AbnormallyHonest

Well, there is a cooler, helium fusing portion of the star, which may have exhausted its fuel, encased in a shell of hotter, lighter fuel of a different type of fusion. So, in response to you inquiry of throwing fuel onto the fire, so to speak, I would tend to agree. Although, I fail to see why the addition of hydrogen to a star that has a cooler interior composed of denser matter of a different type which may or may not fuel a completely different type of reaction and a shell of the same type of matter, of a similar density, temperature, already producing the exact same type of fusion would be considered illogical. That would be like saying that there is no way to add fuel to an oil fire burning on a body of water, because the water and the fuel don't mix.

Would you consider the digital social venue of facebook as mainstream? How would you define it's mainstream-ness, as a product of the number of people that use it, or because of content that perpetuates its use? So, you're saying that Columbus actually had a long list of investors for his "Round the World" venture, or do you think that prior to him, the conventional wisdom may have been of a different logic? It's not that he was the one who first discovered the New World, or first thought of the Earth as being round, but he was the one who had enough influence, or at least enough fame, to bring the idea from ridicule to acceptance. I would speculate that the die hard "Flat Earth" cult would argue that because you aren't able to do it in a single flight, it diminishes the relevancy of your suggestion. (I agree that a flight more than half way around the globe would be illogical for travel purposes, but not for thought experiments.) Also, I would appreciate your ability to disprove this theory absolutely, or at best, provide some other circumstance that could describe any one of the anomalies described above which can be substantiated by an actual observation that humans have made in recorded history. I believe reasonable doubt would even be a difficult challenge. Which has more support in reality for it's existence, Bigfoot... or Bigfoot-like costumes? Yes it does, my friend invited me to try and help him with the inception of some logic to some of the fanatics, but I guess that's assuming that their conclusions were based on some type of it. Well, white dwarfs have been known to sometimes be encased in a hydrogen fusing shell, with the dwarf essentially as the core. In this instance, wouldn't make sense that a merger with a hydrogen fusing star would only be adding fuel to the hydrogen fusing shell of the dwarf?

Exactly. 1. I believe the one I just described could do just that, without much else than just our understanding of classical mechanics and a little adjustment. At least it can explain the basic organization with one simple (and statistically probable) scenario that doesn't require an intervention that is purely speculative just to reconcile one basic inconsistency at a time. (e.g. Mars' scarring, Mars' hemispheric bulge, Mars' geothermic inactivity at almost the inception of its existence, Venus' retrograde rotation, the outer gas giants, the inner rocky bodies, the abundance of heavier elements in the inner system, the asteroid belt, the uniquely equidistant orbits of all the planets, the increasing temperature of the Sun's atmosphere, the cooler interior... just to name a few) It seems a lot simpler, ergo, a lot more logical, that the scenario I just described above could explain all of these mysteries in one fell swoop, than accounting for each on individually through any number of rogue whatever or cataclysmic collisions. I would also argue, that the scenario I just described above, has a lot more supporting evidence in observation than just the assumption that any other occurrence is possible by imagination alone, and without any support in reality. 2. I'm actually a member of a "The Earth is Flat" group on Facebook. I assure you, it has never left the mainstream.

Well, it could've been the larger of the two stars, and I am suggesting that they may have existed longer than the ~4 billion years that we age our Solar System at. That date could just be from the accretion of the inner planets pre-merger. The scarring on Mars and it's sudden loss of geothermal activity so soon to creation of the system could've been a result post merger. Who knows, it might have been moon to one of the other planets before it got kicked out. The hemispheric bulge on the planet would suggest that it is, in fact, a rogue moon. Does not a white dwarf lose its fusing ability, sometimes shortly after it collapses? Also, is it not contained within a shell of fusing hydrogen? A merger into another star would just be adding volume to that shell. I know of no complete and working model of the creation of our Solar System that can imitate our layout that can run from beginning to end, without an intervention of some fluke occurrence in more than one point in its construction. I'm not sure if I agree that a series of one in a billion flukes to do that or just the most probable type of system that we see in our local stellar neighborhood is a better "handle" on anything. Perhaps, we have the wrong handle? Thank you very much, I do appreciate that. I guess I won't write that post on the Earth being round then. Thanks for the advice. I'm not suggesting that this post should assume that level of insight, although at one point a round Earth, a heliocentric solar system, or another galaxy were all considered science fiction, although I do not remember a mention of a engineered intervention. Although, I might say, that celestial engineering almost seems more probable than any of the "natural" intervention used to explain our Solar System... and then to suggest a series of them with regard to each one as only an isolated occurrence. My mind finds it difficult to accept.

