Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   COSMOLOGY
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 76 of 159 (489381)
11-26-2008 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't.
Ah, but I already do, V-Bird, I already do
The simple fact is you have no mathematics, no theory, no calculations, no predictions, no conclusions - all you have are meaningless words and hugely erroneous thinking. The concepts you claim to understand and explain are the not the concepts of space-time physics, they are the concepts of popular science books. One does not revolutionise chemistry by critiquing My First Chemistry Set. One does not break new astronomical ground by declaring the Ladybird Book of I Spy Space obsolete.
I know you think you are onto something, but believe me, so do tens of thousands of others scattered all over the web, all joined in equal conviction that they are right, that they have spotted the one true answer, that the astronomical, cosmological and mathematical departments of the world have all lost their way, and all joined in their sad shared mass delusion.
Why are you different V-Bird? What makes you stand out from all of the other cranks out there, clamouring that they have THE answer. I have heard this a thousand times. Why should you be any different? Give me something tangible. At the very least, show me some mathematics. I have a little training in the area
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 4:27 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 5:52 PM cavediver has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 77 of 159 (489387)
11-26-2008 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 4:27 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
CD I joined this site for good reason, it is about evolution and you will know that evolution has many dead-ends, the mathematical route you describe in your post is a dead-end, liken it to a creature that has evolved an eye, an eye that requires no cross-over for of nerves to compensate for a reflected image that is a finer grade of internal interface [rods etc] that is wired with no blind spot and has a superb lens far superior to anything else around, but this poor creature just puffs out jets of water to move, has no arms and legs and has almost its entire brain devoted to this fabulous eye, but it is an eye that is in a creature that is at a dead-end evolutionarily speaking.
Your eye is much the same, in your case though it is not an eye it is your maths that is at a dead-end, you see great intricacies and the more you look the more intricacies you see.
You look at the electron cloud and you see detail in the hope that if you keep looking you'll understand, you won't.
My maths is not even vaguely interested in electron g-factors, such knowledge has been about for a while now and yet with this intricate knowledge you cannot explain the instantaneous blinking out in one place with the same moment appearance elsewhere, my maths does, I know exactly why it does this, my maths confirms the energy that is left over after the interaction that causes the instantaneous blinking out and on and how this forms mass and why it appears to have 'weight' when then interaction is less intense and we witness gravity.
Evolution has many dead-ends and maths and science suffers them too, I believe, no, I KNOW that you are stranded on one of those peaks in the evolutionary hinterland that Dawkins describes in one of his books.
You are not alone, but then the Nautilus isn't alone either!
Oooh, oooh let me guess!
The Matrix is real, right!
Where the heck is this getting us. Can we get back down to earth.
What does all this have to do with cosmology? I am tired of all this metaphysical crap that you, johnfolton and godsriddle are spewing out.
Can you please elaborate and expound on your cosmological hypothesis in scientific terms.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 4:27 PM V-Bird has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Huntard, posted 11-26-2008 5:45 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 78 of 159 (489389)
11-26-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 5:37 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
Hey DA, just wanted to point out some things, hope you don't mind
I am tired of all this metaphysical crap that you, johnfolton and godsriddle are spewing out.
Then brace yourself, unfortunately you'll probably see a whole lot more of this.
Can you please elaborate and expound on your cosmological hypothesis in scientific terms.
It would surprise me if they could. I mean, just look at the answer I got from V-Bird when I asked for his maths. He claims his maths are SO different, we wouldn't understand them. To me, that translates as "I just made stuff up, so in order to keep at least the appearance that I know something up, I'm going to avoid this question in such a way that it won't be too obvious I don't really have anything". Sorry V-Bird, but until you get down and dirty and show us your actual maths, it just won't do.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 5:37 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5584 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 79 of 159 (489390)
11-26-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by cavediver
11-26-2008 5:09 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
Really? I know that you cannot explain the phenomena, please if you can tell me, no-one has to date, they get close by saying 'when we observe' after that everyone gets it wrong, you are no different.
