Discussion:
OT...Big Bang?
(too old to reply)
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-15 01:42:54 UTC
Permalink
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.

Is this true?

If so, was it this mass and these elements that traveled in all
directions, sometimes combining, sometimes accumulating, sometimes
repelling, sometimes attracting, while establishing the universe we
now know.

Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?

If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
Murray Logan
2007-10-15 01:48:49 UTC
Permalink
I just picked up Simon Singh's book "The Big Bang." Buy it, I think it will
answer your questions.

Singh is a terrific science writer. I highly recommend his "The Code Book."


Murray
Sng
2007-10-15 02:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
We don't know, therefore god created everything in 7 days.
--
S. Doyle
doyles AT mountaincable DOT net
ruylopez
2007-10-15 02:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
No, in the beginning there was only energy.  Then the universe cooled enough for
H and He to form - and that is all.  All the other elements were formed inside
hot stars, later on.  This is how the theory goes.

Is it true?  It's just a theory.  The best one we have, but it's not fact.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
It's the best guess.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
WTF is dense compression?  I suspect the simple answer to your question is
gravity, but I dunno what exactly you are talking about here.



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Popinjay
2007-10-15 03:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Is it true? It's just a theory. The best one we have, but it's not fact.
There's that word again. The "best".
Necron99
2007-10-15 03:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
Is it true? It's just a theory. The best one we have, but it's not fact.
There's that word again. The "best".
Simply the best, better than all the rest.



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:06:22 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
Is it true? It's just a theory. The best one we have, but it's not fact.
There's that word again. The "best".
It is what I thought too. Not a terrible grade school explanation of what
might be considered "the best" theory of what happened during the big bang.
It presumes, of course, that there was a big bang and that when one says
"big bang" one is talking about the same thing, and when one says "energy"
one is talking about the same thing that others might be talking about when
one says energy. A lot of assumptions that are not horrible, just
sophomoric.

That said, the original question obviously cried out for a simple answer.
There is that unasked wail crying out "but what about BEFORE the big bang?"
Surely that is on the way.

Dark matter, unseen energy, life "springing forth" in an almost miraculous
manner, no magnetic monopoles but plenty of ions, anti-matter, so many
pieces to the simple theory ... that "best" theory.

And the denial that "it is not a fact!" I can only guess that "the big
bang" is the "it" being referenced. The big bang is NOT a fact? I sure
thought it might be. Ah, this use of words.

I am feeling just fine this morning, even if it is a Monday. I am not
shaving today. I am going to work with a goofy two day beard ... not much
there, but what the heck.
Paul Popinjay
2007-10-15 12:12:09 UTC
Permalink
I am feeling just fine this morning, even if it is a Monday. I am not shaving today. I
am going to work with a goofy two day beard ...
Well you are really a wild and crazy guy, Pickle. Throw caution to the wind!
da pickle
2007-10-15 13:07:42 UTC
Permalink
"Paul Popinjay"
Post by Paul Popinjay
Post by da pickle
I am feeling just fine this morning, even if it is a Monday. I am not
shaving today. I am going to work with a goofy two day beard ...
Well you are really a wild and crazy guy, Pickle. Throw caution to the wind!
I am going in and writing up a written agreement for you and hanks.
Duh_Oz
2007-10-15 14:29:39 UTC
Permalink
You're all wrong. The Devil & God were playing Hold' em and when the
Devil got his one outer, God went on tilt and the rest is history.
John_Brian_K
2007-10-15 15:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Popinjay
I am feeling just fine this morning, even if it is a Monday. I am not shaving today. I
am going to work with a goofy two day beard ...
Well you are really a wild and crazy guy, Pickle. Throw caution to the wind!
lol

This is pretty amusing. I actually went to work this morning with a
goofy 2 day beard because I forgot to shave. I was in a rush this
morning and sometimes shave in the car with an electric if I forget,
but I brought the electric in the house this past weekend.

I have been growing out some chin hair also so it looks kinds weird
with a long (I believe it is technically called a petit goatee) and 2
days worth of rough to go with it. Luckily the firm i work at is VERY
casual and I do not have interviews scheduled today which helps.

I couldnt help laughing when I read that though.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-15 07:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
No, in the beginning there was only energy. Then the universe cooled enough for
H and He to form - and that is all. All the other elements were formed inside
hot stars, later on. This is how the theory goes.
Is it true? It's just a theory. The best one we have, but it's not fact.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
It's the best guess.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
WTF is dense compression? I suspect the simple answer to your question is
gravity, but I dunno what exactly you are talking about here.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com
JEH...My "dense compression" phrase is my (lame?) attempt to name and
thus identify that moment that ignites the "Big Bang".

A few posts later, that moment is described as "the Big Crush", where
all of the universe's matter collapses in on itself on this side of
the next "Big Bang".

I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.

This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.

It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.

Am I wrong?
FellKnight
2007-10-15 07:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.
It seems, then, that you would be a proponent of intelligent design.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
Am I wrong?
Sort of. The Big Bang theory breaks down at a moment of time nanoseconds
after the big bang itself. The mathematics all break down. This is
called the singularity, IIRC. It is possible that because of the
breakdown of the mathematics that the Big Bang theory is incorrect. It is
also possible that we humans have simply not developed the math required
to explain moment zero. It is possible that there is another explanation
entirely and that future generations will look back on us and our Big Bang
theory much the same way that we think about those who believed in a flat
earth in our past. The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory which
explains the universe as best we are currently able. The faith is more in
the process of science than in the specifics of the Big Bang.

Fell

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
2007-10-15 18:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by FellKnight
Sort of. The Big Bang theory breaks down at a moment of time nanoseconds
after the big bang itself. The mathematics all break down. This is
called the singularity, IIRC.
A singularity is a point of infinite density.  The Big Bang is supposed to have
arisen out of one, but it is not the only one.  Black holes are also
singularities.  They defy mathematics because of the infinities. 
Post by FellKnight
It is possible that because of the
breakdown of the mathematics that the Big Bang theory is incorrect. It is
also possible that we humans have simply not developed the math required
to explain moment zero.
The very first moments after the big bang, I think up to about 10^-40 seconds,
are not understood at all.  We have no way to study things at such high
energies.  This is presumed to be the time before protons and electrons are even
formed, and before the four fundamental forces even appeared.  Pretty weird, I
dare say.  Then we have various stages where particles and forces are being
formed, including loads of matter and antimatter, most of which instantly
annihilated itself.  For some reason it is believed that there was more matter
than antimatter and thus we have a universe full of matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
FellKnight
2007-10-15 22:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Then we have various stages where particles and forces are being
formed, including loads of matter and antimatter, most of which instantly
annihilated itself. For some reason it is believed that there was more
matter
Post by ruylopez
than antimatter and thus we have a universe full of matter.
I have heard, on the contrary, that it would simply be impossible for
there to be more matter than antimatter due to the fact that there would
have to be an imbalance in the first place. Thus, the theory goes, many
parts of the universe are in fact, made of antimatter, and we simply don't
see the annihilations because our respective "halves" have moved so far
away from each other (and space, is, after all, nearly a vacuum... to
observe an annihilation, it would have to be on a large order... planetary
sized or more to release the amount of energy equivalent to a supernova.

Fell

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
2007-10-16 03:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by FellKnight
I have heard, on the contrary, that it would simply be impossible for
there to be more matter than antimatter due to the fact that there would
have to be an imbalance in the first place. Thus, the theory goes, many
parts of the universe are in fact, made of antimatter, and we simply don't
see the annihilations because our respective "halves" have moved so far
away from each other (and space, is, after all, nearly a vacuum... to
observe an annihilation, it would have to be on a large order... planetary
sized or more to release the amount of energy equivalent to a supernova.
Fell
I have never heard this, I dare say you may have something wrong, can you link
or cite to anything?  I have heard consistently that the idea is there was more
matter than antimatter and everything in the universe is matter.  The idea is
that when matter and antimatter first formed shortly after the big bang, most of
it was immediately annihlated, but for some unknown reason there was more matter
formed and that leftover amount is what everything we know of is made of.

Antimatter does occur on a fairly regular basis, but it's immediately
annihilated.  For example anything radioactive is such because its nucleus is
unstable and decays over time.  These decays frequently involve the release of a
bit of antimatter, like a positron, which is annihilated as soon as it meets an
electron, with the release of a gamma ray, which is thereby detectable.  PET
scans, for example, rely on this radioactive positron release, it stands for
Positron Emission Tomography.


_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 14:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by FellKnight
I have heard, on the contrary, that it would simply be impossible for
there to be more matter than antimatter due to the fact that there would
have to be an imbalance in the first place. Thus, the theory goes, many
parts of the universe are in fact, made of antimatter, and we simply don't
see the annihilations because our respective "halves" have moved so far
away from each other (and space, is, after all, nearly a vacuum... to
observe an annihilation, it would have to be on a large order... planetary
sized or more to release the amount of energy equivalent to a supernova.
Fell
I have never heard this, I dare say you may have something wrong, can you link
or cite to anything? I have heard consistently that the idea is there was
more
Post by ruylopez
matter than antimatter and everything in the universe is matter. The idea is
that when matter and antimatter first formed shortly after the big bang, most of
it was immediately annihlated, but for some unknown reason there was more matter
formed and that leftover amount is what everything we know of is made of.
Yes, I believe Fell is mistaken. Without putting any deep thought into
it, if you reversed time, you would inevitably reach a point where these
"halves" which have "moved so far away from each other" would intersect.

There are other strange imbalances in our universe. Left- and
right-handedness, for instance (not talking about people).

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Old Wolf
2007-10-17 00:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by FellKnight
I have heard, on the contrary, that it would simply be impossible for
there to be more matter than antimatter due to the fact that there would
have to be an imbalance in the first place. Thus, the theory goes, many
parts of the universe are in fact, made of antimatter,
Well, in the first place there was neither matter nor
antimatter -- just energy. The energy 'condensed'
into matter once it became cool enough. The current
theory is that the nature of the condensation process
favours creation of matter over antimatter. (This
behaviour has been replicated in particle accelerators).
Bill T
2007-10-15 09:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...My "dense compression" phrase is my (lame?) attempt to name and
thus identify that moment that ignites the "Big Bang".
A few posts later, that moment is described as "the Big Crush", where
all of the universe's matter collapses in on itself on this side of
the next "Big Bang".
I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
Am I wrong?
The Crush-Bang scenario is unlikely in view of current experimental
data; but it doesn't require any self-perpetuating mechanism

In any case, it is an unnecessary additional leap of faith to postulate
a "Creator" to justify any prior primary conclusion. How does a "God"
add any explanatory power to this or any other discussion?

This universe, this earth, this human life did not arise from chance.
Cosmology, biology, and evolutionary psychology do not say we are here
because of chance. "Chance" is a red herring embraced by
scientific-unsophisticates with weak logical facilities. If you already
entertain a creationist possibility, then you exhibit a logical tangent
that I cannot follow. That is, if you claim that there is a super-duper
Creator behind everything, then you have mental processes which are
illogical and a priori irrefutable.

Bill T

Bill T
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-15 12:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...My "dense compression" phrase is my (lame?) attempt to name and
thus identify that moment that ignites the "Big Bang".
A few posts later, that moment is described as "the Big Crush", where
all of the universe's matter collapses in on itself on this side of
the next "Big Bang".
I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
Am I wrong?
The Crush-Bang scenario is unlikely in view of current experimental
data; but it doesn't require any self-perpetuating mechanism
JEH... Could you explain to us how you believe the Crush-Bang scenario
is unlikely in view of current experimental data?...

Can you explain why you think the Crush-Bang theory does not require a
self-perpetuating mechanism? How else could such an occurrance
perpetuate itself, otherwise?
Post by Bill T
In any case, it is an unnecessary additional leap of faith to postulate
a "Creator" to justify any prior primary conclusion. How does a "God"
add any explanatory power to this or any other discussion?
JEH...To a scientist, if his analysis can not reach any a prior
primary conclusion, his finite skills leave him agnostic on the
subject. Are you agnostic on this subject?

