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!

Hi, The midway point between the largest thing we can see (looking straight outward this is the radius of the visible universe) and the smallest thing we can see (an atom) comes out to equal exactly the radius of earth! median(the radius of the visible universe, size of a carbon atom)=radius of earth median(14,284,800,000,000,000,000m, 10-10m)= 20,518,481m I think that's as weird as it is stupid, LOL! Rusty

Believe me I know all that. Just because each person has their own clocks because you choose to call the cone of light that comes from all objects (okay reflected) an 'existence' cone rather then an 'information' cone (I can go either way with this) doesn't mean that time is a 'thing'... a container which things 'flow' through and that can be traveled. I said the sheet was not flat. That the brain receives nerve impulses a billionth of a second later has to be the definition of splitting hairs but hello, scientists recently ran tests that showed that pain from a persons finger reached the brain 'instantly' -- "instantly" (I read it twice too and wish I'd jotted down the source -- it was a reliable one). Entanglement? Bad data? Don't know. (If anyone has a line on ths please post it) 'Time' dilation is a physical effect which has nothing to do with time itself. Edit: Sometimes my posts come across like I'm angry and swatting back at you or something... If so I'm sorry. Even though spittle is flying from my mouth and I've broken 3 keyboards I promise I'm not doing that. BTW, in my younger years 'sun bathing' (after surfing) was my favorite thing too... however now every year their freezing spots and taking chunks of me... be careful! Cheers, Rusty

We?

Over the last year all the books I've read (5 of them) have been on quantum physics or string theory. Each book has discussed time. It seems like besides from the probability wave function it's pretty much the same. Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAh! Here's that 'time machine'. I don't know if this guy's a quack or serious... maybe you can tell me. The video originally aired on the History Channel. Cheers, Rusty

Dear Mr. Skeptic, I will have to think about all of that. I wish I had info on the physicist who is building a time machine using lasers to warp space (perhaps you’ve heard of it). He believes that he can send things back into the past (though only to a point when the machine was last turned on) and perhaps even a person. I wonder what he would think of all the problems you envision. The following is from webpedia: ----- there are two distinct viewpoints on time. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[2][3] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[4] and Immanuel Kant,[5][6] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled. ---- This describes my position (the 2nd opposing view). Imagine the universe is a two dimensional sheet called ‘now’. On the right side positive energy pores in (the future coming at us) causing patterns to flicker and dance on its zero width surface (the activities of our universe) then, on the left side negative energy exits (the past flowing away from us). The sheet wouldn’t be flat and in fact I’m not sure what it would look like but the point is that all that exists of our universe is this two dimensional ‘now’ with no thickness (or maybe its not even that, just the divide between positive and negative energy (or normal matter and antimatter). There is nothing but 'now' burning its way across the cosmos -- no past and no future except for records and memory and, hopes and dreams. (The universe for my next sci-fi book: Mantis) With regards to the shape of that sheet, if tonight we saw a nova of a star 100 LY away, would you say that from our frame of reference that the nova event happened tonight or 100 years ago. In other words is the cone of light emanating from each object a cone of existence or a cone of information? Cheers, Rusty Edit: Understand, I prefer the first view of time (in the wikipedia description) and am looking for a way to convince myself again.

It's too late plus I've just tried to get through the next couple of pages in Penrose's The Road to Reality (the book attempts to use/teach/make you understand... 'the math') so, my brain has turned further to clay. I'll have to read and think about this in the morning. I kind of see where your coming from. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged We're talking about two different things neither of which provides proof for time. I talking about time rewinding as in one person travels back in time while the rest of the universe is still going forward and from my point of view people 'do' walk backward and I see time rewind. In effect I'm going faster then light walking time back. You are saying the universe changes the direction of time's arrow but we wouldn't notice the difference (as if all matter suddenly became antimatter). In this case I'd have to say that time is still going forward but since I don't believe in the kind of time that stretches backward or forward it doesn't matter. If we're really going backward then we are heading back to the big bang and the extremely low entropy state we had after the expansion (ergo entropy is decreasing).

