Mike Smith Cosmos

Maths is saying how things SHOULD behave by a very precise set of written Formula, Simulation may incorporate all sorts of probable behaviors which may not be precise . Say like shrinkage due to theft or unforseen errors. Slop, Or the nature of parts of the system to be based totally on probability. Pure Mathematicians try to Grab everything into the realm of maths, rather than accepting things like OBSERVATION and HYPOTHESIS as a respectable discipline ( although that might not be the best word , as it is inherently undisciplined) . At the stage of OBSERVATION and HYPOTHESIS no pre-prescribed maths is necessarily thought. It is true many things in nature are regular, geometric and indeed fall into the realm of math. However the mathematicians MUST LET GO of trying to include probability or even unpredictable events. These can be included in simulation, because simulation is simulating everything ( or attempting to ) Maths only dares go with accurate predictions. Observers and Hypothesisers dare to go " where angels fear to tread" mike

So the CAD produces a three dimensional model under the designers hand. The computer turning the design into underlaying Code one presumes. Then do you let it run within some boundaries , or using some initial conditions with incremental changes ? I presume this is what generates these simulations of two Galaxies colliding ?

What exactly is the Driver of these " Simulation Modeling " Mike Ps thanks for your comments !

Once the element has decayed ( by say spitting out an Alfa particle namely 2 protons and 2 neutrons ) it will not be the same element. mass gone down by 4 charge by 2 . So the population of your original element has gone down by 1 . once the population has halved. However long it takes, that is the half life. the next half life takes the same time but half of a half is a quarter as you only started this time with half the population. next half life (same time half life time ) one eighth of population . So first population say 1000 atoms [ after first half life time = 500 atoms [after 2nd half life 250 atoms after 3rd half life 125 atoms left of original population this is exponential decay. Linear would be say 1000 population decay to 900 decay to 800 decay to 700 [ say every half life ) BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS [its always half the remaing population not a fixed linear amount ] Hope this helps Mike

Is there any truth behind this gulf Blue Plague idea or Not ?. It all seems a bit ambiguous.. Is it spreading and is it toxic? or has the natural environment stopped any spread ?

Did someone say 'Cats' sets or was it Bas sets ?

studiot, thanks for animations . But. .. Definitely I need a blow by blow account of quite what is going on in the animations. Which, what , with whom, by whom, and for whom ! mike

Yes, but cats prowl around, look out the window, catch mice and pat balls around the lounge. Other than decimation of the post, and barking at cats, it spends most of its time, seeking somewhere warm to curl up, THEN SEEP, . Is this what Dog ancestors did in the past ages? When she is out for a walk, its alert, looking for Cats and postmen. Back in the house give her 5 mins she will be curled up to sleep !

When ever I look for my Jack Russel. Its curled up sleeping! somewhere . . Oh Who mentioned Food ! Mike

There is something in what you say. I have thought through what you were saying about the plate, The fold and the tube. I have worked it through with some simple shapes, in progressing dimensions. see diagrams below. By starting with a line ( one dimension ) pulling into a circle ( 2 Dimensions ), pulling by inflating into a bubble ( third dimension). Similarly with a Plate , ( 2d ) pulled into a Fold (3d ) then the Fold (3d ) rotated into a Tube (? Dimension ) . I could be certain I saw Plato snooping around the entrance to my cave All these shapes, lines, circles bubbles ,folds , tubes have a ' ring of geometrical truth' about them . Which is no wonder they are found , used in the machinery of nature. I think the tube is the efficient transport system of the cosmos.Whether the thing transported is an idea, item, or complex system. " If there is a will, there is a way is an old saying " its finding the entrance to the " tube of opportunity " that is important. As is the case . ( now where did I hear that ?) I think a very good example or EVIDENCE that these shapes exist ,in what might otherwise be construed as a terribly complex mix with no chance of finding these ( bubbles, plates, folds, tubes ) in the 'Broth' of the swirling Cosmos is : When travelling by plane , long distance , climbing to 33,000 ft and down again, the plane goes through turbulence. This is felt, experienced but not seen. If you could see them no doubt among other more complex shapes, you would see some :- " PLATES, FOLDS and TUBES " of turbulence ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We skim along PLATES easily We turn and accelerate in FOLDS . We drop like a stone in TUBES. during these periods of turbulence , apart from complex parts of the turbulence, this is what we feel ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike

I Think I need you to talk me through these Eric.