And if not chance or creation, how does any guess " add any
explanatory power to this or any other discussion?" That is precisely
my point, how do you exclude or include any conclusion without a leap
of faith in your analysis.
Post by Bill T
This universe, this earth, this human life did not arise from chance.
Cosmology, biology, and evolutionary psychology do not say we are here
because of chance. "Chance" is a red herring embraced by
scientific-unsophisticates with weak logical facilities.
JEH...Finish this thought..."Therefore we can conclude that it did
arise from (you fill in here your conclusion).....?".
Post by Bill T
If you already
entertain a creationist possibility, then you exhibit a logical tangent
that I cannot follow.
JEH...You discard chance, creation...Then what do you postulate
happened in that crucial nano-second of the Big Bang?....Nothing???
Post by Bill T
That is, if you claim that there is a super-duper
Creator behind everything, then you have mental processes which are
illogical and a priori irrefutable.
JEH...You afford me far too much credit...It is not I that is
illogical and a priori irrefutable but it is the fact that something
happened in that crucial moment, irrespective of my opinion as to what
may have happened.

It seems your high-priestian ego will not allow you to admit that you
just do not know what happened.

Just say, "I don't know", if you don't know. Or tell us your
suspicions on the subject.

Just don't tell us we have no right to speculate.

You are way above your paygrade when you do.
Post by Bill T
Bill T
Bill T- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
g***@hotmail.com
2007-10-15 15:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Well, being an interested observer, I don't think the big bang is
accepted anymore as the beginning of the universe in that no one could
come up with the math to support it during the bang and before (I
guess time is the factor, was there time before the bang?). I would
think that many physicists now think that the P-brane theory might be
a better possibility. The string theory developed into the membrane
theory (P-Brane) . To simplify it, two membranes touch (collide)
and a universe is born giving rise to the idea of multiple universe.
The good news is that there was time before and after the
collisions.

Again, I am no expert just interested.

I think Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" is a good book to
read for people like us with no special talent for physics.
ruylopez
2007-10-15 18:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...My "dense compression" phrase is my (lame?) attempt to name and
thus identify that moment that ignites the "Big Bang".
That moment is called the Big Bang.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
You're talking about something different now.  Information of what was before
the big bang is inaccessible and always will be.  The theory says nothing about
whether it arose due to chance or creation. 



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
beerboy
2007-10-15 23:25:41 UTC
Permalink
You're talking about something different now. Information of what was before
the big bang is inaccessible and always will be. The theory says nothing about
whether it arose due to chance or creation.
There's another one of "those" words. I hate the word "always", as much
as I hate the words: "never", "best", "worst", etc. Too concrete...


Of course you're most probably correct, we will most likely never know
what was before the Big Bang, and certainly not in our lifetimes, but as
far as I know you cannot predict the future. I may be wrong.
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
ruylopez
2007-10-16 03:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
There's another one of "those" words. I hate the word "always", as much
as I hate the words: "never", "best", "worst", etc. Too concrete...
Of course you're most probably correct, we will most likely never know
what was before the Big Bang, and certainly not in our lifetimes, but as
far as I know you cannot predict the future. I may be wrong.
Eh, it's the nature of information in the universe.  You can't get any
information out of a singularity, as light can't escape it.  I guess we could
digress into some Descartesque muse about the nature of what it means to "know"
anything, but I don't see a problem with always here.   Seems to be a
fundamental property of our universe that information before its beginning is
inaccessable.

If Pickle agrees then I will be sure of it.


_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-16 11:40:54 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by beerboy
There's another one of "those" words. I hate the word "always", as much
as I hate the words: "never", "best", "worst", etc. Too concrete...
Of course you're most probably correct, we will most likely never know
what was before the Big Bang, and certainly not in our lifetimes, but as
far as I know you cannot predict the future. I may be wrong.
Eh, it's the nature of information in the universe. You can't get any
information out of a singularity, as light can't escape it. I guess we
could
digress into some Descartesque muse about the nature of what it means to "know"
anything, but I don't see a problem with always here. Seems to be a
fundamental property of our universe that information before its beginning is
inaccessable.
If Pickle agrees then I will be sure of it.
Sorry, "never say never" seems to be a good motto.

However, when you are talking about theories, you can have absolute faith in
anything. (And I have not heard much yet about the "dark" matter ... it
just "has" to be there.) (And that "arrow of time" only pointing one way,
that is a good thing to believe. I accept that one right now, but I have
been watching Journey Man and now I am not so sure.) (And I think, but
cannot remember exactly, whether the current number of dimensions of string
theory is 10 or 11 ... I think string theory may be running out of string.)

What we see is not always what we get.
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 14:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
There's another one of "those" words. I hate the word "always", as much
as I hate the words: "never", "best", "worst", etc. Too concrete...
Of course you're most probably correct, we will most likely never know
what was before the Big Bang, and certainly not in our lifetimes, but as
far as I know you cannot predict the future. I may be wrong.
Eh, it's the nature of information in the universe. You can't get any
information out of a singularity, as light can't escape it.
That's one of the more hotly debated topics in physics. Any loss of
information, regardless of the method of loss, is a huge problem, and
presents a paradox. Hawking originally felt as you do... in fact, he made
a famous bet with John Preskill over it. Eventually, Hawking reversed
himself, and paid off the bet. I would suggest that most physicists
disagree with the idea that information is lost in a singularity, at this
point. Doesn't mean they're right, of course.

Personally, I don't like Hawkings "solution", but I do like some of the
competing ideas.

Of course, you may simply be talking about the practical issue of
retrieving such information, but I thought you were making a larger point.
I guess we could
digress into some Descartesque muse about the nature of what it means to "know"
anything, but I don't see a problem with always here. Seems to be a
fundamental property of our universe that information before its beginning is
inaccessable.
If Pickle agrees then I will be sure of it.
Language like "information before its beginning" makes no sense, to me.
At a minimum, it presumes a larger framework from which and within which
our universe began. By yer own argument, speculation about such a
framework will forever be just that... speculation.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

________________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-16 15:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
You're talking about something different now. Information of what was before
the big bang is inaccessible and always will be. The theory says nothing about
whether it arose due to chance or creation.
There's another one of "those" words. I hate the word "always", as much
as I hate the words: "never", "best", "worst", etc. Too concrete...
Of course you're most probably correct, we will most likely never know
what was before the Big Bang, and certainly not in our lifetimes, but as
far as I know you cannot predict the future. I may be wrong.
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)
<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
JEH....This thread started with my verbally clumsy question as to what
preceeded the Big Bang..

In retrospect, a better way to phrase this question is, "what ignited
the Big Bang?"



This thread has elicited some heady, interesting posts, most of which
were informative, thoughtfull and responsive as well as appreciated.
Post by beerboy
From these posts, I am led to the conclusion that my question, "what
ignited the Big Bang?" is not known now, nor is it likely to become
known anytime soon.

Did I get that right?

I particularly enjoyed the discussion regarding the breakdown of math
within the nan-seconds after ignition, the absense of which, it is
suggested, brings all of the theories; i.e., string, multiverses and
even the Big Bang itself, into question.

Do I have this right?

The posts suggest colliding strings create numerous Big Bangs in a
multiverse, which could allow an explanation for the necessary
"ignition" phase in a Big Bang.

I also enjoyed the notion that somewhere after the ignition, during
the nano-seconds of the Big Bang, one theory claims there were no
elements whatsoever...Interesting thought.

This theory proposes that at this moment (of the birth of our
universe), only matter and anti-matter existed, from which all of our
universe was born..

As I have said, very interesting, this thread deserves to be read.
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 18:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I particularly enjoyed the discussion regarding the breakdown of math
within the nan-seconds after ignition, the absense of which, it is
suggested, brings all of the theories; i.e., string, multiverses and
even the Big Bang itself, into question.
Do I have this right?
To be precise, I would say it's a breakdown of the normal physical laws
with which we are familiar, which are best expressed mathematically.

However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say this breakdown "brings
all the theories... into question". We have the same breakdown evident in
singularities, and you have a similar breakdown when you examine the realm
of the ultrasmall (see planck length).
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The posts suggest colliding strings create numerous Big Bangs in a
multiverse, which could allow an explanation for the necessary
"ignition" phase in a Big Bang.
To be honest, I believe that description/post was mixing a few concepts
that are often included in books on physics written for general
consumption.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I also enjoyed the notion that somewhere after the ignition, during
the nano-seconds of the Big Bang, one theory claims there were no
elements whatsoever...Interesting thought.
This theory proposes that at this moment (of the birth of our
universe), only matter and anti-matter existed, from which all of our
universe was born..
As I have said, very interesting, this thread deserves to be read.
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

---- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
2007-10-17 08:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
Am I wrong?
In a way. If you require a creator to explain the creation of the
universe, then you also need to explain how the creator was created.
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-17 13:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pepe Papon
Post by j***@earthlink.net
I follow the "Big Crush" logic but am still left uncertain as to how
such a self-perpetuating engine of Bang-Crush or Crush-Bang ever got
started in the first place.
This uncertainty makes it difficult for me to commit to either act of
faith; i.e. chance occurance or created occurance.
It seems to me that either conclusion requires a leap of faith to
endorse.
Am I wrong?
In a way. If you require a creator to explain the creation of the
universe, then you also need to explain how the creator was created.
JEH....I assume that all of us, posting in this thread, are various-
grade poker players..

As poker players, the nature of the game demands that we make
decisions on incomplete information, unlike chess players for example.

With this poker background, I am quite comfortable projecting a guess
with less than complete information about which I have not yet been
privy.

All I know at this point, about the Big Bang, pre and post, ignition,
whatever...is something happened.

My guess is that is was no accident.
Maverick
2007-10-15 02:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
If so, was it this mass and these elements that traveled in all
directions, sometimes combining, sometimes accumulating, sometimes
This isn't correct. When the big bang occurred, it created a giant
cloud of hydrogen. These clouds inevitably swirled together gaining
heat and creating different elements inside. Once they become stars,
there is some type of explosion that takes place ejecting elements
which eventually form the planets.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
We know we receive light from stars that are about 15billion light
years away...but that's just the distance in light years. It
invariably took much longer for the stars to travel so far from each
other...after stars don't travel even remotely close to the speed of
light.

Remember, there are an estimated 200billion galaxies with
approximately 100billion stars in each. I saw a photo where the hubble
was pointed towards a dark sliver of the sky where nothing before had
been seen. They counted over 2000 galaxies in that one little dark
sliver.
Bill T
2007-10-15 03:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
No. Spacetime is created with the Big Bang. It makes no sense to say
that the universe had mass (=energy) before then.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If so, was it this mass and these elements that traveled in all
directions, sometimes combining, sometimes accumulating, sometimes
repelling, sometimes attracting, while establishing the universe we
now know.
No.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
Yes.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
What compression?


Bill T
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-15 04:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
If so, was it this mass and these elements that traveled in all
directions, sometimes combining, sometimes accumulating, sometimes
repelling, sometimes attracting, while establishing the universe we
now know.
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
You say things "became so densely compressed" <before> the big bang.
Before?

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
2007-10-15 04:39:59 UTC
Permalink
You say things "became so densely compressed" the big bang.
Before?
Could be.. depending on how much mass there is in the universe, it might end up
all collapsing on itself and starting over again. Doesn't seem to be enough, but
there might be.  Maybe it always repeats itself exactly and I've typed this
post an infinite number of times before.  Surely this is what JEH was getting
at..?


_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
beerboy
2007-10-15 04:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
You say things "became so densely compressed" the big bang.
Before?
Could be.. depending on how much mass there is in the universe, it might end up
all collapsing on itself and starting over again.Doesn't seem to be enough, but
there might be. Maybe it always repeats itself exactly and I've typed this
post an infinite number of times before. Surely this is what JEH was getting
at..?
Hi Ruy. I was wondering if you care to elaborate a bit on your post.
Could you explain "Doesn't seem to be enough, but there might be.".
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
ruylopez
2007-10-15 04:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
Hi Ruy. I was wondering if you care to elaborate a bit on your post.
Could you explain "Doesn't seem to be enough, but there might be.".
It's currently believed that there is not enough matter in the universe for
gravity to eventually halt the expansion and pull it all back together for
another big bang.  The alternative is that it just expands forever until
everything burns out, entropy rules, and the universe is dead and dark.  That is
the currently favored idea.

