rrw4rusty

Thanks for the replies! Work on book sidelined by home remodeling... I'll check all this out in hopefully a few days...sorry. Sensei--how do I contradict? You seem to have an amazing application...but I need something I can play with. Forget map showing Great Attractor...I forgot we can't see in that direction (unless I'm behind the times). Thanks, Rusty Oh...I meant 400 million lg.

Hello, I'm a sci-fi author and need to plot a course with distances and galaxy (cluster and super cluster) stop overs between the Coma Wall, Earth and the Great Attractor. I've looked at a few online 3D universe maps and 2D maps but have not found anything ideal. Any suggestions? Thanks so much for any help you can offer! Rusty Williamson www.rustywilliamson.com rusty@rustywilliamson.com

Thank all of you for your replies. Rusty

Hello, Can there be quantum fluctuations within a singularity? Thanks, Rusty

Hi, Hopefully this is the right topic for this... I've studied quantum physics and cosmology as a hobby for 20 years reading books like 'A Brief History of Time', 'The God Particle', 'The Road to Reality', etc. --in other words I don't really know snot. Never the less (and of course!) an idea has come to me that solves a lot of proglems. It kind of turns things around but it seems nice, neat and logical. Its not completely original and of course it has to be completely wrong LOL, still I wanted to post it to have it formally torn down. But it's summarized in 4 pages of bulleted items and pictures in a zipped Word document. I think I can guarantee that its interesting. (It's been scanned for viruses) http://www.virtualmediastudios.com/WilliamsonGravityModel.zip Rusty

Dear insame_alien, Actually I assumed most people would have heard this. This claim stemmed from Bekenstein and Hawking's conjecture regarding the total amount of information held by a black hole was equal to the total area of the event horizon (loosely stated). It is also related to Holographic Universe ideas. The statements concerning a sphere I heard in an audio lecture and also read in a book but at present I am at a loss as to which lecture and which book. I will try to locate these or other sources. Sorry! Rusty

Hello, I have heard the following from several places: The amount of information that can be stored within a sphere is equal to the amount of information that can be stored on its surface. This seems like a contradiction or, a self-defeating statement. It seems to instead say that a sphere can hold an infinite amount of information. For example: Since the amount of information you can put within the sphere is equal to the amount you can put on its surface… just put the information on its surface… then, with the interior of the sphere empty; put a slightly smaller sphere within and put more information on its surface then repeat this process until the space within the sphere offers diminishing returns. Then, jump back to the outer most sphere and place a slightly larger sphere around that… ad infinitum. I’m I cheating, missing the point, or… missing something else? Cheers, Rusty

Hi, Even though it is called 'vacuum energy'... do we know or do we have some theory on... whether the activities of virtual particle pairs is the same whether in the relative vacuum of space or... with in ther Earth's atmosphere (where tests confirmed it) or... say inside a rock? Rusty

Perhaps 'critical review' was the wrong wording... really I see no flaws, just different handling, some better than others, this one being the best imoh. And I was not cleaver enough to design that post as a 'test', just careless enough to get it all wrong. r Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis was one of two really embarrassing posts I made--my only excuse, lack of sleep. Apologies to anyone I offended, I can’t say what I was thinking and obviously didn’t know what I was doing. r

This was one of two really embarrassing posts I made--my only excuse, lack of sleep. Apologies to anyone I offended, I can’t say what I was thinking and obviously didn’t know what I was doing. r

I got this idea and asked this question (do atoms flicker in and out of existence) because of a video I saw which seemed legit and talked about string theory, branes, and m theory. It showed atoms flickering in and out of sight and said that scientists were puzzled by this and one possibility was that the atoms were flickering between 'higher dimensions' or 'other worlds'. In this video a spooky female voice talked over clips from the elegant universe and other videos and constantly came back to a question mark with a black background which represented and was called 'the singularity'. In this way it seemed a little bit off beat but most what it said jibbed with what videos by B. Greene and other reliable sources said. I've described it in case anyone else has seen it on youtube or elsewhere. I've looked for this video for over two hours but... can't find the darn thing. If I could find it, perhaps it actually said and perhaps showed something different that would make more sense or... not. r

Hi, Several days ago I started a new thread on six different science forums (including this one) entitled: “(the furthest we can see - the smallest we can see)/2=radius of Earth!” It made a claim based on half a dozen ‘inaccurate’ values for the most part (one or two values which would have been obviously wrong happened to be correct). The responses of each forum were very interesting. The forums involved were: http://www.physicsforums.com/ http://www.thescienceforum.com/index.php http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/index.php http://www.sciforums.com/ http://www.sciencechatforum.com/ http://www.sciencefile.org/ Without naming forums (though this is easy enough to check), responses were wide spread and quite interesting. They were: 1. Many responses, each pointing out one or two mistakes (but not all) and posting the correct values. 2. Many lively responses, each discussing how interesting the claim was, offering conclusions and/or thoughts, and/or pointing out similar examples. One last post questioned one of the incorrect values but did not take the time to check it. 3. A single response pointing out each and every mistake but providing no corrections. 4. No responses. Note: I am writing this off-line (my ISP is down) and so I cannot check on anything and must depend on memory however, I’m a busy person and might not check anyway. Also I do not know how many people viewed the post without replying which might or might not be telling. What can be made of this? To be completely certain, responses I’ve received from other posts would need to be studied – I don’t have the time. However, IMHO the following might be said: a) In the case of forum response 1, seemingly each person that responded was knowledgeable enough to spot a one or two incorrect values and, either knew the correct value(s) or took the time to look it up. No one took the time to check the other values. b) In the case of forum response 2, shame on you! No one was knowledgeable enough or observant enough to spot any of the mistakes – I think there was three of them. No one cared enough to check any of the values (or had the time to? -- they had time to discuss the claim). c) In the case of forum response 3, seemingly one person knew and/or checked on each and every value but did not care to or have the time to provide the correct values. Seemingly others upon seeing or knowing about all the mistakes did not bother with the post. d) In the case of no responses no conclusions can be reached. Comments are welcome. Cheers, Rusty

Thanks! What about my first question (see OP). Rusty

Hi, I've heard that atoms 'flit' in and out -- there, then seemingly gone, then back again... and so on. Is there any truth in this and, if so, what causes this? I've also heard that electrons and quarks are 10 to the -18 meters (or 1E-18? ...I don't know how to get superscript here so I can't use the proper notation). I've also heard that electrons and quarks are one dimensional 'point particles' that have no real size. Which is it or... what is it thought to be. Thanks for any help! Rusty

Hi mooeypoo, No... I'm talking about actually 'see' using current technology. http://en.dogeno.us/2009/09/first-captured-image-of-electron-clouds-inside-one-atom/ Edit: I tried plugging in the size of the nucleus, protons, quarks/electrons, planck length/strings... nothing exciting. Edit: How embarrassing!! My spread sheet has a huge error in it regarding the radius of the visible universe!