Am I right that the structure of each is as below. Wave [associated with radiation] constant amplitude but in chunks quanta. Matter Constant size for given mass given material . Wave [associated with matter] goes less amplitude as distant from center.

I presume they behave the same BECAUSE they are both waves, and certain performance ( behave ) relates to say water waves as light waves. O.k. But if they are NOT the same . WHICH one has the WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY. A ) The De Broglie Bohm/Shroeniger derived ( if thats the way to say it) Probability Wave or B) Normal Radiated Wave from an Atom Energy change ( Energy band change ) Either, Or , Both ?

If one reads through Wikipedia on De Broglie, De Broglie-Bohm, Matter waves, Electron waves., apart from a dose of Mathematical Awesomeness, and Dread, It becomes difficult to understand the different Waves. For instance : IS THE WAVE ASSOCIATED WITH ALL MATTER ( Electron to World ) the SAME WAVE that comes out as RADIATED SINUSOIDAL ELECTRO-MAGNETIC WAVES that come out of Atoms when electrons cause waves of photon light to leave atoms. Namely on energy band change? Even Wikipedia asks someone to come into Wikipedia and sort out Waves. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie-Bohm_theory#The_conditional_wave_function_of_a_subsystem Although this covers many wave areas , Its pretty scarey stuff .! link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction Wave Function Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie De Broglie If we are going to get our head around wave Particle duality, we need to at least understand Waves ! ?

I apologise if you guys have already quoted the following post u tube, However it seems to be a start to having open debate about this issue. This is with Richard Dawkins from Cambridge University and to counter Dr ,Lennox from Cambridge University . They debate Dawkins book " The God Delusion" and the issues raised The Universe [ Darwin or God ] U Tube of DEBATE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQ6LWyKunY Mike

So are you saying that any particle with some particular spin , interacting with the Higgs mechanism via a higgs boson is not going to change its spin in any way by this interaction, or only if it is of a particular type of spin ? Fermions electrons, protons , neutrons ( half integer spins -1/2 1/2 3/2 ... ) firm ,heavy particles Bosons Higgs , Photon , Graviton ( whole integer spins 0,1,,2 .........) soft, light , force carrying things So the Higgs mechanism is remaining neutral as regards spin with spin 0 , wheras others of a certain type say on light photons , ( 1) ( so they do not acquire mass) And not neutral with say an electron or a proton , ( with half integer spins say spin 1/2 where the interaction with the Higgs would make them acquire mass to some degree or other . Is this by the Spin interaction . ? Is that right ? Is therefore the spin the vehicle for acquiring mass ? or am I going off on a tangent ? probably ! mike

They looked at many different models (with different spins and parities) and worked out what the chances were that the data could fit the predictions of those models - it was very low. BTW the 0 is the spin the plus/minus is the parity - see here Quote Stating how the experiment avoids one or twp pitfalls Quote The particle that they were testing was highly likely to be spin 0; it is further shown elsewhere that the particle is likely to be the Higgs Just One or two more Steps back on these 3 . If that is O.K. Please. [Like magnification back to ( x 5 to x 20) rather than x 150 ] mike

Good one ! I will have to give that some thought ! Mike ps. ( although I have not put the tube forward as some form of fundamental shape. Only one of the ways for movement through the cosmos in an easy, efficient way, for things to 'happen'. ) ( or have I ? ) . .