So the Solar System has a few mysteries contained in its creation that seem to defy modern physics. The potential that our Solar System may in fact be the remains of a stellar merger may help to resolve many of the inconsistencies as opposed to the majority of observation throughout the galaxy. If the system had originally began as a binary, the gas giants that would’ve formed may have been accelerated into an increasing orbit as the resonant tug from the orbiting suns transferred their momentum. At that point, if one of the suns had inflated into a red giant, fusing helium into carbon and oxygen, and then collapsing into a white dwarf, leaving an inner planetary nebula composed of rocky elements... with an abundance of carbon, oxygen, as well as metals. The asteroid belt just inside the outer giants might just have been the rocky debris left after the swelling of one of our stars. As the rocky planets began the accretion process, the decaying orbit of the two stars, combined with the shepherding of the outer gas giants, would have diluted the eccentricity of the orbits. Eventually, the two stars would merge into a single star, with a dense white dwarf as a core with a very disguising, and atypically inflated hydrogen fusing shell. This merger could also be the catalyst that could have caused a tidally locked Venus into a retrograde rotation as the oscillating resonant lock merged into a singular angular momentum. This could also explain why it always appears that the Sun’s rotation is accelerated around the equator. A smaller, denser object with a higher angular momentum could produce such a peculiar disparity in the apparent rotation. Also, when the surface of the Sun exposes some of the layers beneath, we observe a darker cooler region of the surface which does not recover until the surface can overtake the area once again. As a white dwarf’s surface temperature is actually cooler than that of a main sequence star, it would seem only natural that the core below the surface would show a cooler region and the temperature might actually increase as you move further away from it. This could also explain why the Corona is actually much hotter than the surface of the Sun, as it is farther away from the “cooling” effect by the white dwarf possibly contained within. Statistically, about 57% or more of the stars in our local vicinity are binary systems and at least eight of them that we know of contain a white dwarf. Beginning as a binary may be more likely, although the inclusion of a white dwarf may be less likely, but it does answer some questions as to the origins of the rocky inner planets. What would the result be of a merger between a low mass white dwarf and a hydrogen fusing star with a combined mass equivalent to one solar mass?

Btw, skipping a leap year every 100 years puts the calendar 3 days ahead every 400 years, convenient that our digital calendars only go back to 1901? Not a bad way to set the record straight... I mean if you're wealthy and influential.

Actually, 2000 was not a leap year. Nor will be 2400. The precession of the orbital period requires that skipping a leap year every 400 years. 2000 should not have had a February 29th. The information in Wikipedia is inaccurate, yet the chart seems fine. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gregoriancalendarleap_solstice.svg#/media/File:Gregoriancalendarleap_solstice.svg

