sunspot

No matter what universe model one uses, they all intuitively require some type of logical beginning that is hard to pin down. Even with a steady state model, one can ask, where did it come from? Once it is there, all the models work fairly well. But how does one get to something substantial to get the ball rolling? If we begin at the reference of the infinite eternal, it is the only show in town. What one would see if they were on the infinite eternal reference? One would be a point that can define infinity. The next question is, how do you fit a finite universe inside a point that defines infinity, if a finite sized universe will appear smaller than that point? It seems impossible. Unless, one puts on some reference magnifying glasses to make the original point look bigger. This would make room for finite size. This could be done by slowing from C so the point reference stretches out from a point so infinite distance will appear further away. If we slow from C the infinite mass will fall to a finite level, with the difference between infinite and finite mass still close to infinite. With the infinite eternal reference, eternal, the potential energy lost by forming the finite reference is recycled.

I have no more physical proof for this than others have for other dimensions or parallel universes. In both cases, one uses acceptable math to create a mathematical construct for reality. This is the beauty of math. If you notice in this analysis, I have all the universes of our hearts desire stemming from this pinacle eternal reference. Pick one or pick them all. We do not have to create or put this infinite construct anywhere, because it is eternal or was always there. Like you said, it is impossible to make, because one can not create an eternal infinite reference from the energy within finite universes. Only the other way around is possible.

When forest fires burn they release CO2. As the level of CO2 rises in the atmosphere this promotes plant growth. Commerical growers will often add CO2 to the greenhouses to increase productivity. Greenhouse gases in a greenhouse, now isn't that cool. Besides plants, CO2 is also scrubbed from the atmosphere by rain water to form the water soluble, nongaseous, H2CO3 or carbonic acid. This rains into the oceans, which have a pH around 7.8, which is basic. This forms CaCO3 for the shell fish, which is nongaseous. The only CO2 that we got to worry about is the CO2 which gets above the earth surface (plants) and above the clouds (water). Even forest fires can add CO2 up there. In the Nova program they said that smoke from big forest fires rise 100,000+ ft. If we have drought or even snow due to an ice age his means less water in the atmosphere scrubbing the CO2 and less plant life to absorb CO2. The result will cause CO2 to increase. What is good about global warming is that it adds more water to the atmosphere, through evaporation, and will help scrub out the excess CO2, while increasing plant life, so it can increase its contribution. As far as global warming. It is happening. We should embrace the change since new species will evolve.

I didn't read the link until now, but it seems reasonable. What I don't understand from the article is why do neutrinos form during the collapse. Is it due to atomic disentegtation? I also thought neutrinos can go through matter like crap through a goose. That aside. One of things that world leaders are afraid of is Iran using a nuclear fission reactor to make plutonium from uranium. The Iranian are feared capable of adding two more protons to Uranium to make plutonium. That makes them more powerful than the sun, on par with super nova. Actually more powerful then supernova, since they don't even need the pressure of a shock wave. When I was talking of only fission level energy I was saying just that. A fission device is used to light a fusion device in H-bombs. The difference in energy output is quite significant. I am sorry if I question the state of the art thinking. But in the light of being able to making Kg quantities of plutonium, I do not see why it is necessary. All it does is assume conditions impossible to prove or disprove.

I am playing the devil's advocate to learn. Look at this scenario. If we heat iron to 10K celsium, the iron will become a highly ionized vapor, with questionable magnetic properties sinces its magnetic electron states will no longer be the same. It will be hard to hold all the outer electrons never mind keep them in separate D-oribitals for magnetism. If we take the iron and pressurize it in the center of the earth, we will get solid state or metallic iron, since the melting point of solids increase with pressure. The crowded pressurized atoms create a different affect allowing substantial magnetism that we observed. In the center of star, or even in the center of the BB, the pressure, by keeping everything close could result in different sub-particle properties and distributions.

The point at V=C, plugged into the special relativity equations is like the top point of a mathematical pyramid. It defines a mathematical point where all universe theories converge and from which they all can eminate. In other words, if the universe began at this mathematical state, there is suffiencent energy to make any finte universe one's heart desires, while still having potential energy left.