I have a huge body of maths, a working hypothesis that is gradually being confirm by the new maths, I have predicted much, I can tell you that in the course of my recent work on the maths that there really is a 'mono-pole magnetism' in the FTL cosmos, I know how it appears to us in the sub-light cosmos, and how the energy from the FTL cosmos that leaves the residual in the sub-light cosmos is returned to the FTL cosmos, conclusions are too early in my work, there is no FTL 'E=mc^2' from me as yet.
There are cranks out there all convinced of the correctness of their crackpot hypotheses, sadly I am not in their league of self-assurance, I am beset with dead-ends regularly and then find an answer elsewhere that changes subtly something I worked on perhaps 7 or 8 years ago, I have the humility to admit that my nomenclature for what is in the FTL cosmos is likely to need revision and some of what I think is right will be later proved wrong due to later findings I make, I envy fully-formed crackpot ideas, they have to e easier than the angst I suffer regularly.
You simply would not comprehend the maths, it would be like me trying to show a nautilus the breast-stroke in swimming, it is simply not equipped to make sense of what it saw, and all that would also need a common language and we don't even have that!
Your training in maths will stand you in good stead, but the maths itself won't, the only ability that you and I share in this that will assist one day is the ability to see patterns in maths, because at least half the FTL maths has in common with sub-light maths, is that some of it has that beautiful and revealing closure.
The other half seems to be either incomplete or purposefully assymetrical, the mono-pole being a startling case in point.
Edited by V-Bird, : called away mid-flow and retyped a few words making a sentence incomprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 5:09 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 7:14 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 80 of 159 (489391)
11-26-2008 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 1:51 PM


Re: Maths.
Thanks Huntar for the assist.
The mathematics that prove my hupothesis is in its infancy, I started this more than 10 years ago and I have a new maths, I struggled for a while with the existing maths but it isn't suitable, it was like doing algebra using only the numbers 0-9.
I think I have you figured out v-bird. Are you a null physics proponent? Please be honest.
I could write down the symbols I have [for all the FTL elements] to explain events, but every one and more importantly their compounds and resultants would be entirely alien to you.
It is literally another language in maths.
Please indulge us. I am dying to hear this.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 1:51 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 6:36 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5584 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 81 of 159 (489396)
11-26-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by DevilsAdvocate
11-26-2008 5:56 PM


Re: Maths.
Had to go and find the Null Physics insanity, worthless.
OK the first thing that you have to take in is that there is not a single energy in the FTL cosmos that is like any energy in the sub-light cosmos, there is no mass and dimensions are irrelevent as is velocity.
Energy is not transferred in the FTL cosmos, there is no thermal, conductive or any other form of transfer, the only transfer of energy is to the sub-light cosmos where it is [for want of a better term] 'made use of' and then through mass itself returns to the FTL cosmos through the monopole.
Can you grasp that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 5:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:25 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 82 of 159 (489399)
11-26-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by cavediver
11-26-2008 1:54 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Tell me, how does biblical physics compare to Quaranic phsyics and... no, on second thoughts, don't bother. There's only so much idiocy I can tolerate.
I have only brief exposure to the physics of the Quran, so I am not qualified to answer for their ideas. Biblical physics is extremely simple. It has no complex forms of measuring nor difficult mathematics. It is not based on the ideas of pagan Greeks - like modern science. It is based on the simple, literal words of the Bible. However, Biblical physics has simple explanations. Indeed the quantum evidence supports biblical physics.
At first Elohim finished creating (bara - completed action) the heavens and the earth- all of it (et). At first darkness covered the primordial abyss (tehom). All matter everywhere was formless (tohu) and empty: a vacuity (bohu). Then Elohim moved across the face (paniym) of the transitory thing (mayim) and commanded light (owr) to be. It was then that the form of all matter was actualized by light. Light is the most active thing known, the fastest thing in the universe. Matter is not static substance - but a dynamic relationship with light.
Does matter remain unchanging in being over the ages? Not in this universe. We can see the past with sight. The light from countless atoms at many ranges visibly changes its properties throughout the universe’s visible history. Apparently ancient atoms were tiny scale models of modern ones - since they gleamed at minuscule frequencies that are ratios of the gleaming of local atoms. How can we verify locally that ancient atoms were minuscule? The Bible states three times that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and even that which comes out from the Earth also spreads out. A huge expansion seam runs through every ocean. Fresh basalt keeps on coming out of the seam and spreading out the Earth. Two thirds of the Earth’s surface is younger than the continents. The continents only fit back on a minuscule globe. Subduction is clearly a scientific myth - since the ocean trenches have soft layered sediments.
