of them are, and I can't really picture gravity keeping together a centrifugal balanced spherical galaxy, there is no way to have the rotations, and if there is, there'd be a lot of collisions. Like in outer space conquest by humans most of the space stations will have to get in line with the general flow of things, and stay in the flat orbit plane of the Sun, but just like Earth satellites, it's possible to go North-South as opposed to East-West in a geosynchronous orbit, as long as you don't collide. So why are galaxies flat? Why not just random spherically distributed debris going round and round, like we assume in the particle model description of how an electron goes round the atom, and the probability of finding it at any point. I don't like probabilities, I'm willing to trade for a 100 parameter deterministic theory describing quantum mechanics accurately compared to the few parameter probabilistic Schroedinger equation description, which is not as useful to me. Any takers on that deal? So anyway, how do we know neutrons are spherical? Are there such measurements? We have atomic force microscopy to show that molecular surface features are indeed spherical-elliptical, and not flat disk-like, like galaxies. Also the uniform bond angles in methane show that there is spherical uniformity in an atom. But it may turn out that neutrons are weird, and flat-like wave-soliton mixes, just like most debris around planets orbits as a spherical moon, but Saturn is different, it has a ring, that Maxwell conceptually derived, in his dream, not to be uniform continuity, but made up of debris. And so it is, we see it in the Voyager pictures.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

by sillybilly (#47570293) Attached to: More Quantum Strangeness: Particles Separated From Their Properties
There are wavepacket objects that can be knocked around. I forget, but I think the word is soliton, or something similar, a single wave-hump, or a wavehump plus some fast decaying amplitude fluctuations a couple wavelengths away, that travels, as if it were a particle. In order to understand quantum "particles" I think they need to delve into the math of ping pong-ing macroscopic single hump wave "particles" around - how they interact with each other, how to get a bounce out of each. Another thing that acts weird, as if it were a particle, but it's distributed, is a macroscopic vortex. Once you build up the intuition about these macroscopic "particles" that are simply a phenomenon of their medium - be it two vortices or two wave humps in macroscopic air or water, or quantum particles in the "ether" of vacuum - (I'm gonna leave this sentence hanging like this.) The math is really complicated with interacting vortices that bounce off each other, or wave solitons that bounce off each other, and conserve the terms of momentum, mv, energy, mv2, and I think angular momentum. What else?