But we don't know for sure how much matter there is in the universe, so either
outcome is theoretically possible.


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
beerboy
2007-10-15 05:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by beerboy
Hi Ruy. I was wondering if you care to elaborate a bit on your post.
Could you explain "Doesn't seem to be enough, but there might be.".
It's currently believed that there is not enough matter in the universe for
gravity to eventually halt the expansion and pull it all back together for
another big bang. The alternative is that it just expands forever until
everything burns out, entropy rules, and the universe is dead and dark. That is
the currently favored idea.
But we don't know for sure how much matter there is in the universe, so either
outcome is theoretically possible.
Are you familiar with modern quantum mechanics? I'm not taking PhD at
Columbia, or anything, but familiar with string theory in general?
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
ruylopez
2007-10-15 05:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
Are you familiar with modern quantum mechanics? I'm not taking PhD at
Columbia, or anything, but familiar with string theory in general?
I have a pretty basic understanding of quantum mechanics, not so much string
theory.  I think the basic notion of string theory is that the universe is made
up of far more than the three physical dimensions we perceive.  I don't really
know anything about it however.  When I first went off to college, long ago, I
wanted to be a Physics major.  That didn't really last very long, although the
interest never died and I try to keep up. 

String theory is heavy, I know that.  Actually reading up on it seems like a
good mission for the rest of tonight.  God knows the poker isn't being friendly
right now, and I've been stuck on a grammar website ever since Paul ripped my
grammar earlier.


_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
beerboy
2007-10-15 05:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by beerboy
Are you familiar with modern quantum mechanics? I'm not taking PhD at
Columbia, or anything, but familiar with string theory in general?
I have a pretty basic understanding of quantum mechanics, not so much string
theory. I think the basic notion of string theory is that the universe is made
up of far more than the three physical dimensions we perceive. I don't really
know anything about it however. When I first went off to college, long ago, I
wanted to be a Physics major. That didn't really last very long, although the
interest never died and I try to keep up.
String theory is heavy, I know that. Actually reading up on it seems like a
good mission for the rest of tonight. God knows the poker isn't being friendly
right now, and I've been stuck on a grammar website ever since Paul ripped my
grammar earlier.
I'm knee deep in string theory myself. Nothing on TV. May I suggest
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_d.html Word of advice,
watch these in order.
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
Bill T
2007-10-15 05:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by beerboy
I'm knee deep in string theory myself. Nothing on TV. May I suggest
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_d.html Word of advice,
watch these in order.
I would think that it is impossible to have a deep insight into string
theory without understanding the math. It's been years, but I remember
that I had to know Riemann surfaces and Hamiltonians to really
appreciate general relativity. Again it's been quite a while, but those
of us who "got it" in math and theoretical physics were visualizing
concepts for which the majority weren't hardwired. I can't really put
it into words, but there is a mathematical theoretical construct
available to a fortunate few and which rapidly disappears past age 30.

The oldest person to make a fundamental contribution to theoretical math
or physics was Schrodinger who invented wave quantum mechanics out of
whole cloth at the decrepit age of 36. Of course, at the time he was on
summer vacation with his nubile mistress and probably felt much younger.

Anyways, I don't think it is possible for anyone over age 40 to really
"understand" string theory in the sense that some undergrads
"understand" general relativity.

Bill T
beerboy
2007-10-15 07:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Post by beerboy
I'm knee deep in string theory myself. Nothing on TV. May I suggest
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program_d.html Word of advice,
watch these in order.
I would think that it is impossible to have a deep insight into string
theory without understanding the math. It's been years, but I remember
that I had to know Riemann surfaces and Hamiltonians to really
appreciate general relativity. Again it's been quite a while, but those
of us who "got it" in math and theoretical physics were visualizing
concepts for which the majority weren't hardwired. I can't really put
it into words, but there is a mathematical theoretical construct
available to a fortunate few and which rapidly disappears past age 30.
The oldest person to make a fundamental contribution to theoretical math
or physics was Schrodinger who invented wave quantum mechanics out of
whole cloth at the decrepit age of 36. Of course, at the time he was on
summer vacation with his nubile mistress and probably felt much younger.
Anyways, I don't think it is possible for anyone over age 40 to really
"understand" string theory in the sense that some undergrads
"understand" general relativity.
Bill T
You are right, of course. Understanding was way too strong of a word.
Very basic understanding of some of the key principles, without looking
at any of the proof really (ie the math), Basically taking someone
else's word for it. And that's ok, I think. String theory and quantum
mechanics really are too "heavy" for the avg. layman to "understand".
Interesting as hell, though. :-)

Very basically as I understand it, String Theory says that all of
everything, all forces and all matter on a sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic level
is made of pieces of energy, or "strings" of energy, resonating at
different frequencies. The frequency that they resonate describes the
particle that they are.
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:14:46 UTC
Permalink
"beerboy"
Post by beerboy
Very basically as I understand it, String Theory says that all of
everything, all forces and all matter on a sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic level is
made of pieces of energy, or "strings" of energy, resonating at different
frequencies. The frequency that they resonate describes the particle that
they are.
Basically, string theory has been a very promising theory for almost twenty
years ... it has been "promising" for a long time. It has not delivered.
It may be on its way out as the "only" way to look at the question being
addressed. The consensus is draining out of the idea, even though for many
years you could not get even considered for a job if you did not prove that
you were a "believer." Science can be like that.
beerboy
2007-10-15 16:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"beerboy"
Post by beerboy
Very basically as I understand it, String Theory says that all of
everything, all forces and all matter on a sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic level is
made of pieces of energy, or "strings" of energy, resonating at different
frequencies. The frequency that they resonate describes the particle that
they are.
Basically, string theory has been a very promising theory for almost twenty
years ... it has been "promising" for a long time. It has not delivered.
It may be on its way out as the "only" way to look at the question being
addressed. The consensus is draining out of the idea, even though for many
years you could not get even considered for a job if you did not prove that
you were a "believer." Science can be like that.
A problem with String Theory is that there is absolutely no way to test
the theory with modern technologies. They are simply on a magnitude too
small for any test known to man at this moment. Physicists estimate that
they are on the magnitude of 10^-35m, or way smaller than subatomic
particles as protons, neutrons or quarks.

Is String Theory physics or philosophy? Without a test to draw
conclusions from, it it hard to say. But a lot of important scientific
discoveries were theories before they were fact.

An interesting tidbit from String Theorists is that they believe there
are 11 different parallel universes (?!). Their theory on the Big Bang,
that it was merely a collision of two parallel dimensions. There's a lot
more to it than that, but that is the general idea. It's really sci-fi
meets reality...
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
mo_charles
2007-10-15 12:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by beerboy
Are you familiar with modern quantum mechanics? I'm not taking PhD at
Columbia, or anything, but familiar with string theory in general?
I have a pretty basic understanding of quantum mechanics, not so much string
theory. I think the basic notion of string theory is that the universe is
made
Post by ruylopez
up of far more than the three physical dimensions we perceive. I don't
really
Post by ruylopez
know anything about it however. When I first went off to college, long ago,
I
Post by ruylopez
wanted to be a Physics major. That didn't really last very long, although
the
Post by ruylopez
interest never died and I try to keep up.
String theory is heavy, I know that. Actually reading up on it seems like a
good mission for the rest of tonight. God knows the poker isn't being
friendly
Post by ruylopez
right now, and I've been stuck on a grammar website ever since Paul ripped my
grammar earlier.
if anyone's interested in a very decent intro to these topics, here's a
book i'd recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/0375708111

mo_charles

______________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
beerboy
2007-10-15 16:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
Post by ruylopez
Post by beerboy
Are you familiar with modern quantum mechanics? I'm not taking PhD at
Columbia, or anything, but familiar with string theory in general?
I have a pretty basic understanding of quantum mechanics, not so much string
theory. I think the basic notion of string theory is that the universe is
made
Post by ruylopez
up of far more than the three physical dimensions we perceive. I don't
really
Post by ruylopez
know anything about it however. When I first went off to college, long ago,
I
Post by ruylopez
wanted to be a Physics major. That didn't really last very long, although
the
Post by ruylopez
interest never died and I try to keep up.
String theory is heavy, I know that. Actually reading up on it seems like a
good mission for the rest of tonight. God knows the poker isn't being
friendly
Post by ruylopez
right now, and I've been stuck on a grammar website ever since Paul ripped my
grammar earlier.
if anyone's interested in a very decent intro to these topics, here's a
http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensions-Ultimate/dp/0375708111
mo_charles
Thanks. I just ordered it along with Brian Greene's other book The
Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality.
http://www.amzon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205/ref=bxgy_cc_b_text_b/105-4028461-0926038
--
Kurt M. (beerboy)


<<<"insert stupid quote here">>> - unknown
RazzO
2007-10-15 04:58:41 UTC
Permalink
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
Post by ruylopez
it might end
up
all collapsing on itself and starting over again.
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
***@yahoo.com



_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
ruylopez
2007-10-15 05:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by RazzO
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
No doubt.  However you only have about 5 billion years to go before the sun
dies.  I hope that is enough.


_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:34:12 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by RazzO
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
No doubt. However you only have about 5 billion years to go before the sun
dies. I hope that is enough.
Although there is unlike a complete consensus about it, we will be dead long
before another 5 billion years passes (if we stay here on this planet.);
really bad global warming. The sun does not "die" in the next 5 billion or
so years either.

I think you are a really smart guy, ruylopez. I think you need to temper
your absolutes. I am going to back off ... I do not think I am helping, I
think I may be just pissing you off. I taught at the graduate level for
many years. I like to challenge people about their beliefs. Most really
good students reach with anger at first, but if I make them think about what
they say, they usually appreciate it in the end.

Those that think they are right about everything and don't need to be
challenged to think about what they say (not you) are usually not responsive
to such challenges.

I see a lot of me in you thinking back to when I was thirty. Wow, maybe you
can grow up to be a curmudgeon too!
ruylopez
2007-10-15 17:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Although there is unlike a complete consensus about it, we will be dead long
before another 5 billion years passes (if we stay here on this planet.);
really bad global warming. The sun does not "die" in the next 5 billion or
so years either.
I think you are a really smart guy, ruylopez. I think you need to temper
your absolutes. I am going to back off ... I do not think I am helping, I
think I may be just pissing you off. I taught at the graduate level for
many years. I like to challenge people about their beliefs. Most really
good students reach with anger at first, but if I make them think about what
they say, they usually appreciate it in the end.
You haven't managed to make me angry yet.  Frustrated at times, but even that is
rare.  Now, I am surprised to hear you say that the sun doesn't die in 5 billion
years.  Everything I have ever read puts the sun about halfway through burning
up its core nuclear fuel.  When that runs out, which I believe is thought to be
around 4.5 billion years from now, the sun will undergo some changes as it
begins to "die" .. it will become a red giant, growing to a diameter that would
engulf the current orbit of the Earth.

Whether or not the Earth will actually be engulfed seems to be up for debate,
because the sun will also be losing mass, and thus the Earth's orbital radius
will increase.  I'm not sure how long after this it takes for the sun go white
dwarf and then black dwarf at which point it can be considered "dead".  But that
whole red giant thing seems like it's going to be the end of life on Earth for
sure.
Post by da pickle
I see a lot of me in you thinking back to when I was thirty. Wow, maybe you
can grow up to be a curmudgeon too!
I am flattered.  I think I would be happy with the notion that at some point I
am going to "grow up" at all.