Biblical physics is not for dropping bombs or building computers - but for accepting the visible history of the universe - simply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by cavediver, posted 11-26-2008 1:54 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 11-26-2008 7:20 PM godsriddle has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 159 (489401)
11-26-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 5:52 PM


Re: Centre of the Universe. [Disclaimer etc etc]
You simply would not comprehend the maths, it would be like me trying to show a nautilus the breast-stroke in swimming, it is simply not equipped to make sense of what it saw, and all that would also need a common language and we don't even have that!
Oh V-Bird, can you not just feel your credibility swirling down the plug-hole?
because at least half the FTL maths has in common with sub-light maths, is that some of it has that beautiful and revealing closure.
There is no such thing as "FTL" and "sub-light" maths. You are confusing physics for mathematics (and using science fiction terms, I should stress, not the language of phsyics) but if you are so sure, perhaps you would care to tell us whether the contour integral of 1/z2 is "FTL" or "sub-light"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 5:52 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 84 of 159 (489403)
11-26-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 6:58 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
quote:
Biblical physics is extremely simple. It has no complex forms of measuring nor difficult mathematics. It is not based on the ideas of pagan Greeks - like modern science. It is based on the simple, literal words of the Bible.
Ah, I think I see the root of the problem. You are confusing physics with mysticism. One is a science, the other is woo. One is supported by evidence, the other is supported by faith, in other words the lack of evidence.
You wouldn't happen to be related to Bertot, would you?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 6:58 PM godsriddle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 7:42 PM subbie has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 85 of 159 (489404)
11-26-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Coyote
11-26-2008 1:16 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
So you are suggesting that, since science is based on a flawed assumption, we turn to religion? Most likely your particular brand of religion?
Don't you realize that all religion resolves back to "Trust me!" at some point? I am not willing to trust the word of shamans, whether contemporary or having lived several thousand years ago. They have not been shown to be a very trustworthy lot on the whole.
I'll stick with science, and if there are truly problems with our methods we'll see if we can't work them out.
You can’t fix a system that is based on a false first principle. Why not? Because the whole structure from beginning to end fails all at once. Science is a dogmatic religion. It is based on the creed that matter is not changing as it ages.
How can you be sure that science is based on a blind creed - a faith without any evidentiary foundation? Scientific cosmologies are the most absurd myths ever invented.
1. A tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing.
2. At first this vacuum formed a hot soup that moved faster than light. Ever seen anything move faster than light?
3. Eventually the soup slowed down and formed atoms. From that moment, atoms became perpetual motion machines. Ever seen anything that keeps on dithering around and yet by definition is said to never change its clock rates - atoms?
4. The galaxies were formed as invisible matter formed a halo around every galaxy. The amount of invisible matter in the universe is far more than visible stuff. Yet the invisible stuff congregates around every galaxy - in unique amounts and shapes. It is this invisible matter that caused galaxies to form.
5. Other invisible properties of the vacuum are called forth by the scientific faith in perpetual motion atoms. They actually believe that the vacuum of space adjusts the frequency of all light as it passes through the void.
And you claim to trust science because it is not based on faith. Amazing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Coyote, posted 11-26-2008 1:16 PM Coyote has not replied

  
V-Bird
Member (Idle past 5584 days)
Posts: 211
From: Great Britain
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 86 of 159 (489405)
11-26-2008 7:25 PM


cont.
The FTL cosmos is [for all intents and purposes for the time being] the same size as the cosmos we exist in and occupies the same volume and the same space in the void as our sub-light cosmos.
It's been easy so far but now we look at the FTL cosmos alone, you have, to in your minds eye, remove all that we have in the sub-light cosmos, the easiest way to do this is to take the image of our own star and our planet and moon as if they were alone. so first encapsulate that little set of orbits in its own little bit of 'space' you have three object rotating about each other, we have now to give some familiar image for the FTL 'mini-cosmos' and I use light, it just is easier that way, we are familiar with light at all sorts of levels of brightness, so that enclosure is not totally black it is a low luminescence background, perhaps like the sky on a moonless night but with no stars, for each of the three objects now rotating in that enclosure substitute a point of light a tiny one, and as the gravity of each is different give the three points of light greater brightness to reflect the greater gravity, then at what would be the surface of each object imagine a ball halo that is only slightly brighter than the background level.