The Neural Tube Ending up as a Human Link http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=104&sa=X&biw=1177&bih=610&tbm=isch&tbnid=p5vMn51ziMF_tM:&imgrefurl=http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/gcaplan/anat2/histology/histo%2520d%2520human%2520development.htm&docid=TCCk4D5TJazyPM&imgurl=http://legacy.owensboro.kctcs.edu/gcaplan/anat2/histology/somites.jpg&w=600&h=600&ei=w0cRUvDDIYec0QW4pIDYAQ&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:14,s:100,i:46&iact=rc&page=7&tbnh=181&tbnw=195&ndsp=16&tx=45&ty=37 link http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?sa=X&biw=1177&bih=610&tbm=isch&tbnid=-VJogIJsJx01oM:&imgrefurl=http://www.brainviews.com/abFiles/DrwNeurtube.htm&docid=kIrGR4nC4Co-JM&imgurl=http://www.brainviews.com/abFiles/DrwNeurtube.jpg&w=490&h=270&ei=e0cRUrCXMMWb0wWwlYCQBw&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:10,s:0,i:119&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=167&tbnw=303&start=0&ndsp=11&tx=168&ty=65 link IMAGE http://www.chw.org/display/displayFile.asp?filename=/Groups/CHHS/SB1CR.jpg link http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=364&sa=X&biw=1177&bih=567&tbm=isch&tbnid=qfw3eVfsUciZoM:&imgrefurl=http://www.cixip.com/index.php/page/content/id/1121&docid=ZZPcA8NGj4v0XM&imgurl=http://www.cixip.com/Public/kindeditor/attached/image/20121024/20121024134607_85429.jpg&w=472&h=408&ei=fEoRUtbADcmX0QXrhYGgAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:67,s:300,i:205&iact=rc&page=24&tbnh=200&tbnw=232&ndsp=17&tx=117&ty=69 link to HUMAN http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?start=364&sa=X&biw=1177&bih=567&tbm=isch&tbnid=MI2NEKFDNIopVM:&imgrefurl=http://www.kaahe.org/health/en/682-neural-tube-defects.html&docid=huXZTjHQG1N0KM&imgurl=http://www.kaahe.org/en/ArabicSampleModules/modules/obgyn/ogfc01a1//overview.jpg&w=265&h=205&ei=fEoRUtbADcmX0QXrhYGgAg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:68,s:300,i:208&iact=rc&page=24&tbnh=164&tbnw=212&ndsp=17&tx=103&ty=78

We are well furnished with evidence of scientific observations of the astronomical Stars , Galaxies, Super Novas, Dust clouds, Star births. Also of the micro, world through better microscopes etc show us the very small. We have never had it so good. As I said in a previous post, famous science writers like John Gribbin, Paul Davies, Marcus Chown, Robert Laughlin and others seem to hint at :- " the Goldilocks principle " { namely things are not too big or too small, too hot or too cold , too close or too far , But just Exactly right. Whether what they are saying is ......... well I do not know, because they do not say it..... they just seem to hint. Nobody seems to want to say " the king has got no clothes on " when everybody can see he has no clothes on but are frightened to say so.

I Thought your original proposition was one that Science has equipped us to see .? As never before . . Is this not where we are ? Mike

Instead of both sides vehamently saying YES NO. no yes Can we not ask the question :- " Is there anything in evidence by observation of the state or workings of the cosmos, either locally or in deep space and deep time from the infinite past to this moment, among the very small or very large, " ? " that can in any way be viewed as evidence of some form of Higher Power being(s) than us humans.? " Say like the monoliths in 2001 a space odessy or something funny in the DNA or something that can not be chance , but deliberate, or some control mechanism . Leave for the time being putting a name on it/them . As that immediately puts some form of presupposed ( loved or hated image of it/them/he/she ) . If we find we have some form of positive answer, then we can ask. Yes but How much higher, how much more informed, how much older than our civilisation . If we draw a complete BLANK . Then we can decide what to do next ! or what does this mean ? Mike

Ok, Thanks. Is it at all possible that this can be translated into some form of ABSTRACT. , Or possibly some form of synopsis . Perhaps of what the inference is from this.

. Do these Spins interact , conserve or otherwise with the Higgs mechanism.? . Has this been investigated with the recent CERN experiments ?

Neural Tube as a Tube of opportunity I think the early development of the human embryo, is one of laying down 3 layers ,[ like 3 layers of pasta dough ]. one of those layers is the controlling nerve system. All three Roll up into a Tube. One of these tubes being the digestive tract, another the spinal nerve system, having all the synaptic gaps in it. ( No wonder Roger Penrose got very interested in it. ) A Human , What an opportunity