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 18:33:41 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by da pickle
Although there is unlike a complete consensus about it, we will be dead long
before another 5 billion years passes (if we stay here on this planet.);
really bad global warming. The sun does not "die" in the next 5 billion or
so years either.
I think you are a really smart guy, ruylopez. I think you need to temper
your absolutes. I am going to back off ... I do not think I am helping, I
think I may be just pissing you off. I taught at the graduate level for
many years. I like to challenge people about their beliefs. Most really
good students reach with anger at first, but if I make them think about what
they say, they usually appreciate it in the end.
You haven't managed to make me angry yet. Frustrated at times, but even
that is
rare. Now, I am surprised to hear you say that the sun doesn't die in 5
billion
years. Everything I have ever read puts the sun about halfway through
burning
up its core nuclear fuel. When that runs out, which I believe is thought
to be
around 4.5 billion years from now, the sun will undergo some changes as it
begins to "die" .. it will become a red giant, growing to a diameter that would
engulf the current orbit of the Earth.
Back to definitions. The sun is in the first third or half of its cycle in
the configuration that we are more used to. I don't think, but you can
correct me if I disremember, that it "dies" in the next five billion years
or so. I think it undergoes a significant change and there is another
transition period in its "life." (Using the term "die" allows me to use the
term "life" as well.) During the time before the sun moves into the red
giant stage, all life on Earth is likely to be gone, even if the orbit of
the Earth moves away from the "sun." After the red giant stage, the "sun"
is not "dead" but it is not the "sun" it used to be ... it will remain a
white dwarf for many billions of years. I suppose you can say that the
"sun" dies but you must admit that starting with the premise that it is
"live" now is pretty weak nomenclature.
Whether or not the Earth will actually be engulfed seems to be up for debate,
because the sun will also be losing mass, and thus the Earth's orbital radius
will increase. I'm not sure how long after this it takes for the sun go
white
dwarf and then black dwarf at which point it can be considered "dead". But
that
whole red giant thing seems like it's going to be the end of life on Earth for
sure.
The Earth does not need to be "engulfed" for us all to be truely "dead"
before the red giant phase is complete. Of course, in four billion years,
we will all be on starships moving through worm holes into parallel
universes and groking our way to a higher understanding.
Post by da pickle
I see a lot of me in you thinking back to when I was thirty. Wow, maybe you
can grow up to be a curmudgeon too!
I am flattered. I think I would be happy with the notion that at some
point I
am going to "grow up" at all.
May you never lose your confidence in your opinion of your opinion, no
matter how you improve upon it.
ruylopez
2007-10-16 03:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
Back to definitions. The sun is in the first third or half of its cycle in
the configuration that we are more used to. I don't think, but you can
correct me if I disremember, that it "dies" in the next five billion years
or so. I think it undergoes a significant change and there is another
transition period in its "life." (Using the term "die" allows me to use the
term "life" as well.) During the time before the sun moves into the red
giant stage, all life on Earth is likely to be gone, even if the orbit of
the Earth moves away from the "sun." After the red giant stage, the "sun"
is not "dead" but it is not the "sun" it used to be ... it will remain a
white dwarf for many billions of years. I suppose you can say that the
"sun" dies but you must admit that starting with the premise that it is
"live" now is pretty weak nomenclature.
Why is it weak?  A "live" star is one that is still active in a nuclear sense, I
am not sure what the problem with this word is.

Anyway, you're right, it's probably more correct to say the sun will "begin to
die" in 4-5 billion years.  After that it goes to red giant which lasts about
one billion years.  Then the white dwarf slowly fades away, gradually, probably
over a few billion years.  I am not positive on these numbers but this is the
best I can piece together right now.  At any rate it's about right.  I suppose
it's wrong to consider the white dwarf "dead", but it's not doing much more than
radiating left over heat.


_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
bo dark
2007-10-15 18:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RazzO
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
No doubt. However you only have about 5 billion years to go before the sun
dies. I hope that is enough.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites -http://www.recpoker.com
-No doubt. However you only have about 5 billion years to go before
the sun
dies. I hope that is enough.


wonder if al gore has heard of this?
Bill T
2007-10-15 06:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RazzO
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
There are ways to hurry destruction along:

http://qntm.org/destroy


I like the "strangelet" method myself.
FellKnight
2007-10-15 08:36:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Post by RazzO
Damn. I hope we have at least a 1,000,000,000 years before this happens.
http://qntm.org/destroy
I like the "strangelet" method myself.
That was pretty funny.

I particularly liked the description of "Crunched" You will need:
"Considerably more patience."

LOL.

Fell

---- 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 16:52:45 UTC
Permalink
"Bill T"
Post by Bill T
http://qntm.org/destroy
A fine array of choices.
Bill T
2007-10-15 05:25:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
You say things "became so densely compressed" the big bang.
Before?
Could be.. depending on how much mass there is in the universe, it might end up
all collapsing on itself and starting over again. Doesn't seem to be enough, but
there might be. Maybe it always repeats itself exactly and I've typed this
post an infinite number of times before. Surely this is what JEH was getting
at..?
yabbut

In the Big Crushes (if any) past and future the information in the
present universe is destroyed. Otherwise, it would still be the same
universe.

You have typed your post in the past (and will again) only if time
stretches infinitely in both directions. Since the past is delimited by
the moment of the Big Bang, and the future ends in the Big Crush or
(most likely) entropic nothingness, most present moments are unique.

Interestingly, even before the advent of modern cosmology, the idea of
endless repetition (cf Nietzsche) has been a major idea in
pre-scientific philosophy and religion.

I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
There is hope and despair in facing this reality. A la Steven Weinbeg,
the more we learn about the universe, the less meaning we find in it.

In the meantime, at least we can play poker.


Bill T
ruylopez
2007-10-15 05:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
yabbut
In the Big Crushes (if any) past and future the information in the
present universe is destroyed. Otherwise, it would still be the same
universe.
Can't it still be the same universe?

I dunno if this is science or philosophy or what.  I'm not sure, after some
brief thought, why the physical laws that govern this universe couldn't be
conserved after some big crunch.  If they are, it would seem possible that it
could repeat itself exactly.  It does seem like a really far-fetched idea, but I
don't know how it could be falsified. (which I guess makes it philosophy)

I'm going to sleep before I get a headache.


_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:18:46 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
I dunno if this is science or philosophy or what. I'm not sure, after some
brief thought, why the physical laws that govern this universe couldn't be
conserved after some big crunch. If they are, it would seem possible that
it
could repeat itself exactly. It does seem like a really far-fetched idea,
but I
don't know how it could be falsified. (which I guess makes it philosophy).
Good heavens ... repeats itself exactly!!!!!!! Each and every random event?
A Man Beaten by Jacks
2007-10-15 16:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"ruylopez"
I dunno if this is science or philosophy or what. I'm not sure, after some
brief thought, why the physical laws that govern this universe couldn't be
conserved after some big crunch. If they are, it would seem possible that
it
could repeat itself exactly. It does seem like a really far-fetched idea,
but I
don't know how it could be falsified. (which I guess makes it philosophy).
Good heavens ... repeats itself exactly!!!!!!! Each and every random event?
Rigged.
ruylopez
2007-10-15 17:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"ruylopez"
I dunno if this is science or philosophy or what. I'm not sure, after some
brief thought, why the physical laws that govern this universe couldn't be
conserved after some big crunch. If they are, it would seem possible that
it
could repeat itself exactly. It does seem like a really far-fetched idea,
but I
don't know how it could be falsified. (which I guess makes it philosophy).
Good heavens ... repeats itself exactly!!!!!!! Each and every random event?
I am not convinced there are any truly random events in the universe.  Events
that fundamentally defy prediction, no doubt.  But is reality inherently
probabilistic?  It just never has made sense to me.  Schoedinger's cat, anyone?


_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-15 19:41:57 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by ruylopez
Post by da pickle
Good heavens ... repeats itself exactly!!!!!!! Each and every random event?
I am not convinced there are any truly random events in the universe.
Events
that fundamentally defy prediction, no doubt. But is reality inherently
probabilistic? It just never has made sense to me. Schoedinger's cat,
anyone?
Have you ever read my fable?

Something/nothing ... first and last words in my fable.

See what you think:

ON ACTION AT A DISTANCE - A FABLE





Something moved. Just from the rhythmic sounds, he knew who it was long
before he cracked one eye to confirm his suspicions. It was a while longer
before the faint scrape/slip pattern ceased.



"Are you awake?" the turtle asked quietly.



"Rabbits are always awake!" exclaimed the rabbit in his perpetually petulant
manner.



"I've been thinking," continued the turtle.



"Amphibians beware," thought the rabbit, but asked, "About what?"



"Things," the turtle replied.



"The entire Animal Kingdom is in danger," the rabbit mused silently, but
fired a quick question to throw the turtle off: "Define 'things.'"



"You're right, as always," said the turtle slowly, "but that is just part of
the question I'm considering."



"Let's have it. The bottom line." The rabbit wasn't going to waste a whole
morning.



"Okay. Here it is. If I push on one end of a thing, does the other end
move at the same time"?



The rabbit started to ask the turtle to define "time" and "push" and "end,"
but instead, he said, "Have you been swimming in the toxic waste pond? You
know what it did to those ninja nephews of yours."



The turtle took no notice and pressed on, "It's a good question, isn't it?
It's a mind puzzle. I want to know the theoretical answer."



The rabbit yawned, "Have you presented this pithy puzzle to anyone else?"



"The fox said it was an acoustics problem. He said the sound wave that
moves through a thing represents the fastest time that the other end knows
that the thing has been pushed. I didn't like that answer. Seems like the
thing itself doesn't need to move at all for sound waves to move through it.
Besides, that answer just doesn't sound right." The turtle chuckled, "No
pun intended."



"Doesn't sound like a sound problem," remarked the rabbit dryly.





The turtle continued, "The owl said the second postulate of Einstein (the
dead human, not my brother) denies instantaneous interactions. He said that
meant information must move from one place to another place in a finite
time; the fastest being the speed of light. Then the owl talked a lot about
elevators and dead cats in boxes and concluded that no 'thing' can go faster
than the speed of light. The owl seemed to stop listening to the question
when he got to talking. I tried to point out that the 'thing' I am talking
about doesn't get moving much at all. My question is whether both ends move
at the same time. I'm not asking about the velocity of the 'thing' itself."



"I may be hung up on whether the two ends are really two different places.
I guess I should ask, 'Do all parts of a thing move at the same moment when
it changes direction or speed?' Or maybe, can one 'thing' have parts at
all? How would you know?"



The rabbit first abandoned his inclination to ask for definitions of
"places" and "parts," but now he stalled for a little more time to think,
"Did you talk to anyone else?"



"I've spoken to some pretty smart ducks and they say it's an interesting
question, but not one of them has given me a satisfactory answer. Maybe
it's my slow witted nature, but it seems like such a simple question. You
know stuff. What do you think?"



The rabbit was stuck. He knew the answer to difficult questions often
depended on definitions. He spoke more slowly than usual. "We need to
define 'thing,' and that may not be easy. We use the words 'something' or
'nothing' all the time, but what is a 'thing'? What we call 'things' may
only be even smaller 'parts' that are very close together. If we define
space as the absence of a 'thing' (i.e., no 'thing' or 'nothing'), then some
thing ('something') is an island of 'stuff' surrounded by space. 'Stuff' is
'stuff.' A thing is made of stuff. A thing is solid stuff with no space,
just stuff. Parts may be just different things entirely. The need for
space to separate 'things' implies edges or boundaries ('ends,' as you say)
to the 'things.'"



The rabbit went on, "There is an old Chinese proverb that states, 'All
sticks have two ends.' The proverb is a good one to use when arguing an
emotional point with a friend and it may paint a useful picture for your
mind game. Are the two 'ends' of one 'thing' representative of two distinct
and different 'places'?"



"You push on a stick. Does the stick move as one 'thing'? Is there a wave
that moves from one end to the other? How small a 'thing' can one imagine?
Can there be a theoretical 'thing' that is a true solid, a true rigid body?
Can a 'thing' move all at once? If a theoretical light at one end is
flashed when the thing is pushed, does the other end move before the light
gets there"?



The rabbit prepared his conclusion. "It is an interesting question. There
is an old Sufi saying that seems appropriate:



'An answered question is as useful to a man's mind as a broken sword on a
battlefield.'"