Now from the pinpoint of light that is the centre of the 'sun' project a thin stream of light to the centre of the Earth and do the same for the 'earth' to the 'moon'
That is simple to imagine, but we now have to fill in detail somewhat.
The reason is simple, on earth we are familiar with 'things' [apples fall to the ground, single triangles add up to 180 deg internally etc etc] we have no such experience of the FTL cosmos and I have short-cut us to a model that will give something akin to familiarity.
Details... first the background light was even, well it isn't, between the three objects it is slightly brighter as we approach the ball halo of each object and somewhere in between it reaches equal brightness, so about 6/7ths the distance between the 'earth' and the 'moon' the light is at a median and at about 99/100ths the distance from the 'sun' to the 'earth' it is of equal brightness, so the background is now quite a variable element of light., the ball halos now need to be filled in but they are evenly lit right up to the pinpoint of light within the objects.
When you have conjured this image, you have a model of gravitation which is the all pervasive force in the FTL cosmos and those streams of light that join all three together are the monopole.
The monopole is present within every object that has mass no matter its size/shape density.
I need to sleep, early start tomorrow.
I will get to the earth alone next and then we'll assemble some sort of maths to make this work.
Remember... no velocity, no mass nothing you've ever encountered before, unless you have a decent image of the transfer of gravitation [tomorrows post] the maths will be impossible to understand, not even then if you'll get it, but it's worth a go.

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 7:57 PM V-Bird has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 87 of 159 (489406)
11-26-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 6:36 PM


Re: Maths.
Had to go and find the Null Physics insanity, worthless.
I say things tongue and cheek, so don't take it too personally.
OK the first thing that you have to take in is that there is not a single energy in the FTL cosmos that is like any energy in the sub-light cosmos, there is no mass and dimensions are irrelevent as is velocity.
First, what is a FTL cosmos? Do you mean faster than light? Is that a reference to the cosmos inflating, expanding, stretching or whatever you want to call it, FTL? Is this our universe? What is a sublight cosmos????
Energy is not transferred in the FTL cosmos, there is no thermal, conductive or any other form of transfer, the only transfer of energy is to the sub-light cosmos where it is [for want of a better term] 'made use of' and then through mass itself returns to the FTL cosmos through the monopole.
I need the FTL and sub-light cosmos' defined as I am not sure what you are talking about.
Can you grasp that?
Please explain your terms first.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 6:36 PM V-Bird has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 88 of 159 (489407)
11-26-2008 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by subbie
11-26-2008 7:20 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
Ah, I think I see the root of the problem. You are confusing physics with mysticism. One is a science, the other is woo. One is supported by evidence, the other is supported by faith, in other words the lack of evidence.
What scientists consider evidence and what they rejected as non evidence is itself based on the scientific first principle. Only things that fit the scientific creed that matter is not changing itself are considered evidence.
Biblical physics is not mystical at all. Mystical has to do with things that have a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding - such as in Platonism. Biblical physics is perfectly natural. It relates to the real, visible world of real objects and real, visible cosmic history. We can see the past with light. We are allowed in biblical physics to believe what is visible - instead of perpetuating myths about invisible things. We see how the galaxies formed as the stars accelerated outward from dense primordial galaxies. In scientific physics the visible history of the universe is not permitted. Instead one must believe myths about vacuous forces and phantom matter. Why do scientists invent so many myths about magical things? They have to. They must defend their historical creed - their assumption that the properties of matter are not emergent. They must do this, even though most of them unaware of its historical importance. They only know the physics of perpetual motion atoms. For example, their atomic clocks are assumed to never change frequency even though every atomic clock in the distant universe clocks a different frequency than local clocks and the differences increase with distance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by subbie, posted 11-26-2008 7:20 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by subbie, posted 11-26-2008 7:59 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 91 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-26-2008 8:10 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 89 of 159 (489410)
11-26-2008 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by V-Bird
11-26-2008 7:25 PM


Re: cont.