September 11th, 2001 was a Tuesday morning. I remember it well because I had no scheduled classes that day so when I woke up, with no understanding of what was going on, I only remember that classes were canceled and it meant nothing to me. It wasn’t until someone urged me to turn on the television to, “any channel” that I realized how much our world was about to change. Little did I know how perceptive I really was of that without really knowing until 15 years later. The calendar year has approximately 365.2424 days in it, which means, about every four years we fall one day behind, but once every 400 years, we need to skip a leap year in order for the days to remain synced to the actual position of the Earth around the Sun. Why is this important? Well, because the year 2000 was one of those years that the leap year should have been skipped. According to our calendars though, it existed just as it does now. So imagine that you are a wealthy world leader whom has many investments in the world stock market. Also imagine that all of computer data, including the dates, are stored electronically. Now if you wanted to be able to predict how the stock market would behave tomorrow, wouldn’t it be nice to have a simulation of how it actually would rise and fall today? See where I’m going with this? Tuesday, 9/11 happens, and during all the confusion, no one noticed that, on the computers, the day was marked as 9/11, but only, on their calendars, there was no leap year. So while the system was down for that brief period of time, it was caught back up to the right time, but no one noticed that inset program had just shifted everything prior to 2/29/2000 one day, because the program recognized that there should not have been a leap year there. Which is fine, what difference does it make if my birthday fell on a Monday or Tuesday last year or whatever. Well, once you add the day back in to correct the “error” now you stock market servers are actually reporting the stock market as one day, but if you kept the previous programming, you would have the same market reporting with one day difference. Now if you were a wealthy and influential person, which program would you keep private and which would you reinstall into the new servers after the commotion was done? What kind of advantage do you think you would have over trade and wealth worldwide? I would say, to be aware of this, or even actually plan for this, would not be something of weak minded. If you google 2/29/2000, on the first page of google you will see a lot of programming jargon about why that day was so difficult to reconcile, or why it shouldn’t have existed to begin with. At the time, I think everyone took for granted that it was supposed to be a leap year but for some reason, the computers couldn’t figure it out… a Y2K bug. Seems like it was a manipulation that had been planned with every detail to defraud the world economy, and I would say since my realization of this is the first time I’ve ever even heard of such a scandal… it was executed perfectly. Will we ever be able to reconcile the day… in dollars or lives?

I might ask you, is there no experience free of sensory input? Would you not consider the act of dreaming a free consciousness--free of experience. Although it could be argued that a dream is just an extrapolation of the way we experience, but perhaps that is because it is the way our minds have adapted to "awareness". Would the mind not dream just because it doesn't have the same sensory input as everyone else? I would agree with your statement that a person that has just been brought into awareness would be nothing more that a big baby, but I would argue that it is because there was no consciousness prior. It would be like switching operating systems on a computer. In order to install OSx on a PC, you have to change the entire filing system of the hard drive, but the processor would still be able to process the information with respect to the program. The computer would not be a modified version of the former, nor would it even have an awareness of it. (I am aware that if the scenario were reversed, there could be a counter argument for software like parallels or boot camp, but I'm hoping that this discussion does not wander into the realm of superficial semantics.) Also, if someone suffers from some type of amnesia, are we to assume that prior to the incident that caused the amnesia, that the person must not have been conscious or aware because they have been reduced the equivalent of an infant? I would say that there is only a separation of awareness that cannot be reconciled at that time. (Again we could use the operating system analogy to say a reinstall of the same operating system as opposed to a completely different one, which even provides the possibility of recovering some of the files from original installation.) Basically, a disconnected awareness cannot be completely dismissed as the absence of it.

I believe that chlorophyll doesn't collapse the waveform because that is how a plant "sees" the light... as energy. It doesn't make a measurable and discrete physical change in the physical world.

I would just like to ask a question I have not been able to find an answer for. Do plants interfere with the waveform during a double slit experiment? Does chlorophyll effect a change equivalent to a measurement? I apologize in advance if the answer to this question is common wisdom.