"You don't know the answer either, do you?" sighed the turtle as he began a
laborious turn to return home.



The rabbit said nothing.







(The fable fails to discuss the interesting question of whether any "thing"
has ever been observed or can be observed. The questions that are presented
are for discussion, even if they are not profound and even if they only
prove the author's shallow understanding of "things." The fable begins with
"something" and ends with "nothing." I hope the questions start with
nothing and produce something. Responses are solicited.)



I have also proposed a modification of the "experiment" ... hang a stick by
a thread and post a sentry at each "end" of the stick. The "information" to
be transmitted from the "place" where the string is held is "when did the
holder let go of the string?"



When the holder lets go of the string, does it matter where the observer is
located? Does not the "whole stick" move down in the gravitational field at
the same "time?" Does this mean that "information" moved to all those
"places" instantly? Or at the same time? Or does it mean that all of a
"thing" is in the same "place?" The two "ends" are actually the same place!
Hummmm.
ruylopez
2007-10-16 03:49:42 UTC
Permalink
It seems nobody is willing to touch this one.  I'm scared to as well.

When you push on a stick do both ends move at the same time?  I would dare to
say no.  The force has to get transmitted from one molecule to the next, they
get closer together and intermolecular interactions push the next one and so
on.  The interactions between the molecules are rigid in nature which is why it
is a solid.  Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a golf club hitting a
golf ball?  The ball compresses noticably before it shoots off.  I am probably
missing something big here.

Is a "thing" devoid of space?  That's a really poor sentence.  Anyway, I don't
think so.. atoms are mostly empty space after all.  What is a thing?  Ack.  I
guess quantum mechanics will tell you there is some smallest size (isn't this
the Planck length or something like that?) that anything in the universe can
be. 

Dropping a stick.. yes I think it all moves at the same time.  In theory the
gravitational force on the bottom of the stick is slightly greater than that on
the top of the stick, so this would yield slightly different accelerations, and
then we have the intermolecular interactions again.  Gravity is a very, very
tricky issue that is still not fully understood.  I am still a fan of General
Relativity, and quantum theory has yet to improve upon or or to locate a
"graviton".  In the GR view it's just inertial motion through warped space-time
that leads to gravitational acceleration. I am not sure how to answer that
question especially, but my gut says that when the stick is released both ends
are going to move at the same time.  Does that qualify as "information"?  I'm
thinking no, it's relative, and the force of gravity was already acting on the
stick, even before it was released.  Until the stick hits the ground I don't
think there is any way to tell it has been released, if we could also believe
that the surroundings a sentry on the stick would observe could all be moving
up, rather than the stick falling down.

I have probably made a mess here, but I wanted to give it a try.



_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-16 12:01:38 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
It seems nobody is willing to touch this one. I'm scared to as well.
I appreciate your time.
When you push on a stick do both ends move at the same time? I would dare
to
say no. The force has to get transmitted from one molecule to the next,
they
get closer together and intermolecular interactions push the next one and so
on. The interactions between the molecules are rigid in nature which is
why it
is a solid. Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a golf club hitting
a
golf ball? The ball compresses noticably before it shoots off. I am
probably
missing something big here.
The question is perhaps too subtle. The clear statement is: Is there such
a thing as a "rigid" body? Probably not.
Is a "thing" devoid of space? That's a really poor sentence. Anyway, I
don't
think so.. atoms are mostly empty space after all. What is a thing? Ack. I
guess quantum mechanics will tell you there is some smallest size (isn't this
the Planck length or something like that?) that anything in the universe can
be.
The idea of "thingness" is critical ... how would you know if you were
"inside" the thing if there was not a edge ... "outside" has to be
"non-thing" or nothing or "space" ... to separate it from the other "thing"
that might be close by ... in another "place" perhaps. A really, really
solid stick ... a stick that was all "stick" and no space, would be rigid, I
think. I think that the stick would be in one "place" and if you pushed on
one end, the whole stick would move all at the same "time" ... there would
be no "room" (no space) for any compression, because the stick (a string
perhaps?) has no space in it ... it is all thing. Perhaps this sort of
thing would have to be very, very small. It may be a foolish thought.
Dropping a stick.. yes I think it all moves at the same time. In theory
the
gravitational force on the bottom of the stick is slightly greater than that on
the top of the stick, so this would yield slightly different
accelerations, and
then we have the intermolecular interactions again. Gravity is a very,
very
tricky issue that is still not fully understood. I am still a fan of
General
Relativity, and quantum theory has yet to improve upon or or to locate a
"graviton". In the GR view it's just inertial motion through warped
space-time
that leads to gravitational acceleration. I am not sure how to answer that
question especially, but my gut says that when the stick is released both ends
are going to move at the same time. Does that qualify as "information"?
I'm
thinking no, it's relative, and the force of gravity was already acting on the
stick, even before it was released. Until the stick hits the ground I
don't
think there is any way to tell it has been released, if we could also believe
that the surroundings a sentry on the stick would observe could all be moving
up, rather than the stick falling down.
I think if you had a long stick and really accurate measuring devices at
each end of the stick watching for movement of the stick at each end and
also watching the hand of holder ... the light reflected from the end of the
stick would show that it had "moved" before the light reflected from the
hand of the holder confirmed that the stick had been "dropped." Both ends
and anywhere along the sides would conclude the same thing, but the
confirmations might take longest at the ends.

I do not know if this has any meaning at all.

It is my thought experiment and I am sticking with my version!
I have probably made a mess here, but I wanted to give it a try.
I value your thoughts. They are fresh. As BobT says, when you pass thirty,
you lose it all.
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 18:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"ruylopez"
It seems nobody is willing to touch this one. I'm scared to as well.
I appreciate your time.
When you push on a stick do both ends move at the same time? I would dare
to
say no. The force has to get transmitted from one molecule to the next,
they
get closer together and intermolecular interactions push the next one and so
on. The interactions between the molecules are rigid in nature which is
why it
is a solid. Have you ever seen a slow motion movie of a golf club hitting
a
golf ball? The ball compresses noticably before it shoots off. I am
probably
missing something big here.
The question is perhaps too subtle. The clear statement is: Is there such
a thing as a "rigid" body? Probably not.
It isn't too subtle. Assuming only that information cannot be transmitted
faster than the speed of light, you are forced to conclude that any
material object that can be moved by applying force to some sub-region of
that object must have some degree of elasticity.

Imagine a wire composed of carbon nanotubes stretching across a large
region of space (say it measures 10 lightyears in length). If you begin
to pull on the object at one end away from the other end, it must
grow/stretch so that the other end doesn't begin to move for ten years.
If the object is incapable of stretching enough to accomodate, it will
break.

If we reverse the experiment, and could attach rockets capable of speed of
light travel to one end, and sent it rocketing off toward the other end,
it would appear as if the line shrunk down to a point (over the course of
10 years). The point would then spend the next ten years growing in the
opposite direction, until it became a line/wire of the same length as the
original. Making the assumption that you have a material capable of doing
this without breaking, of course.

When you grab a pencil on your desk from one end, and begin to pull it
around the desk, that pencil must grow/stretch just a tiny amount to
accomodate the same restriction. If you push on it, it must shrink a tiny
bit, to accomodate the same restriction.

The golf ball must do the same, but the "compression" would be
imperceptible to us, even on slo-mo replay. The compression we see has
nothing to do with speed of light violations, or avoiding them.
Post by da pickle
Is a "thing" devoid of space? That's a really poor sentence. Anyway, I
don't
think so.. atoms are mostly empty space after all. What is a thing? Ack. I
guess quantum mechanics will tell you there is some smallest size (isn't this
the Planck length or something like that?) that anything in the universe can
be.
The idea of "thingness" is critical ... how would you know if you were
"inside" the thing if there was not a edge ... "outside" has to be
"non-thing" or nothing or "space" ... to separate it from the other "thing"
that might be close by ... in another "place" perhaps. A really, really
solid stick ... a stick that was all "stick" and no space, would be rigid, I
think. I think that the stick would be in one "place" and if you pushed on
one end, the whole stick would move all at the same "time" ... there would
be no "room" (no space) for any compression, because the stick (a string
perhaps?) has no space in it ... it is all thing. Perhaps this sort of
thing would have to be very, very small. It may be a foolish thought.
I'm not sure how yer building yer "stick". Even a chain of carbon one
atom thick is going to be mostly empty space. It's an interesting
thought, though, as to whether atomic bonds or molecular bonds <or, I
would assume, both> have this inherent property of elasticity.

I woulda been more helpful a few years back, when I was really interested
in this stuff. Assume <IIRC> </IIRC> tags around everything I've said
here.
Post by da pickle
Dropping a stick.. yes I think it all moves at the same time. In theory
the
gravitational force on the bottom of the stick is slightly greater than that on
the top of the stick, so this would yield slightly different
accelerations, and
then we have the intermolecular interactions again. Gravity is a very,
very
tricky issue that is still not fully understood. I am still a fan of
General
Relativity, and quantum theory has yet to improve upon or or to locate a
"graviton". In the GR view it's just inertial motion through warped
space-time
that leads to gravitational acceleration. I am not sure how to answer that
question especially, but my gut says that when the stick is released both ends
are going to move at the same time. Does that qualify as "information"?
I'm
thinking no, it's relative, and the force of gravity was already acting on the
stick, even before it was released. Until the stick hits the ground I
don't
think there is any way to tell it has been released, if we could also believe
that the surroundings a sentry on the stick would observe could all be moving
up, rather than the stick falling down.
I think if you had a long stick and really accurate measuring devices at
each end of the stick watching for movement of the stick at each end and
also watching the hand of holder ... the light reflected from the end of the
stick would show that it had "moved" before the light reflected from the
hand of the holder confirmed that the stick had been "dropped." Both ends
and anywhere along the sides would conclude the same thing, but the
confirmations might take longest at the ends.
I do not know if this has any meaning at all.
It is my thought experiment and I am sticking with my version!
This is, perhaps, the deepest and most interesting version. Of course,
you must be right; in spite of the fact that the motion is caused by
gravity acting on each subsection of the stick at the same time, the part
you drop must move first, with the ends moving last. To do otherwise
would create a paradox; if the ends of the stick "drop" at the same time
as the part you were holding, you've just sent information faster than
light can travel.
Post by da pickle
I have probably made a mess here, but I wanted to give it a try.
I value your thoughts. They are fresh. As BobT says, when you pass thirty,
you lose it all.
There is a drug that has been very successful in animal testing that may
reverse this... basically, if you drop old rats and young rats into a tank
filled with water and some "rafts", the young ones will learn how to climb
up on those "rafts" in time to save themselves from drowning, but the old
ones won't figure it out. Under the influence of this drug, the old ones
figure it out just as fast. I read about it a few years back (2 or 3, I
think), but I haven't seen anything since. Maybe it makes you impotent.
Nothing'll kill a drug faster than an impotence side-effect, eh?

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ruylopez
2007-10-16 19:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
This is, perhaps, the deepest and most interesting version. Of course,
you must be right; in spite of the fact that the motion is caused by
gravity acting on each subsection of the stick at the same time, the part
you drop must move first, with the ends moving last. To do otherwise
would create a paradox; if the ends of the stick "drop" at the same time
as the part you were holding, you've just sent information faster than
light can travel.
I agree that this is the most interesting part.  I am still not convinced that
the whole stick cannot move at once, and I think we need to define
"information".  In the relativistic view of gravity, any intertial reference
frame is as valid as any other.  So it is impossible to tell if the stick is
falling towards the Earth or the Earth is falling towards the stick.  The forces
are always there, whether the stick is held or dropped.  In fact nothing in the
system has meaningfully changed when the stick is dropped, it is still feeling
the force of acceleration due to gravity.  It is just now accelerating relative
to the Earth, which is wasn't before.  I am not sure this relative motion
constitutes information that the stick has been released, and no part of the
stick is moving relative to any other, until it hits the ground. 

