Mike Smith Cosmos

I think I need to go back and visit that canal . !

Right. ! The good news is I Did Not Jump in the Canal. I did have my stiff drink. And I have tried to think about your idea. Firstly I can not pretend I know the details of Multi-verse theories. I find it difficult enough trying to understand this one. All-be-it that you would probably or have said, I will not be able to understand this universe without the others. The nearest I can get is:- Yes probability, I believe, has an large, integral part of the workings, even as you say a major driver , of the workings of the Cosmos/ universe as we perceive it. Yes I can conceive of shadowy possible outcomes in the future, may be a myriad of possibilities , which you could call alternative future universes, BUT only existing as a set of probabilities. I can not see a similar set of probabilities /thus probable alternative universes going back into the past. I Just see ONE, the One that got SET ( like concrete setting ), That setting as far as I can see, occurred when PROBABILITIES, all over the place BECOME REALITIES . However I accept I could be hopelessly wrong in this matter , as one could ask ( When is NOW ? ) . Difficult one . So as We , or anything else for that matter TREADS its way into the future from the NOW but ( when is now ?) , The Future is Set and all other possibilities ( hence, possible universes ,other than this immediate one, disappear as only vaporous possible only universes ). This is probably not what you were stating. However you may have a clearer picture of Multi-verses than I. At least I don't have to jump in the canal. Phew ! You may however feel the same way as me, and I am not fully understanding your argument. I must be honest I have thought AND experienced some of the what if ..... what if .......pathways through time and wondered what if ...... SPLIT Mike

WoW ! I need a stiff drink ! How do you have time for Rock and Roll and all this Physics . ? I am just going out to Exeter Canal Side ,Devon England For Sunday Lunch . I will have a good think on what you have said. And that stiff drink If I have not jumped in the Canal . I will attempt to get back to you later ! Mike

Still thinking on it. This is a bit of a profound JUNCTURE. Is Science ALL ABOUT PREDICTION ? Humm ! I will have to watch my foot. Make sure I do not shoot myself in the foot !

Yes, well, I get your reasoning. Sounds quite plausible to me. Do you imagine the descending mantle falling under gravity at all , or do you imagine only being pushed by the contraction process you describe. Lower current; lower heat in molten outer core; lower heat in mantle , contraction of upper mantle, Ocean crust too big for space; pushes against mid ridge; gives at trenches; and down the mantle and ocean crust goes causing friction and melt heat for volcano's mountain building. and re-amalgamation with the inner mantle, convection only renewing mid ocean ridges as required, but NOT pushing ocean crusts sideways. And will you still speak to me , when you are famous.

Very Funny !

They sort of did . I am not sure where your based. time zone sounds USA but anyway here in the UK . THE Mappa Mundi made 1000 years (very roughly ) ago kept in Hereford cathedral, in the dark, under surveyance , and for inspection. Its interesting Jerusalem is at the center. Its sort of circular. England is on the edge. Not sure even if America exists. link http://www.herefordcathedral.org/visit-us/mappa-mundi-1 Well that is the marvelous thing about language, its amazingly flexible. Like "infinity" most of us think of it , being miles and miles away, others think of it being at the end of the universe, beyond reach or even forever. I don't suppose we will ever find ourselves ( say you and I ) standing at this DARK THICK LINE somewhere in outer space and eternity. I will point to it and say to you " There's infinity" . And you will say to me " NO , there it is, another astronomical distance beyond, that way ." Will you ? As far as I am concerned Everything , is absolutely EVERYTHING Up, down visible invisible everything !) Everything that ever was, Everything that is, ( Everything that ever will be ) ! Actually I better leave that one , the ever will be ,on Hold ! ) I have read, or seen on some TV science documentary ( sorry can't remember where ) that our Brain Capacity is sufficient to comprehend the Cosmos . ( May be it was Karl Sagan in his series COMOS ) I suppose , that's what I have made my lifes' mission . To Comprehend the COSMOS. ( wishful hobby up through my life , now in retirement, FULL TIME research.as well as Painting and Geology ). However it is easy to loose the plot , as you get older ! Maybe I peeked back along . Now Now there is an interesting thought !

So what you are saying, is Rather than the normal convection current rise of mantle to the mid ocean ridges being the driver for ocean crust movement, You propose it is the Shrinkage of the overall surface area of the oceans area caused by a cooling caused by a change in the dynamo /generator change in internal currents of the earth. ( Have I understood your point correctly, or have i latched on to the wrong point, or missed it entirely [ which could quite easily be the case ] ) ? I am off to the Royal Albert Museum in Exeter with my Geology group today. I will see if I can find any thing that relates to your subject. Mike

Interesting comments. Need to sleep on it .