The FTL cosmos is [for all intents and purposes for the time being] the same size as the cosmos we exist in and occupies the same volume and the same space in the void as our sub-light cosmos.
What evidence do you have for this hypothesis? And you still have not defined your terms: FTL and sub-light cosmos. What is the difference between the two, besides your referring to one as FTL and one sub-light, what ever that means?
It's been easy so far but now we look at the FTL cosmos alone, you have, to in your minds eye, remove all that we have in the sub-light cosmos, the easiest way to do this is to take the image of our own star and our planet and moon as if they were alone. so first encapsulate that little set of orbits in its own little bit of 'space' you have three object rotating about each other, we have now to give some familiar image for the FTL 'mini-cosmos' and I use light, it just is easier that way, we are familiar with light at all sorts of levels of brightness, so that enclosure is not totally black it is a low luminescence background, perhaps like the sky on a moonless night but with no stars, for each of the three objects now rotating in that enclosure substitute a point of light a tiny one, and as the gravity of each is different give the three points of light greater brightness to reflect the greater gravity, then at what would be the surface of each object imagine a ball halo that is only slightly brighter than the background level.
WTF???? I have no clue what you are talking about. And yes I have taken a college astronomy course and consider myself an amateur astronomer so I do understand most of the proposed cosmological models. However, I have never heard anything like this.
It might help if you broke up your "long paragraph" sentence down into easier to digest chunks. Part of the job of a scientists is peer review by fellow scientists. If you cannot make your hypothesis clear and logical you lose credibility and become irrelevant. To me and I am sure to others your explanation made absolutely no sense. And what exactly is a "ball halo"?
Now from the pinpoint of light that is the centre of the 'sun' project a thin stream of light to the centre of the Earth and do the same for the 'earth' to the 'moon'
That is simple to imagine, but we now have to fill in detail somewhat.
You will have to clarify the preceding paragraph for this to make sense.
The reason is simple, on earth we are familiar with 'things' [apples fall to the ground, single triangles add up to 180 deg internally etc etc] we have no such experience of the FTL cosmos and I have short-cut us to a model that will give something akin to familiarity.
Actually we do understand non-Euclidian geometry. In fact non-Euclidian geometry, specifically Riemannian geometry, is the basis for our current model of the universe. You are johny come lately on this concept.
Details... first the background light was even, well it isn't, between the three objects it is slightly brighter as we approach the ball halo of each object and somewhere in between it reaches equal brightness, so about 6/7ths the distance between the 'earth' and the 'moon' the light is at a median and at about 99/100ths the distance from the 'sun' to the 'earth' it is of equal brightness, so the background is now quite a variable element of light., the ball halos now need to be filled in but they are evenly lit right up to the pinpoint of light within the objects.
When you have conjured this image, you have a model of gravitation which is the all pervasive force in the FTL cosmos and those streams of light that join all three together are the monopole.
I have given up understanding your proposal. To me it makes no sense.
My understanding is that the term monopole is a physics term used to describe a hypothetical particle with one magnetic pole (as opposed to 2) as predicted by the physicist Paul Dirac. Is this what you are describing?
I did find this science journal article "Euclidean scalar Green function in a higher dimensional global monopole space-time" [Journal of Mathematical Physics, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp. 1018-1028 (2002)]. So will have to do some reading to understand this concept.
The monopole is present within every object that has mass no matter its size/shape density.
How are you defining a monopole?
Remember... no velocity, no mass nothing you've ever encountered before, unless you have a decent image of the transfer of gravitation [tomorrows post] the maths will be impossible to understand, not even then if you'll get it, but it's worth a go.
The transfer of gravitation? What does that mean? Before you get into the math you need to define terms.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by V-Bird, posted 11-26-2008 7:25 PM V-Bird has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by V-Bird, posted 11-27-2008 11:32 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 90 of 159 (489411)
11-26-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by godsriddle
11-26-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Redshift caused by a priori assumption
A tip:
You can't establish that your woo isn't woo with more woo.
Carry on, as I'm sure you will.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by godsriddle, posted 11-26-2008 7:42 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024