Does the force of gravity travel at speed c?  I am not sure of this.  I am
pretty sure it has been verified that the force of magnetism travels at the set
rate c, which gives support to the notion that there is something travelling
along conveying the force.  I am not aware if gravity has ever been shown to
function in this way.  As I understand it general relativity is still the best
model of gravity in terms of matching observations. 

A sentry at either end of the stick will feel no change in force when the stick
is released, he will only observe relative motion of his surroundings.  I am not
convinced at this point that this can be considered "information" regarding the
release of the stick without making some assumptions.  I might be drifting
farther up the creek here, however.


_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Bill T
2007-10-16 19:50:02 UTC
Permalink
I agree that this is the most interesting part. I am still not convinced that
the whole stick cannot move at once, and I think we need to define
"information". In the relativistic view of gravity, any intertial reference
frame is as valid as any other. So it is impossible to tell if the stick is
falling towards the Earth or the Earth is falling towards the stick. The forces
are always there, whether the stick is held or dropped. In fact nothing in the
system has meaningfully changed when the stick is dropped, it is still feeling
the force of acceleration due to gravity. It is just now accelerating relative
to the Earth, which is wasn't before. I am not sure this relative motion
constitutes information that the stick has been released, and no part of the
stick is moving relative to any other, until it hits the ground.
Doesn't an observer at the other end of the stick notice the
non-inertial acceleration, and thus receive the information that the
agent at the other end has let go of his end? I emphasize
"non-inertial". This information transfer is thus limited by c.

<<snip>>
ruylopez
2007-10-16 19:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Doesn't an observer at the other end of the stick notice the
non-inertial acceleration, and thus receive the information that the
agent at the other end has let go of his end? I emphasize
"non-inertial". This information transfer is thus limited by c.
<>
What non-interial motion?  I am working under the assumption of general
relativity, whereby gravitational acceleration IS inertial motion.

To be sure that the stick has been release I guess we would have to observe
motion relative to the agent that was holding the stick.  I think this could be
observed at either end at the same time.  Presume you are holding a stick at
arm's length, and the stick is parallel to you.  It is equidistant from the
holder at each end.  The c in question would be the time it takes light to
travel the distance between the agent and the stick, which would be the same for
all points, assuming they are perfectly parallel.

Still making some assumptions there, for instance it is theoretically possible
that the holder's hand was severed and is dropping along with the stick.  If we
require knowledge of the exact point where the hand and stick were touching,
then yes that is going to travel at speed c.  But I don't think that information
can be ascertained by the motion of falling towards the Earth.



_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 21:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
This is, perhaps, the deepest and most interesting version. Of course,
you must be right; in spite of the fact that the motion is caused by
gravity acting on each subsection of the stick at the same time, the part
you drop must move first, with the ends moving last. To do otherwise
would create a paradox; if the ends of the stick "drop" at the same time
as the part you were holding, you've just sent information faster than
light can travel.
I agree that this is the most interesting part. I am still not convinced
that
the whole stick cannot move at once, and I think we need to define
"information". In the relativistic view of gravity, any intertial reference
frame is as valid as any other. So it is impossible to tell if the stick is
falling towards the Earth or the Earth is falling towards the stick. The
forces
are always there, whether the stick is held or dropped. In fact nothing in
the
system has meaningfully changed when the stick is dropped, it is still feeling
the force of acceleration due to gravity. It is just now accelerating
relative
to the Earth, which is wasn't before. I am not sure this relative motion
constitutes information that the stick has been released, and no part of the
stick is moving relative to any other, until it hits the ground.
You've assumed yer conlusion here <"no part of the stick is moving
relative to any other, until it hits the ground">.

I'm less convinced. I'm not at all convinced that "inertial reference
frames" play any role, here.
Does the force of gravity travel at speed c? I am not sure of this. I am
pretty sure it has been verified that the force of magnetism travels at the set
rate c, which gives support to the notion that there is something travelling
along conveying the force. I am not aware if gravity has ever been shown to
function in this way. As I understand it general relativity is still the
best
model of gravity in terms of matching observations.
Does the force of gravity travel? This is getting into stuff I haven't
looked at in a really <really> long time, but we're talking about the
propagation of gravity via gravitons <still hypothetical, right?>, I
suppose... which is <I imagine> acting upon the fabric of space-time,
rather than the stick, or any other object... the stick falling down is
merely a function of the extreme curvature of spacetime near the surface
of the Earth.

And, as you've pointed out, the potential energy the stick uses when
falling is in place before we release it, so I don't think the speed at
which the force of gravity travels is relevant.

Anyhow, it's an interesting, if unrelated question. Here is a paper
written by Steve Carlip that addresses that question:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
A sentry at either end of the stick will feel no change in force when the stick
is released, he will only observe relative motion of his surroundings. I am
not
convinced at this point that this can be considered "information" regarding the
release of the stick without making some assumptions. I might be drifting
farther up the creek here, however.
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".

Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

-------- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2007-10-16 22:18:07 UTC
Permalink
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.
Even though you are responding to ruylopez, I answer that is exactly what I
am saying. At least that is what I am trying to say.

Very interesting thought experiment to me. I am still thinking.
Beldin the Sorcerer
2007-10-16 23:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.
Even though you are responding to ruylopez, I answer that is exactly what
I am saying. At least that is what I am trying to say.
Very interesting thought experiment to me. I am still thinking.
Not possible.
Beldin the Sorcerer
2007-10-16 23:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Does the force of gravity travel? This is getting into stuff I haven't
looked at in a really <really> long time, but we're talking about the
propagation of gravity via gravitons <still hypothetical, right?>, I
suppose... which is <I imagine> acting upon the fabric of space-time,
rather than the stick, or any other object... the stick falling down is
merely a function of the extreme curvature of spacetime near the surface
of the Earth.
Gravity currently is thought of as a warp of space-time.
The theoretical "graviton particle", if it exists, is expected to travel no
faster than C
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by ruylopez
A sentry at either end of the stick will feel no change in force when the
stick
Post by ruylopez
is released, he will only observe relative motion of his surroundings. I am
not
Post by ruylopez
convinced at this point that this can be considered "information"
regarding
the
Post by ruylopez
release of the stick without making some assumptions. I might be drifting
farther up the creek here, however.
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
He can't see it, or feel it, any faster than C.
The stick is a collection of atoms. The bond between them is by it's very
nature limited to transmitting information at C.
ruylopez
2007-10-17 03:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.
No, you can't.  Just because the person at the other end of the stick starts
moving relative to the holder doesn't mean I have the information that the stick
was released.  It would seem really, really, likely.  But maybe a samurai just
chopped off his wrist.

I'm not sure if you see what I am trying to get at.  I wasn't sure of that post
when I made it earlier today but the more I thought about it the more I liked
it.

Until they show some gravitons I am sticking with general relativity.  And I
think the relative frames are relevant here, pardon a miserable expression. 
When you view them this way the falling of the stick no longer is conveying the
information you are presuming it is.  The stick is just doing its inertial thing
and moving through warped space-time.  So, too, is the holder and the ground. 
When these frames start moving relative to each other, the sentry at the other
end can perceive that, before he has the necessary information to know why.  You
presume just the perception of this relative motion conveys the cause, but I
don't think so.


_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-17 06:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.
No, you can't. Just because the person at the other end of the stick starts
moving relative to the holder doesn't mean I have the information that the stick
was released. It would seem really, really, likely. But maybe a samurai
just
chopped off his wrist.
I'm not sure if you see what I am trying to get at. I wasn't sure of that
post
when I made it earlier today but the more I thought about it the more I liked
it.
You know something caused the stick to be released. It may be incomplete
information, but it's information nonetheless.
Until they show some gravitons I am sticking with general relativity. And I
think the relative frames are relevant here, pardon a miserable expression.
When you view them this way the falling of the stick no longer is conveying the
information you are presuming it is. The stick is just doing its inertial
thing
and moving through warped space-time. So, too, is the holder and the
ground.
When these frames start moving relative to each other, the sentry at the other
end can perceive that, before he has the necessary information to know why.
You
presume just the perception of this relative motion conveys the cause, but I
don't think so.
Whether cause (so-and-so dropped the stick) or effect (the stick was
dropped), information is being conveyed. I'll stick to my hypothesis; you
can't transmit information faster than the speed of light.

Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

--- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2007-10-17 12:16:03 UTC
Permalink
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Whether cause (so-and-so dropped the stick) or effect (the stick was
dropped), information is being conveyed. I'll stick to my hypothesis; you
can't transmit information faster than the speed of light.
Actually, I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) the postulate is
that you cannot transmit information from one place to another faster than
the speed of light.

This is the reason I spend some time on the concept of "place." I am trying
to get through a "worm hole" or something here.

Remember those wonderful thought experiments:

You are covered by a barrel in the ocean. The sea is quiet and suddenly,
the water in the barrel come up toward your chin and then goes down. Did
the whole ocean go up and down, or did a wave come by?

You are in a falling elevator ... or you are in orbit ... how would you
know?

My thought experiment is different, of course, but it is still just a
thought experiment. I still like it.
da pickle
2007-10-17 12:09:29 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by KilgoreTrout
You're the sentry at the end of the stick. I tell you "When I drop this
stick, it's GO time!!!".
Under yer hypothesis, I can convey the information "it is now GO time" to
someone x meters away faster than light can travel those x meters. This
violates the restrictions we've been discussing.
No, you can't. Just because the person at the other end of the stick
starts
moving relative to the holder doesn't mean I have the information that the stick
was released. It would seem really, really, likely. But maybe a samurai
just
chopped off his wrist.
I thought that you thought that the "observers" were "on" the stick. They
are not.

The stick is held in the middle and has come into equilibrium. The stick is
exactly curved so that all parts are shaped to fit the curvature of the
perfect Earth below it.

The observers are fixed to the Earth. They are observing the reflection of
light off the ends and sides of the stick and they are also observing the
holder that is holding the string that holds the stick in equilibrium. The
holder is attached to the Earth too.

The "information" that is to be conveyed to all the observers is, at what
time did the stick move. The observers flash an omnidirectional laser when
they observe the moverment of the stick. (There are referees some distance
away from the observers and the holder that are judging the whole thing.
Judges are on the Earth too.)

When the holder releases his hold on the string, all observers along the
stick observe the stick move at exactly the same time. They all flash their
lasers at the same time. They all receive confirmation when the light from
the holder gets there, BUT those closest to the holder receive the
confirmation first and then the others. The judges get all sorts of
information in different orders depending on their distance from different
observers and the holder.

It is a giant cluster f***, but only one thing seems clear ... all the
observers flashed their lasers at the same time.
Beldin the Sorcerer
2007-10-17 12:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
"ruylopez"
When the holder releases his hold on the string, all observers along the
stick observe the stick move at exactly the same time. They all flash
their lasers at the same time. They all receive confirmation when the
light from the holder gets there, BUT those closest to the holder receive
the confirmation first and then the others. The judges get all sorts of
information in different orders depending on their distance from different
observers and the holder.
It is a giant cluster f***, but only one thing seems clear ... all the
observers flashed their lasers at the same time.
That's not possible in all frames of reference, which is why relativity is
such a pain.

The entire Earth is in motion. An observer on a rocketship passing by the
planet at the right time would observe those lanterns going off at different
times due to relativity effects.
da pickle
2007-10-17 12:42:59 UTC
Permalink
"Beldin the Sorcerer"
Post by Beldin the Sorcerer
That's not possible in all frames of reference, which is why relativity is
such a pain.
The entire Earth is in motion. An observer on a rocketship passing by the
planet at the right time would observe those lanterns going off at
different times due to relativity effects.
Try and keep up, Beldin.

It is a "thought" experiment.