I have looked through Goethe's Faust . Looking for the riddle ... Was it " ‘Yield to the wish so wisely stated, And at the source be thou created! Be ready for the rapid plan! There, by eternal canons wending, Through thousand, myriad forms ascending, Thou shalt attain, in time, to Man.’ " ?

What was " The riddle that so much has worried Goethe’s Faust!"

Yes, but what happens if you do NOT need to ' kneel on dried peas' if you don't have to. What merit is there to' beat your backs with leather threads with metal in, and draw blood', if you don't have to. Scientists thought you needed to send rockets to Mars to search for life, (million of pounds/ dollars). And James Lovelock , friend of Karl Sagan said " No you do not need to go any where near Mars to find out if there is life. LOOK AT THE ATMOSPHERE through an analytical telescope spectroscope, find the proportion of atmospheric gases and 'bob is your uncle' Life = balanced ecosystem; N0 life = unbalaced dominant one/two gases. As far as I know the latter is the way. Just to do things the hard way does not make them the right way or the best way . I am not at this juncture saying that the Probability based Observational Mold Method ( POMM) way ,is the way to go. I am saying , " its worth a look " in view of all the dedicated, hard work , that is involved in the current method, as you so rightly said. No point in "kneeling on dried peas" for nothing. (Sounds very Lutheran, or was it Calvin ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ps . Something came out of CERN in a separate paper also posted last week, Steinhardt and Jen-Luc Lehners, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany, argue that cyclic models remain viable, given the quoted error range in the Planck data5. data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory : Nature News & Comment I think most people including myself DO NOT think the Universe is a giant clockwork machine unwinding. Or at least I Think that is what most people think. If that is not too many thinks.! I think it would be a pretty boring place if that were to be the case. Also it would snap like a carrot , if the machine got stuck on a bit of Granite or something. ( more like an immovable object) !

News combining Plank Telescope and Higgs field research via CERN work reveals likely changes may be required for infant universe model. link data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory : Nature News & Comment

You are suggesting that I should turn it all upside down , like the 17th centuary philosophers ( DeCart or whoever ), saying that it starts with ourselves and our perception of reality. I did play around with that in my 20;s . But it sort of frightened me a bit and made me feel very lonely. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that there is a REAL COSMOS out there. Also that I can wonder at it. Think about its origin . And Generally Speculate about how the Darn thing Works ! Now as regards whether it is a Universe or a Multi Universe I am still thinking about that one . The Theory of Everything that I attempted , was an Attempt as To How The Whole Shooting Match , . The whole Darn Thing came into existence , reality and work. Not probably. REALITY REAL . I mean Utterly Everything. Utterly, utterly Everything. REALITY HOW ? Could it come into existence and work.

No . you need to do the maths ,or some other poor sod . I need to spend my time gazing up at the Cosmos thinking nice thoughts. And trying to work out what the dickens is going on .

Yes I agree, I am sure we are and have been in astrophysics research. That is what I am saying " Use natures own experiments" perhaps that's the wrong word not necessarily "experiments" , more " methods ". " processes " ? Concentrate on producing new Concepts, models, paradymes ( I never get that .....word spelled right ) rather than slogging it out, knee deep in statistical analysis and mind bending, gut churning, headache inducing, pole axing, maths and data. However I suppose there has to be a place for it somewhere ! Just as long as I don't have to do it.

Yes. Well this is sort of what I am getting at, New Modeling. I get the feeling that to make progress in future discovery of the cosmos, we might have to take a bit of a leap in the scientific method. I know this sounds like heracy. But by not necessarily slogging it out with 20 years of statistical analysis just to say " I used the Predictive method of Scientific Proof of theory, ". But to use natures own experiments that are already underway out there in the 'Big wide universe' , Make the observations of 'The Cosmic Molds' or 'Cosmic goals' and make conceptual conclusions. All this as new style stepping stones to an understanding of the Cosmos , rather than slogging it out, knee deep in statistical analysis and mind bending, headache inducing, pole axing, maths and data for 20 years . . I know I have been supporting Wolfhart as a fellow scientist . Where he has his thesis on trying to re establish Einstein " God does not Play Dice" May be " God Does Play Dice " and that is the nature of the cosmos ! And we need to understand the Game. ?