Although this may be speculative, my own personal understanding is that they are independent of one another, but not mutually exclusive. In a double slit experiment, the perception of a waveform of light or even massive particles, collapses the wave to display properties that are more particle-like. If this perception takes place after the wave passes through the slit, or even if the choice to observe the waveform wasn't made until it has passed the slits, it will always change the way the waveform interacted with the slits. This seems to defy logic because there is no explaination of the mechanics that can easily describe how the wave could know it was going to be perceived before the observer knew. This to me demonstrates, empirically, that "spacetime" is actually "space and/or time". This data would also suggest that there seems to be a preference for space over time. The reason I would suggest this spatial dominince over time, is that in order for this confounding result to take place, time must have a null value. The spatial requirement that as a particle takes precedence, because the behavior of it is predictable using the physics we're all familiar with. The time variable becomes completely unfamiliar. I have attempted a version of this same experiment to see if the preference could be switched to time over the spatial perception. The experiment is designed to examine the constraints, if any, of the separation of space and time. "A question of perceptual manipulation" attempts to isolate the time by giving it precedence over spatial position. A possible predictable continuity in exchange for a nondescript spatial displacement.

Thank you. This type of feedback is much appreciated.

The destructive interference is the perception, the source is the origin of the waveform that can be interference. The slits are a way to localize a waveform to validate that it is emamating from the source and not some other adjacent source. The experiment is just a way to establish a control of the source so you know that there isn't interference from other possible origins. e.g. Unifying the potential origins will establish if it is a wave or a particle... or perhaps the intention anyway. If I perceive a waveform after it passes the slit, the interference collapses the waveform to particle like behavior, but with these properties, the singular nature of a particle implies that it must've been a particle throughout the whole journey to the perception, because if it had gone through the other slit it would not have been perceived. So, this is the case with this experiment as well, so the question is whether or not the actual source is the one that is created or the one that is perceived. This could lead to discoveries of how the information is apparent through the life of energy, and if it really is independent of time or spacial coordinates, or if the two can even be separated. It would also harbor insight as to how perception interferes with the waveform, if it's an energetic, a diffusion, or neutral interaction... which could also possibly quantify the potential energy of consciousness. It was only a thought experiment, not a result. I thought someone might be able to provide answers as to the what the data would suggest, if there are answers currently in the understanding.

The destructive interference is the perception, the source is the origin of the waveform that can be interference. The slits are a way to localize a waveform to validate that it is emamating from the source and not some other adjacent source. The experiment is just a way to establish a control of the source so you know that there isn't interference from other possible origins. e.g. Unifying the potential origins will establish if it is a wave or a particle... or perhaps the intention anyway. If I perceive a waveform after it passes the slit, the interference collapses the waveform to particle like behavior, but with these properties, the singular nature of a particle implies that it must've been a particle throughout the whole journey to the perception, because if it had gone through the other slit it would not have been perceived. So, this is the case with this experiment as well, so the question is whether or not the actual source is the one that is created or the one that is perceived. This could lead to discoveries of how the information is apparent through the life of energy, and if it really is independent of time or spacial coordinates, or if the two can even be separated. It would also harbor insight as to how perception interferes with the waveform, if it's an energetic, a diffusion, or neutral interaction... which could also possibly quantify the potential energy of consciousness. It was only a thought experiment, not a result. I thought someone might be able to provide answers as to the what the data would suggest, if there are answers currently in the understanding.

I believe all physics as well as the scientific method relies that events unfold linearly. Does the double slit experiment matter? Creatively, your suggestion implies that there is no such thing as travel or displacement.

Between the reflection and the slit, there is time which the "mirror" could be removed. After passing through the slit, to the observer, and in reality, there is only one potential location for the source of the light. Quantum mechanics I believe says it would matter. It might demonstrate that the quantum perception is actually independent of spacetime. e.g. Spacial coordinates are uncertain.

Well, I think that the scientific method was only applicable because of the union of the origin independent of the properties displayed. In the removal of a discrete source upon observation, the actual origin could be altered to be consistent with the only potential location available at the moment of observation. This would require that the source would be in direct line of sight for all 3 points to be unified as part of the same system. If you had identical sources at both possible origins, I think the reality might show, empirically that the direct location actually emitted the energy, which would have no significance other than the wrong source fired off. The disparity of the result and the intention of the experiment would be the measurement.