(Of course your new "observers" would observe what they observe at different
moments ... we are not thinking about those folks in this experiment.)
da pickle
2007-10-16 22:16:24 UTC
Permalink
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by da pickle
The question is perhaps too subtle. The clear statement is: Is there such
a thing as a "rigid" body? Probably not.
It isn't too subtle. Assuming only that information cannot be transmitted
faster than the speed of light, you are forced to conclude that any
material object that can be moved by applying force to some sub-region of
that object must have some degree of elasticity.
We are here at the essence of my postulated problem. It may be that I have
not yet found a "thing" or an "object." When I say that a thing cannot have
any "space," I mean that the thing to be a thing must be all thing. If we
call a donut a thing, is the hole in the donut part of the donut? Not in my
definition of a thing. A donut may be a collection of smaller and smaller
thing-like thingies ... but those thingies are not things ... we must go all
the way to a thing that is all thing and no space. (This is a definitional
problem.)

Is the space under a table part of the table or part of the room? Is a room
a thing or a construct?
Post by KilgoreTrout
Imagine a wire composed of carbon nanotubes stretching across a large
region of space (say it measures 10 lightyears in length). If you begin
to pull on the object at one end away from the other end, it must
grow/stretch so that the other end doesn't begin to move for ten years.
If the object is incapable of stretching enough to accomodate, it will
break.
I started with really strong iron bars ... then wires stretched really taut
... I then came up with the stick being held by a string in a gravitational
field. I have found that this last one, which we discuss below is much
better.
Post by KilgoreTrout
If we reverse the experiment, and could attach rockets capable of speed of
light travel to one end, and sent it rocketing off toward the other end,
it would appear as if the line shrunk down to a point (over the course of
10 years). The point would then spend the next ten years growing in the
opposite direction, until it became a line/wire of the same length as the
original. Making the assumption that you have a material capable of doing
this without breaking, of course.
When you grab a pencil on your desk from one end, and begin to pull it
around the desk, that pencil must grow/stretch just a tiny amount to
accomodate the same restriction. If you push on it, it must shrink a tiny
bit, to accomodate the same restriction.
I think you are likely correct in this little stretch.
Post by KilgoreTrout
The golf ball must do the same, but the "compression" would be
imperceptible to us, even on slo-mo replay. The compression we see has
nothing to do with speed of light violations, or avoiding them.
This is also likely true.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by da pickle
Is a "thing" devoid of space? That's a really poor sentence. Anyway, I
don't
think so.. atoms are mostly empty space after all. What is a thing? Ack. I
guess quantum mechanics will tell you there is some smallest size
(isn't
this
the Planck length or something like that?) that anything in the
universe
can
be.
The idea of "thingness" is critical ... how would you know if you were
"inside" the thing if there was not a edge ... "outside" has to be
"non-thing" or nothing or "space" ... to separate it from the other "thing"
that might be close by ... in another "place" perhaps. A really, really
solid stick ... a stick that was all "stick" and no space, would be rigid, I
think. I think that the stick would be in one "place" and if you pushed on
one end, the whole stick would move all at the same "time" ... there would
be no "room" (no space) for any compression, because the stick (a string
perhaps?) has no space in it ... it is all thing. Perhaps this sort of
thing would have to be very, very small. It may be a foolish thought.
I'm not sure how yer building yer "stick". Even a chain of carbon one
atom thick is going to be mostly empty space. It's an interesting
thought, though, as to whether atomic bonds or molecular bonds <or, I
would assume, both> have this inherent property of elasticity.
I am not sure I have ever seen a stick as thing ... that is the point. I
certainly cannot conceive of one.
Post by KilgoreTrout
I woulda been more helpful a few years back, when I was really interested
in this stuff. Assume <IIRC> </IIRC> tags around everything I've said
here.
I am trying something different here ... I am thinking out of the box. I
have tried to "lose" all of the physics that I have ever known or studied or
thought about to attempt to think about this is a "different" way. I am not
sure I have succeeded at all.
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by da pickle
I think if you had a long stick and really accurate measuring devices at
each end of the stick watching for movement of the stick at each end and
also watching the hand of holder ... the light reflected from the end of the
stick would show that it had "moved" before the light reflected from the
hand of the holder confirmed that the stick had been "dropped." Both ends
and anywhere along the sides would conclude the same thing, but the
confirmations might take longest at the ends.
I do not know if this has any meaning at all.
It is my thought experiment and I am sticking with my version!
This is, perhaps, the deepest and most interesting version. Of course,
you must be right; in spite of the fact that the motion is caused by
gravity acting on each subsection of the stick at the same time, the part
you drop must move first, with the ends moving last. To do otherwise
would create a paradox; if the ends of the stick "drop" at the same time
as the part you were holding, you've just sent information faster than
light can travel.
This is indeed my favorite thought ... and one that I return to from time to
time.

I think the "whole stick" can fall in the gravitational field (my choice of
theory) at the same exact moment (however we might define "moment").

I think that ruylopez might be thinking that the observers are on-the-stick
... they are not.

I think you have found the exact point that I am sending ... it may seem
that if the ends actually drop at the same moment that information is being
sent faster than light can travel. I still say that all observers along the
stick will observe the drop of the stick at exactly the same time and if
they are observing the holder at the same moment, it will take additional
time for them to observe the holder's action. It will take the longest time
for the confirmation information to come by "light" reflection to the
observers at the ends ... those along the sides will get the confirmation
earlier. Not much earlier, mind you, but earlier none the less.

I think this is very interesting.

The only way that I can resolve the conflict is to say that everyone
observing the stick are observing the same "place" ... therefore, they all
observe the same thing at the same time. They receive their confirmations
at different times, but that is because there is a longer distance between
their place and the place where the confirmations are being sent. Maybe
there is no distance at all between the places along the edge of the stick
... those are all the same place.

I am sure I am not saying this correctly, but if this is not a problem,
there may be some practical application for this phenomenon. Maybe not.
Maybe I am just getting old.

I still find this thought experiment very interesting.

It seems like information is being sent instaneously to many places ... can
that be? Is this like the movement of a shadow across the sky ... that can
move faster than the speed of light ... a shadow is not a thing ... it may
not be able to transmit information.
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html

"Think about how fast a shadow can move. If you project a shadow of your
finger using a nearby lamp onto a far away wall and then wag your finger,
the shadow will move much faster than your finger. If your finger moves
parallel to the wall, the speed will be multiplied by a factor D/d where d
is the distance from the lamp to your finger and D is the distance from the
lamp to the wall. It can actually be much faster than this if the wall is
at some oblique angle. If the wall is very far away the movement of the
shadow will be delayed because of the time it takes light to get there but
its speed is still amplified by the same ratio. The speed of a shadow is
therefore not restricted to be less than the speed of light."
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by da pickle
I have probably made a mess here, but I wanted to give it a try.
I value your thoughts. They are fresh. As BobT says, when you pass thirty,
you lose it all.
There is a drug that has been very successful in animal testing that may
reverse this... basically, if you drop old rats and young rats into a tank
filled with water and some "rafts", the young ones will learn how to climb
up on those "rafts" in time to save themselves from drowning, but the old
ones won't figure it out. Under the influence of this drug, the old ones
figure it out just as fast. I read about it a few years back (2 or 3, I
think), but I haven't seen anything since. Maybe it makes you impotent.
Nothing'll kill a drug faster than an impotence side-effect, eh?
I use my blue pill to keep myself from rolling out of bed at night.
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-16 22:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
I am trying something different here ... I am thinking out of the box. I
have tried to "lose" all of the physics that I have ever known or studied or
thought about to attempt to think about this is a "different" way. I am not
sure I have succeeded at all.
A very interesting discussion, pickle. I don't know that I have anything
further to add. I do believe there will be a delay between the release at
some midpoint, and the ends falling. I understand the attempt to "lose"
all of the physics you know. I've often thought that it isn't so much
that it's a "young man's game" as it is simply a truth that we are more
original and inventive when we are first learning a new discipline.

OTOH, that's a lot of physics! Standing on the shoulders of giants, and
all that.

Cheers.

----- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
da pickle
2007-10-17 00:39:54 UTC
Permalink
"KilgoreTrout"
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by da pickle
I am trying something different here ... I am thinking out of the box. I
have tried to "lose" all of the physics that I have ever known or studied or
thought about to attempt to think about this is a "different" way. I am not
sure I have succeeded at all.
A very interesting discussion, pickle. I don't know that I have anything
further to add. I do believe there will be a delay between the release at
some midpoint, and the ends falling. I understand the attempt to "lose"
all of the physics you know. I've often thought that it isn't so much
that it's a "young man's game" as it is simply a truth that we are more
original and inventive when we are first learning a new discipline.
OTOH, that's a lot of physics! Standing on the shoulders of giants, and
all that.
The only thing about this discussion that I am pretty sure of ... really
pretty sure ... how's that for a quibble ... ... is that when an object is
held in a gravitational field (or at equilibrium in the bend in space time
... whatever ... whether you are holding it from beneath it or holding it
from above, when the force that is holding it (make it a magnetic
levitation) is removed ... every "particle" that makes up the "thing" moves
toward the center of gravity "at the same time."

This is one of my favorite thought experiments. I thank you for thinking a
little about it with me.
Old Wolf
2007-10-17 01:11:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
The only thing about this discussion that I am pretty sure of ... really
pretty sure ... how's that for a quibble ... ... is that when an object is
held in a gravitational field (or at equilibrium in the bend in space time
... whatever ... whether you are holding it from beneath it or holding it
from above, when the force that is holding it (make it a magnetic
levitation) is removed ... every "particle" that makes up the "thing" moves
toward the center of gravity "at the same time."
This is one of my favorite thought experiments.
Well, magnetic forces travel at the speed of light. So when
you cancel the magnetism, one side of the object will
lose the attraction before the other side. This would
produce an elongation of the object in the direction
of the force. However, I think this effect would be so small
as to be impossible to measure.
da pickle
2007-10-17 12:20:12 UTC
Permalink
"Old Wolf"
Post by Old Wolf
Well, magnetic forces travel at the speed of light. So when
you cancel the magnetism, one side of the object will
lose the attraction before the other side. This would
produce an elongation of the object in the direction
of the force. However, I think this effect would be so small
as to be impossible to measure.
I don't think we are on the same page with this slight variation on the
theme.

My magnet is exactly the same size as the stick! If the stick is in
equilibrium without any "torque" ... "it" ... (all of the constituent parts
of the stick) should move down at exactly the same moment because the force
acting on it, gravity, acts on all parts at the same time. (Substitute
curved space mathematics here if you don't like the "force" talk.)
ruylopez
2007-10-17 03:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by da pickle
I think the "whole stick" can fall in the gravitational field (my choice of
theory) at the same exact moment (however we might define "moment").
I'm not sure if we're disputing the concept of "simultaneous", which is
relative.  It has been a long time since I thought about special relativity..
Post by da pickle
I think that ruylopez might be thinking that the observers are on-the-stick
.... they are not.
Okay I was, and I was also thinking of it dropped from the end, but I don't
think this changes anything I have been saying, and I don't see a "paradox". 
Again the observer at the end of the stick can detect the relative motion before
he knows why.  He has information regarding the near part of the stick before he
has the information about the intersection of the holder and the stick.  So the
fact that he perceives the stick moving at exactly the same time (whatever that
means) anywhere along the stick doesn't mean information has moved faster than
c.
Post by da pickle
I think you have found the exact point that I am sending ... it may seem
that if the ends actually drop at the same moment that information is being
sent faster than light can travel. I still say that all observers along the
stick will observe the drop of the stick at exactly the same time and if
they are observing the holder at the same moment, it will take additional
time for them to observe the holder's action. It will take the longest time
for the confirmation information to come by "light" reflection to the
observers at the ends ... those along the sides will get the confirmation
earlier. Not much earlier, mind you, but earlier none the less.
I think this is very interesting.
Right..
Post by da pickle
The only way that I can resolve the conflict
Wait, what conflict?
Post by da pickle
is to say that everyone
observing the stick are observing the same "place" ... therefore, they all
observe the same thing at the same time. They receive their confirmations
at different times, but that is because there is a longer distance between
their place and the place where the confirmations are being sent. Maybe
there is no distance at all between the places along the edge of the stick
.... those are all the same place.
They would be in the same inertial reference frame for observation of the stick.
Post by da pickle
I am sure I am not saying this correctly, but if this is not a problem,
there may be some practical application for this phenomenon. Maybe not.
Maybe I am just getting old.
Okay I think I get it,it is interesting, because in a way you are cheating the
rules.  You are getting information that would seem to be very reliable earlier
than seems possible, but by the tiniest fraction of an instant.  I am not sure
this works beyond gravity, I know you've posted something about shadows which
seems interesting and maybe I will have time. 