Ok . I see that . But one is going to have to do a lot of leg work to gather those statistics, so as to make the prediction so as to say " I have used the scientific method of prediction ". When surely its easier to say , " The universe is working in a way that is doing these experiments for me , in that star over there, and that other one over there, and the proportion of carbon they have generated is (so and so) , thus by observation of the 'mold' or 'goal' the thing is proved Now ( or soon ) . You will still be doing your statistical observations to gain the data to do, the sums in 20 years time. I am going to include here , the reply I gave to Mr Swansont in his post as I believe the answer to your point is the same. Save me typing it twice EXCEPT FOR THE RELEVANT INSERTS Number of Die, and sides . :-

Marc, I have been meaning to comb through your thesis on Plate Tectonics, but being older now, when I sit in a chair in front of the computer, after a double take read per paragraph, i start to fall asleep after a page or two. That is no reflection on your subject, far from it, I am ' geology up to the nines' ( its an age thing.) Thats why i keep asking contributors to hit me with say ( six sentences that sum the essence all up. ) That's good for your subject anyway. Could you do that with your ' New Take on Plate Tectonics' ( pour moi ) so that I am able to take part or duck as the case may be, "when the action starts"

What happens when :- if its 1 in 2,000,000,000 for say three helium nuclei fusing to become a carbon nuclei inside a star ? or for that matter , the probability of getting a gold nuclei , in a mega sun( 2o-200 times the sun mass ) supernova Here is an example where proof by PROBABILITY would be more favorable than Proof by PREDICTION surely A stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick. ( high on probabilities low on predictions) Could the universes workings be high on PROBABILITIES , low on PREDICTIONS in some areas of modern Physics.? This is well illustrated in the following picture, where the center multi-choice section can be representative of the stick junction or for that matter a region in a star where 2,000,000,000 helium atoms exist in a highly agitated state.

The nearest I have got to this is . That there has to be some form of " Initiative " ( whether animate or inanimate) for anything to occur, however slight or small in intensity, that initiative, must be there, (see 2 & 3 below ) All the probabilities might all be there but not the reality until the initiatives happen, Perhaps spreading like 'wild fire' . Unless of course you are a prime mover, and that slot appears to have been taken. (Viz a Vie) 1 below by Mike Smith Cosmos Something very very very very big coming from nothing, with an initiative .

I am having a bit of a problem at the moment , you's all quoting PREDICTION as the 'B' all and 'END' all, of the scientific test. This when I am trying to propose, in other threads, the invariable presence of GAPS, composed of ,PROBABILITY occurring over and over in the nature of things , and we ought to be looking at a different approach to arriving at solutions in these instants ( the genetic algorithm route for example) or the cosmos being a gigantic mold that everything is working its way into, rather than by strict predictable mathematical paths. We do seem to be getting a bit full with " uncertainty" " forbidden bands" " Exclusion Principle" " Schronigers Cat " " Spooky action at a distance " " non locality " " Dark this " and dark the other " " Left Hand Side ( PREDICTABLE ) Center ( UNPREDICTABLE ) Right Hand Side ( Predictable ) When you have a few of these in series , it is like a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick. It becomes a Total Non Predictable solution, only Statistical , If that. In some cases, perhaps with new future discoveries, it might be better, looking at the final mold and developing a different approach as to what gets into the various parts of the ' total cosmic mold.'

In Line with this moderator request. I was saying :-

I think I might have to leave ( for the time being ) the whole multi-dimentional , Multi-universe aspect for the moment, as I feel its like entering a Delta region of a big river ( not sure which is the main flow to the sea .) You might retort that it is imperative. If so . So be it .I will have to face that one. But I could see myself getting pretty bogged down. However there is a hint of something in that " everything is possible ....bla de bla... " My intuition is that all is possible but only 'so much' becomes reality ,

I do not really have a major problem with what you say here. I just get a bit protective when the temperature gets a bit Too high in my opinion. I have been in engineering and commercial environments where issues discussed get ' very hairy ' I suppose I am more for a quieter life lately. I'll leave you guys to " Beat the stuffing and living daylights out of each other " Give me a call when you are through ! Joking ! ( Just don't pick on me ) Talking of which . I am having a bit of a problem at the moment , you's all quoting PREDICTION as the 'B' all and 'END' all, of the scientific test. This when I am trying to propose, in other threads, the invariable presence of GAPS, composed of ,PROBABILITY occurring over and over in the nature of things , and we ought to be looking at a different approach to arriving at solutions ( the genetic algorithm route for example) or the cosmos being a gigantic mold that everything is working its way into, rather than by strict predictable mathematical paths. We do seem to be getting a bit full with " uncertainty" " forbidden bands" " Exclusion Principle" " Schronigers Cat " " Spooky action at a distance " " non locality " " Dark this " and dark the other " " Left Hand Side ( PREDICTABLE ) Center ( UNPREDICTABLE ) Right Hand Side ( Predictable ) When you have a few of these in series , it is like a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick pushing a stick. It becomes a Total Not Predictable solution, only Statistical , If that. In some cases, perhaps with new future discoveries, it might be better, looking at the final mold and developing a different approach as to what gets into the various parts of the ' total cosmic mold.' Oops. I feel myself lining up for a pasting ! from above ( Just don't pick on me )