I would like to post an observation for discussion. I will try to walk on eggshells since extrapolation of the existing understanding tends to get censored and banished to speculations. If one plugs V=C into the special relativity equations, we get infinite relativistic mass, infinite distance contraction and infinite time dilation. Although it is only a mathematical state, if you look at this singular state, the energy needed to make this reference can encompass the energy requirements any theory about the evolution and makeup of the universe, since it has infinite gamma in mass, distance and time. For example, if our universe is assumed finite it is a subset of infinite mass, distance and time since it has finite mass, size and longevity. Add all that energy and it is still not enough. If the universe is finite but cycles, it will still be a subset. If the universe has finite mass but continues to expand forever, it is still a subset. Even multi-dimensinal universes each containing finite parameters within mass, size and longevity would be still be a subset.

Materials in nature are not only sensitive to temperature but also pressure. The pressure may not be something we can control or even simulate in the lab.

I would like to pose the question, why are there so many orientations within psychology? The reason I ask this, is that psychology has become the replacement for religion for many atheists for the healing the soul. What they get to chose from is rational polytheism. Is there any indication that psychology will eventually evolve to rational monotheism?

The question I would like to pose is, how does one know if what was/is produced in particle accelerators is natural or artificial? Just because we can make it in the lab does not mean it is natural. With particle accelerators we are adding a lot of energy, magnetic force and shattering natural things into fragments that don't last. How do we know we are not producing both natural and/or artificial things? For example, we can make polyethelene in the lab but it does not occur in nature. If we assume it is natural, than one can extrapolate fantasy stuff that will logically follow. For example, If we assume natural polyethylene, than maybe the oil deposits formed from the polymerization of ethylene. This follows logically but is a deduction based on an unnatural material, i.e., cart before the horse. Or I can take an basket of apples and smash them with Gallagher's sledge-o-matic and then collect the pieces and come up with the theory that the basic building blocks of apples are juice, sludge and peel fragments none of which actually make up a ripe apple in their fragmented guise.

Here is another area called speculation, even though the electron moves with significant speeds around a nucleus to be slightly relativistic, which can account for the uncertainty. Maybe the problem was my trying to introduce the MDT model of physics. What makes this model different than all the rest is simplicity. It only takes a shifting in perspective. It does not need to speculate other dimensions, speculations which are not censored seeing there is no tangible proof only mathematical necessity. Personally, I have no problem with that because it is a good academic exercise that can open up the imagination, even if it is hypothetical. Is there a monopoly on hypothetical?

I am trying to offer a way to model the cell in terms of hydrogen bonding. I did not make up the fact that hydrogen bonding is the basis for the DNA double helix, template relationships, the secondary structure of protein, the translation of proteins, the usual properties of water, to name a few. Observation has also shown this is a dynamic variable as the DNA helix separates, new complexes are added, etc.. Why is focusing on this fundamental variable of life considered speculation? Personally, selling my hydrogen bonding model of the cell to the highest bidder, would be better for me. But what happens to all the empirical dinosaurs when they are made obsolete? I am trying to give everyone a heads up first. Unfortuneately, the blind man's prophesy called statistics is clouding common sense.

We cannot control the heat-up and cool-down cycles of the earth, although we can try to predict and be prepared for them. One also needs to attempt to separate politics and science when dealing with the cause and affects of global warming. Computer simulation is important for predicting whether but hasn't increased the prediction odds much beyond 1950's low tech. It looks prettier, I love the doppler radars, but the models are still all over scales for major predictions. I was watching this special on PBS the other night about natural fires caused by lightning and how some plants and animals have adapted to it. This makes me think that forest fires and such, have been happening for a long time and have contributed to greenhouses gases way before humans, and will continue to add greenhouse gases even if we stopped using fossil fuel. A 40,000 acre forest fire is a lot of CO2 and NOx.

It is a sad day when good science is called speculation. I often attempt to build a conceptual understanding to create a meeting of the minds. I am hoping to stimulate fresh discussions without criticizing of the limitation of existing ideas. If the machine is not broken don't fix until it is broken.

The thing I do not understand about supernova is why they explode. If all the exothermic fuel is spent and the building up of higher atoms like iron is higher enothermic, where does the energy for explosion come from? It would appear to me that gravity should overcome something so deplete in exothermic output potential. Another observation about higher atoms is our ability to create higher than natural atoms on the surface of the earth. Some of the early ones were made with fission products and did not even require fusion caliber energy.