There may be some application of time dilation here?  Has anyone ever tried
that?  The effects on time are often very difficult to imagine.  I will try this
when I'm bored tomorrow imagining the speed of light being some low number like
1 cm / s.  That usually helps.



_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
ruylopez
2007-10-17 04:43:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
There may be some application of time dilation here?  Has anyone ever tried
that?  The effects on time are often very difficult to imagine.  I will try this
when I'm bored tomorrow imagining the speed of light being some low number like
1 cm / s.  That usually helps.
Hmm, this seems like a similar problem, maybe it is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

Certainly the explanation for that one doesn't apply here. (and seems contrived
anyway)



_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
ruylopez
2007-10-17 04:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ruylopez
There may be some application of time dilation here? 
One last thing that might be worth reading before I hit the sack.  I am trying
to figure out if this is what is going on here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation


_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
2007-10-17 11:38:13 UTC
Permalink
"ruylopez"
Post by ruylopez
There may be some application of time dilation here?
One last thing that might be worth reading before I hit the sack. I am
trying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
You remember the "twins paradox" ... this is the same sort of thing, IIRC.

Clocks have been shown to show different "times" when separated by altitude
and also by speed. This does not have anything to do (I don't think) with
the concept that I have been trying to present ... and I don't want to get
too far afield; however ... there is always another interesting problem to
discuss!

Imagine a spherical, homogeneous Earth with a hole straight through it. You
drop a baseball from one side of the Earth "exactly" in the center of the
hole.

Theoretically, the ball will travel through the Earth and then back again
and back again and so forth until it comes to rest in the exact center of
the Earth ... (I think we have to add a tiny bit of friction to make this
happen ... it might just be in equilibrium and go back and forth without the
friction).

When it sits at the center, all forces of gravity are pulling each and every
particle "out" equally in all directions and the ball sits quietly at the
center of gravity.

I tried one time to determine whether the point of maximum gravitational
attraction on the ball was some point above or below or exactly on the
surface of the perfect Earth sphere. On can assume the entire amount of
attraction is at the "point" of the center of gravity if the ball is a "long
way" from the surface of the Earth ... a long way being many diameters. But
as the ball approaches the surface from a long way away, does any of the
force pulling it "down" get "wasted" pulling it to the "sides?"

Another interesting useless question, I suppose. Would the acceleration
decrease at some point before the surface, at the surface or even below the
surface?

My thought is that at some point before the surface, the acceleration would
decrease and it would decrease to a minimum as it passed through the center
of the perfect Earth and then it would increase again as it passed to the
other side.

My thought ... I could easily be wrong.
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:17:38 UTC
Permalink
"Bill T"
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one of
millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants. There is
hope and despair in facing this reality. A la Steven Weinbeg, the more we
learn about the universe, the less meaning we find in it.
There is that "best" again ... I agree that we can play poker. Maybe
someone will come up with a "best" way to play that we can all reach
consensus about.
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-15 15:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
Millions is too small a number. Many of them share the same physical
constants. This theory has less to do with big-bang cosmology than with
quantum mechanics, as it served/serves as one of the main <still viable>
alternative interpretations to Bohr and the Copenhagen folks more accepted
explanations.

Cheers.
Post by Bill T
There is hope and despair in facing this reality. A la Steven Weinbeg,
the more we learn about the universe, the less meaning we find in it.
In the meantime, at least we can play poker.
Bill T
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

---- 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
j***@earthlink.net
2007-10-15 15:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by Bill T
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
Millions is too small a number. Many of them share the same physical
constants. This theory has less to do with big-bang cosmology than with
quantum mechanics, as it served/serves as one of the main <still viable>
alternative interpretations to Bohr and the Copenhagen folks more accepted
explanations.
Cheers.
Post by Bill T
There is hope and despair in facing this reality. A la Steven Weinbeg,
the more we learn about the universe, the less meaning we find in it.
In the meantime, at least we can play poker.
Bill T
Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991
----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
JEH...Well, laddy da, Kilgore Trout, here I thought you were a
braindead, vituperative loudmouthed lout.

...But I have to admit, your post clearly shows you are not
braindead...

As far as the other adjectives, though, I think I will leave them in
place 'til I get to know you better..
da pickle
2007-10-15 16:56:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@earthlink.net
JEH...Well, laddy da, Kilgore Trout, here I thought you were a
braindead, vituperative loudmouthed lout.
But does he howl at the moon? :-)

"vituperative" ... no, I think not ... and it is certainly close to
redundant with "loudmouthed."

Braindead ... not a chance.
Bill T
2007-10-15 18:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by Bill T
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
Millions is too small a number. Many of them share the same physical
constants. This theory has less to do with big-bang cosmology than with
quantum mechanics, as it served/serves as one of the main <still viable>
alternative interpretations to Bohr and the Copenhagen folks more accepted
explanations.
Cheers.
In one of his books (which I don't have right now),Leonard Susskind
makes the argument that the number of universes is on the order of 100
million (IIRC).
KilgoreTrout
2007-10-15 22:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by Bill T
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
Millions is too small a number. Many of them share the same physical
constants. This theory has less to do with big-bang cosmology than with
quantum mechanics, as it served/serves as one of the main <still viable>
alternative interpretations to Bohr and the Copenhagen folks more accepted
explanations.
Cheers.
In one of his books (which I don't have right now),Leonard Susskind
makes the argument that the number of universes is on the order of 100
million (IIRC).
Sounds fishy, to me. What events does Susskind attribute to creating
individual verses? For instance, some will argue that the quantum
"branching" cited by many Sci Fi authors is suspect, but believe in the
"offspring universe" theory, where singularities in our own universe
represent other verses, offspring of our own "parent" universe (which is,
of course, a child to another parent).

It absolutely boggles the mind to me that Susskind would take such a risk,
by producing this figure. Without any real deep research, I can't think
of how we could even produce a viable guess at that number. Perhaps some
big brain could somehow prove the number is infinite, or the number is
one. But an exact figure like 100 million?

For instance, you talked earlier about these universes having different
physical constants. Are you trying to tell me that Susskind claims not
only to be able to calculate the offspring of our own universe, but to be
able to calculate each of these "different physical constants" universes,
and how many offspring they would have? Hmmm... are you positive about
all this? <I assume he doesn't accept quantum branching ala Everett, as
that would surely result in a much larger estimate>.

Perhaps he feels he has captured the total number of viable universes,
assuming each has unique physical constants? But I still wonder as to
what mechanism he proposes that would produce this kind of multiverse; how
does universe A know not to be exactly like universe B in terms of
physical constants?

Interesting. Cheers.

Time Magazine's Person of the Year - 2006
Principal's List -1991

_______________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Bill T
2007-10-15 22:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by Bill T
Post by KilgoreTrout
Post by Bill T
I think the best current explanation of our universe is that it is one
of millions in a multiverse with differences in physical constants.
Millions is too small a number. Many of them share the same physical
constants. This theory has less to do with big-bang cosmology than with
quantum mechanics, as it served/serves as one of the main <still viable>
alternative interpretations to Bohr and the Copenhagen folks more accepted
explanations.
Cheers.
In one of his books (which I don't have right now),Leonard Susskind
makes the argument that the number of universes is on the order of 100
million (IIRC).
Sounds fishy, to me. What events does Susskind attribute to creating
individual verses? For instance, some will argue that the quantum
"branching" cited by many Sci Fi authors is suspect, but believe in the
"offspring universe" theory, where singularities in our own universe
represent other verses, offspring of our own "parent" universe (which is,
of course, a child to another parent).
It absolutely boggles the mind to me that Susskind would take such a risk,
by producing this figure. Without any real deep research, I can't think
of how we could even produce a viable guess at that number. Perhaps some
big brain could somehow prove the number is infinite, or the number is
one. But an exact figure like 100 million?
IIRC, he didn't say exactly 100 milliam, but he did provide a number in
that range. If you are interested in this kind of stuff, "The Cosmic
Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" is a
fascinating read. He applies the Anthropic Principle (which he spend
many pages to defend) to calculate that particular number.

Bill T
Maverick
2007-10-16 05:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill T
Interestingly, even before the advent of modern cosmology, the idea of
endless repetition (cf Nietzsche) has been a major idea in
pre-scientific philosophy and religion.
Speaking of the endless repitition of hell. Paul Popinjay dies and
goes to hell. Satan tells him he's been entertained over the years by
his antics in RGP, so he's going to give Mr Popinjay a choice of how
he wants to spend enternity in hell. In two rooms, there are two
people who weren't as bad as Popinjay and Satan is going to let
popinjay take their place. In room #1, Ted Kennedy is in a pool of
water repeatedly diving into the water and coming up empty handed.
Paul P says he wouldn't care to spend an enternity doing that and
wants to look at room #2. In room #2, there is Bill Clinton sitting.
His arms and legs are tied to the chair and he's naked with Monica
giving him a lewinsky. Paul P says, "Hey, I can handle that for
eternity" Satan says, "Ok, Monica, you can go now"
Vegas Vic
2007-10-15 06:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Nobody knows. If they say they do they are liers or fools.
Post by j***@earthlink.net
The physical mass of the universe, containing all of the elements of
the universe, became so densely compressed that a great explosion
occurred, spewing all of this mass and all of the universe's elements
outward, into the universe.
Is this true?
If so, was it this mass and these elements that traveled in all
directions, sometimes combining, sometimes accumulating, sometimes
repelling, sometimes attracting, while establishing the universe we
now know.
Is it true that all of this happened 14 or 15 billion years ago?
If all of this is true, what caused the dense compression?
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Bill T
2007-10-15 06:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vegas Vic
Nobody knows. If they say they do they are liers or fools.
BS. The origin of our universe within the Planck-time limit is
scientific truth, at the same level of truth as radioactivity and muon
decay.
da pickle
2007-10-15 12:20:35 UTC
Permalink
"Bill T"
Post by Vegas Vic
Nobody knows. If they say they do they are liers or fools.
BS. The origin of our universe within the Planck-time limit is scientific
truth, at the same level of truth as radioactivity and muon decay.
Depending on definitions, either or both of you could be making pretty silly
statements. Start with "truth."
FellKnight
2007-10-15 07:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vegas Vic
Nobody knows. If they say they do they are liers or fools.
That's the thing about real scientists. They don't tend to make blanket
unprovable statements and call them facts.

Fell

________________________________________________________________________ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
2007-10-15 14:28:46 UTC
Permalink
I can appreciate the OT conversation you are trying to start here, but
would you not get MUCH better answers posting a thread like this to a
science board?

I mean you are asking a bunch of degenerate gamblers (for the most
part not everyone) to speculate on a theory that has not been proven,
widely accepted or within the range of comprehension for most who post
here. Go post it to a science board, read a few books take a few
classes THEN come back here and educate all of us on it.

I am not trying to sound like a jerk here my intention is to have you
become more knowledgeable about this subject that you obviously have a
passion for before you let people on a poker forum ruin your own
theories or wonder about the this great universe.
Travel A
2007-10-17 16:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Okay, how many googled "The Universe" and "The Big Bang" before you
posted? Raise your hands.

I got as far on this thread as BillT quoting this Leonard Susskind, who
wrote a book slamming Intelligent Design. If BillT thinks it's a
"fascinating" read, you know damn well it's anti religious propaganda.

Is Leonard Susskind on the board that fired Pluto from the Solar System,
too, lol. I mean, WTF!

You can't believe a word of what these arrogant Marxist cocksuckas,
who've usurped academe write, anyway. Why even discuss their so-called
"theories"?

They're the same 10% of total scientists who give you "Global Warming",
"Second Hand Smoke", Nuclear Winter", "Acid Rain", on and on; the shit
never ends.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...