Yes, but the slit greatly reduces the potential source of the light being separate for the differing properties, which I would suggest may have been the intent of the experiment. Yes, but light, as well as massive particles, have a finite speed in space. Doesn't that stand to reason that the mirror could be removed from the system prior to the beam hitting the slits. Wouldn't that suggest, that if you remove the mirror, the beam would still hit the slits?

This is a question pertaining to a variation of the double slit experiment. If you were to manipulate the light from a source to bend before it passed through the slit, an observer would not be aware that the light had originated from an indirect line of sight. Is it possible to create this scenario, but before the energy passed through the slit, remove the catalyst for the manipulation, also only allowing it to be observed after the removal? Under these circumstances, could it be possible to manipulate the origin, (due to the removal of a discrete possibility prior to the observation) to conform to the linear perception of it rather than the actual one?

Honestly, if given a moment, you might find that it is far from ignorant. If space expands from all points evenly, the farther away two points are displaced from one another, the faster the expansion between them. Is it not as probable as an event horizon, that at a great enough distance, the rate of expansion between them would in fact exceed "c"? An "event horizon" of another sort.

I would think that our senses are only required to develop the brain the conventional understanding of reality that utilizes those senses. I would further argue, that their reality would probably be incompatible with ours and they would not be able to interpret physical experience as reality, but probably more of a life after death. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is delusional. Yes, but that was the lack of stimulation and understanding of the same way we experience things, so her development was only impaired in relation to our level of understanding. If everyone were raised that way, we might all be the same. Kennel dogs usually are not house trained, but that does not seem like a violation to other kennel dogs. (that was an objective analogy, I'm not condoning the treatment described) Also, for this girl, or the person in a coma, once being welcomed into the common world of experience, would the ideas of "right" and "wrong" be innate or inherent? (in the classical sense, a disambiguation of "accurate" or "inaccurate") Well that's the question, would you still have conscious thought? Is it possible to remember experience before the inception of language? I have heard of some Buddhists claiming to ascend to a level of meditation that transcends physical confinement and it is described as "pure consciousness". Could a person of this experience actually exist in this ascended state for their entire life? If brought back to our reality, what, if anything, would they be able to tell us of what they learned. Such a traumatic change in experience probably would not survive the transition though, perhaps comparable to being able to remember the womb?

I'm not saying there isn't some type of influence that can be generated by incepting the prediction yourself because I believe that is exactly what Einstein did. He came up with an idea, that could be predict, that explained things with cohesive resonance with conventional wisdom. Then incepted the understanding and brought an entire planet into the reality he predicted. Thus will probably be the reality until there is another prediction that creates less paradox. There is a fine line between insanity and genius, just one is creative enough to bring others into their reality. This is true about any unique and creative innovation to our awareness. Newton is the Rocky to Einstein's Apollo. Yeah well maybe if you were the first person ever to build one.

I see, your ironic parallelism escaped me at first, but thank you for your opinion. I'll take that as appropriate etiquette to post opinions of topics that are irrelevant and even of a different genre. I may not be as educated as yourself, but a mind with so much to offer seems so disappointing. I have not contested the actual "expansion" of space, although I do refer to it as only a relative term from the displacemet of fixed points in space. I also would consider the Big Bang itself as being an infinite view, as it would be inviewable as you say, and completely consistent with Olbers Paradox. This post is actually an attempt to describe the mechanics of an infinite view without paradox, and with predictable observation. Also, the diffusion of thermodynamic energy will always reach the extreme displacement prior to the actual mathematical limit of its energy being realized due to the diffusion of space that contains it. Therefore the view of extreme displacement for that energy would always be within the perspective of an expanding view, and never outside the limit of a narrowing perspective. Basically we would see the energy drop to zero before the actual limit of the inflection where expansion overtakes viewability.

Art, music, literature, or any creative insight that is both innovative and unique could actually be a for of clairvoyance. A prediction of the direction the human culture might someday head. If your prediction is contemporary enough, you may experience success in your lifetime. If it is truly prophetic, you prediction may not be realized until well after your life ends, and perhaps your life would be wrought with hardship. Any examples?