Hi Mr Skeptic! Gads... the problem with posting stuff on a lot of forums is having to deal with the same stuff over and over. Need to refine my system so answers to issues like the ones you present here are stored and indexed for easy cut/paste, lol. So far no one has disputed my answers to these. To my knowledge, the so called 'time distortion' is due to a physical explanation which is nothing mysterious and does not need a 'flowing time dimension'. I'll bet in the distant past you saw the cartoon example of a ping pong ball bouncing in a box. In a parked sports car the ball bounces up 3" and down 3". The car takes off and gets up to 50% the speed of light (fast car). No change from the perspective of the people in the car: the ball is bouncing just like it was before (its important to remember that everything happening to the bouncing ball is happening to every thing and person in that car). However to an observer standing on the curb who has X-Ray vision and can see that bouncing ball in the speeding car there is a huge difference. To this dude the ball is not only traveling from the bottom of the box to the top, its also traveling forward at 50% of c so it comes up say .5 inches but also travels forward many thousands of miles. This effect slows everything in the car down so the people within the car notice nothing. If time traveled backward it would mean that events 'rewind'. How to notice? Actually I cover this one above (or maybe you disagree with my reasoning). Almost everything has forward/backward symmetry. And 'I'm' the one saying 'reversing time'. I'm saying that despite this apparent f/b symmetry of physics (I just read all about this and it surprised me), the reversal of time (if it existed) will not work. Why? Because, like you say, it would have to be an 'exact' reverse play -- using the same forces and gravity will not (or should not) reverse directions pulling the spattered pieces of egg from the floor and putting them back on the table and no force or law of physics will bind the cracked egg shell back together. Not all events will replay exactly. (And if you want to say 'well, gravity would work backward in a time reversal' then count on the table floating upward.) You'd notice the cracked egg staying on cracked on the floor. I hope that makes sense because instead of retyping all this I could be in bed with my wife!! Cheers, r

You are discussing the reversal of events while time is going forward. An actual reversal of time would replay the events exactly using the same forces and laws of physics and those forces and laws can not work that way. Seemingly the progression of events caused by physics goes forward on its own 'and' time is running forward as a dimension. Time is redundant. Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Give an example please. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As I've stated, if the progression of events 'is all' that time is I'm okay with that. The idea that it is a 'something' that can be reversed or stopped or, that the supposed arrow 'could' have been set to travel in the reversed direction when the universe was created is what I don't buy into. There is only the progression of events playing out -- nothing more. If that's called time I'm okay with that. Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged See above. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThanks for all of the help!! I need to reread SR and GR... its been over 30 years. Perhaps I've been fooled into thinking that time is more then it really is. Rusty

Good point. As I recall it is SR that says that objects travel in two ways: through space and through time. If you add how fast you are traveling through each it will always equal the speed of light. On track with your reply so far? It has been 30 years since I studied Einstein's works. I will search for audio files which talk about SR/GR and listen to them on the treadmill. I'm over due for a refresher. This in and of itself probably does not prove time exists but if I want proof I guess Einstein or experiments testing Einstein's theories is a good place to start. Thanks! Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The second law of thermodynamics (the universal principle of entropy) is one of the reasons that I don't believe that time exists. And entropy doesn't need time, only the procession of events caused by the forces and laws of physics. We would still need to coordinate our actions by speaking of an abstract entity of time (past time/future time). There is no past time (only a record or memory of it) and future time is a point in the procession of physical events that has not yet happened. The small machine with springs and gears that we ware on arms and our calendars are merely devices used by us to overlay this procession with an abstract idea which gives order to the progression. Entropy is not a proof for the existence of time as far as I can see. Thanks! Rusty

Well... I could just reply with the next paragraph. However, if time is more then just the progression of physical events at various speeds based on circumstances (and if it is just this I have no problem with it) then that means that it has to do something beyond this (otherwise... I have no problem with it). The only things that I can think of that it could do is go backward or stop. But more to the point, how can anyone (besides God) question a 'possibility' about time? Just as well ask why would there be no 'possibility' of time stopping? Rusty Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The speed of events differ. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Nor that they do exist or, are real. Thanks for the reference!! r Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks for the reference! I've already (and easily) accounted for this (I think) but I'll certainly look again! r Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Thanks! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Oh, thanks for the reference!! r Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged As far as I can tell, this is simply a matter of events progressing slower or faster not due to time but do to the change in distance. Actually the event progresses at the same speed, it just has further to travel. If that doesn't make sense I can elaborate. r