A neutron having a magnetic moment means it has internal charge separation, and the sum of the internal charges is zero, but the "currents" of different charges are separated, such as the positive charges are flow in a small radius donut in the center, and the negative charges in a large radius donut around the small donut, or even if in the same donut (as in a copper donut wire you have both the positive and negative flowing in the same donut) at least at a different speeds relative to each other. If there are acually two donuts, not just one, then these two internal donuts may not be in the same plane, but say vertical to each other, and then the vector sum of the magnetic moments may act a bit more weird, if you can shift the relative plane of each donut differently with an externally applied magnetic field. It would be nice to know which ones are the magnetic field generators in a neutron relative to the lab's velocity taken as zero. In a copper wire we know it's the negative charge that flows, and the positive sits still. Is there a way to tell which one sits still inside a neutron, or what the speeds are? I think artifacts of such considerations might shed light on the devil is in the details of how they performed the experiment and what they actually measured and what actually happened, and it may turn out not to be a separation of the property of the wave from the wave, but some measurement artifact misunderstanding. And by the way I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, you could probably come up with a Schroedinger wave equation or Heisenberg particle matrix for macroscopic vortices or wave solitons, and then could take it to lower scales. Also Dirac's electron-positron pair rising out of pure vacuum is like a vortex and antivortex, or soliton and antisoliton arising out of the "ether" or medium of pure vacuum. And by the way some strange behavior of this "ether" might be deduced in how light travels in the Michelson Moreley experiment, and by the beding of starlight by gravity during a solar eclipse. By the way does light bend equally based on how its polarized vs. the gravitational field vector? A recent issue with a supernova explosion nearby showing two different neutrino peaks followed by a light peak that then stayed on continuously, brought up the idea that the difference in neutrinos might be polarization, as in birefringence in an anisotropic medium - which by the way splits a beam into two, not a spread spectrum like the prizm does with the rainbow. So this concept of ether was killed dead and deemed superfluous, but as all quantum phenomena are wave phenomena, and we can best understand waves by assuming a uniform medium that has properties x, y, z, w, etc., (gimme 19 parameters and I can fit an elephant with a mathematical curve, give me 20 and I can fit the tail too with high accuracy.) The less parameters you need the better, and if you can beat the 26 parameter string theory, with say explaining as much as it does with 22 parameters, that's a good achievement. In modeling the world you're approximating reality without ever truly describing it, as in Newtonian mechanics is pretty accurate, but the relativity adds extra precision under certain conditions, while maintaining backward compatibility, and even Einstein said that something else is gonna come around and approximate or model reality more accurately than relativity theory, but still maintaining the correspondence principles to it where relativity theory is accurate. That's why you keep your eyeballs open in experiment. Every theory is a mere theory, and we bow before the facts of experiment like God is speaking to us through them, we put the self away, and respect the external "dream", as in Plato's allegory of the cave, or Descartes "I think therefore I am sure about that, but I cannot trust the senses, I might be all dreaming this stuff, or watching a magician play tricks with my senses" to which Hume swings his wrecking ball of "but all your knowledge past that comes through the senses" and you have nothing better to trust as a source of knowledge and truth. And the Pope says, yeah, you do, it's called divine revelation, that does not come from experiment. You cannot trust any experiment about neutrons, you need to close your eyes and wait for the divine revelation to arrive about them. So anyway, we're dreaming the dream with Hume's trusting the untrustworthy senses like our eyeballs and digital measuring equipment, while we wait for the divine revelation, and in absence of that, we bow to the phenomena of the dream, the experimental resuts of the dream we all dream, and call reality. There is no reality, no materialism. There is only mind, and spirituality. That's one of the core hindu teachings. It's funny how quantum stuff always flirts with eastern religion's now you see it, now you don't, it's not yes or no, yin or yang, black or white, but both yes and no at the same time, called grey. A neutron itself, like an atom, is a mix of negative charge light yin and positive charge heavy yang, but they don't go roundabout at the same speed. Gotta be. How else can you usefully model it. It's not only how close a model is to reality that matters, but how terse it is, how mentally economic, as if it has 243,423,356,432,324,001 parameters very accurately describing everything in the world, in the dream, it's useless to my mind, because I'm simple minded, stupid, and need 3 parameter descriptions and generalizations, such as conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum. That's not too many parameters to keep in my head while trying to approximate and predict the reality around me with my mind. But sometimes something gotta give, and you gotta throw in more parameters, when trying to describe how vacuum behaves as ether whose various wave-states correspond to the different elementary particles, plus it obeys the Michelson-Moreley experiment, and also the gravity bend. There may be such a thing as absolute time in the Newtonians sense, and our clocks simply tick slower up on the tv satellites simply because they are made up of electromagnetic stuff objects that each individually obey the Michelson Moreley experiments and Lorentz contractions, including the general relativity acceleration contractions correspondence principle of gravity contractions, and they just tick faster simply because of that, while time goes on with the same speed, unrelenting, absolute,everywhere. There is no such thing as time, it's an invention, a parameter to describe my reality. In fact I wonder if extraterrestrial intelliget beings would all have the same concept of time, as we do. Is it flexible in their modeling of the world, or ridig and absolute. It doesn't really matter which way it is, as long as you force the parameters to fit the equations. It's like describing a curve f(x) with cartesian x, y series of points, where wave things like sine become complicated to describe, with many terms in the infinite expansion of the Taylor series, or describe everything with Fourier series, where simple particle humps become complicated many term things, but a steady sinewave is a single parameter simple object. And when you have to come from the wave perspective, starting with the unintuitive Fourier series description may be more efficient. I don't know how Fourier series apply to vortices, vortices might have their own series to simpy describe their behavior, and then the vacuum of quantum mechanics, with dielectric a permittivity greater than zero, may have its own, quantum series to simply describe its behavior, and you could describe non-wave, non-quantum things with it too, just like you can describe a square wave pulse with Fourier series, in a bend over backward way, by forcing it on with parameters. What is sought is a model that's usefully low on parameters, but you have to use as many as you have to. Einstein said a scientific explanation should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. We all want simple, but don't get stuck at too simple that won't fit. There is no way to describe an elephant with a curve with 2 parameters. Same way, describing the zoo or all the elementary particle wave-states of vacuum may need more than 2 parameters. I'm too dumb for such math, so I hope these guys get something useful for me to mentally consume, it sees like they need ideas and I try to help, and I hope they can gimme something better than, with less than 26 parameter string theory. Pretty please?

Real Users hate Real Programmers.

Working...