beecee

Sadly, I once upset a student of Philosophy when I quoted "science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:" Bertrand Russell from memory. I love philosophizing myself. I often think whether a BH leads to a ERB [Einstein Rosen Bridge] and wormhole, then to a hypothetical White Hole. eg: Our BB could be a WH and at the arse end of another BH in another universe! 😜 Then as my brain gets further frazzled, I just say WTF and go do some gardening or down the local for a schooner of VB!

Certain wavelengths of light are absorbed, others are reflected which enable us to see it in a colour according to the frequency and/or feel it as heat. This is stretching my knowledge somewhat, but I believe that as electrons absorb photons, and there energy state changes, new photons are emmitted. [Others may like to tidy that up as needed.]

I made that mistake once. The point is that there is no inertial FoR that is valid for light. The best we can say [I think] is that light does not experience time...according to a photon, it can traverse the universe in no time at all.

Last night I watched a BBC produced 2.5 hr documentary from just before Trump was first elected, up to a week or so before the Biden results and latest elections. It was entitled "The Trump Show" https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08svdkn I am now more flabbergasted then ever as to [1] How he was elected in the first place, and [2] How Biden did not win in the proverbial landslide. The 2.5 hr show is in four parts and has interviews with Trump supporters as well as his critics. One that struck me was the interviews with Rudy Giuliani. What a nut!!! How did this bloke ever become a Lawyer? Another part showed Trump and his supporters, including some evangelical Minister, with their hands all on Trump, praying for his survival during the last impeachment proceedings. All in the White House!! Sadly our own Prime Minister is heavily involved with some evangelical, Pentecostal group and by his own admission, often prays for Australia and Trump. Obviously though, he isn't quite as unhinged as Trump!

When I was at school in the fifties, there were three competing models of our universe. They were the BB, Steady State and Oscillating models. If I remember correctly the BB only arose above the other two as more likely, by a serendipitious stroke of luck when Penzias and Wilson discovered the CMBR. I also see the fact that science now accepts the BB as the most likely, [despite the religious/creationist connotations] as a feather in its cap for science and the scientific methodology, in being impartial and going where the evidence took them, despite those connotations. I also believe that these creationists connotations may have been too much for an otherwise great scientist/astronomer in Fred Hoyle, and why he continued to push his Steady State model. And beside the point I made before in that the BB applies to the observable universe, we also as far as I know, still do not have convincing evidence to show whether the universe as a whole, is infinite or finite.

What are you then rationalizing? Last century space was rationalized as nothing. We know better now. It actually forms a four dimensional framework with time, we call spacetime. And both are interchangeable... The BB is the evolution of this space and time [as we know them] Again, as I surmised before, perhaps this quantum foam [which isn't really much anyway] is actually nothing. Perhaps "nothing" as you seem to visualize, is quantum foam, and the inherent instability that goes with it. Again, what do you rationalize to be the answer? PS: It's also alright for science to say we don't know.

If a person is in severe pain and his condition is terminal anyway, he/she should be able to decide that they have had enough, sad as that may be. Which sort of raises another question...A few years ago, my Mum at 86 years of age, who was still living in her own apartment, [not far from my house] and under my care, had a fall. We called the Ambulance and she was transported to Hospital. A couple of days later, I got a call that there was no hope for her survival, and that the medical team needed my OK to switch off life support.

https://phys.org/news/2021-01-mars-chandler.html A combined team of researchers from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology and the Royal Observatory of Belgium, has found evidence that Mars has a Chandler wobble. In their paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the group describes their study of decades of data from Mars probes and what it showed them. Approximately a century ago, astronomer Seth Carlo Chandler discovered that imperfectly round objects (such as planets) sometimes spin off their axis for periods of time. The phenomenon has come to be known as the Chandler wobble, and has been documented for planet Earth, which veers from its axis for distances up to 30 feet in a pattern that repeats approximately every 433 days. Researchers have suggested that other planets likely have a Chandler wobble, but until now, it has never been observed because measuring it on the planet scale requires precise measurements over many years. In this new effort, the researchers obtained the right kind of data from space probes that orbited Mars over many years: The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey. The data from the craft spanned 18 years and was considered to be precise enough to measure any existing Chandler wobble. more at link............................ the paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL090568 Detection of the Chandler Wobble of Mars From Orbiting Spacecraft: Abstract For the first time for any planetary body other than the Earth, the free wobble of the pole called the Chandler wobble has been detected for Mars with a period of 206.9 ± 0.5 days and amplitude of 10 cm from radio tracking observations of Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), in order of decreasing sensitivity. The motion of the rotation pole location on the surface of Mars, or polar motion, is observed using two different approaches: (1) joint global estimates of Mars' orientation and its gravity field and (2) time series solutions of C21 and S21. For Mars interior models, the Chandler wobble period is combined with other measurements including the moments of inertia from our estimated precession rate and tidal Love number k2 = 0.169 ± 0.006. The Chandler wobble period constrains the rheology of the Martian mantle and in particular its long‐term frequency dependence. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I actually thought the Chandler wobble was produced by the gravitational tug of the Moon. It seems that's not exactly right.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble The full explanation for the period also involves the fluid nature of the Earth's core and oceans—the wobble, in fact, produces a very small ocean tide with an amplitude of approximately 6 mm (1⁄4 in), called a "pole tide", which is the only tide not caused by an extraterrestrial body. Because the Earth is not a rigid body, the Chandler wobble should die down with a time constant of about 68 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Also it seems that the Chandler wobble was predicted by Newton in his Principia Mathmatica....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble The existence of Earth's free nutation was predicted by Isaac Newton in Corollaries 20 to 22 of Proposition 66, Book 1 of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and by Leonhard Euler in 1765 as part of his studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> More evidence of the predictive power of science, even going back near 300 years!!!

Where would countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA be without immigration?

Perhaps it's our definition of "nothing" that needs revaluating. It is speculated that the BB was a fluctuation in the quantum foam. Will an observationally verifiable QGT support that? Is the "quantum foam" as close to nothingness as can ever be? in effect, is the quantum foam really "nothing"? Obviously it is this quantum foam [nothing] that is inherently unstable. And I specifically remember reading somewhere about "In quantum theory, if something is not forbidden it will happen" or words to that effect with relation to quantum theory. While obviously still scientifically speculative, it is far more acceptable speculation then other speculative assumptions of how our Universe/space/time came to be.

That's not what happened. Einstein's GR predicted a dynamic universe which went against the general consensus of the time that the Universe was static. He then fudged his equations somewhat with a fabricated cosmological constant that installed the static concept, aligning with the beliefs of the day. Hubble showed in 1925? [verifying George LaMaitre's hypothesis] that the Universe was actually expanding, and the fact that a galaxy's distance was in line with its expansion rate. Einstein then exclaimed the cosmological constant as his greatest blunder. https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+and+hubble&sxsrf=ALeKk032FXo_6b6d5Q5r15PA9T8Yd_cDpQ:1610268911308&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=hGdIvNAXHioD5M%2CryUo-uAKpjXA4M%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQYA9wY4JHKvf468UBadBjA28xGhw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG5s2T_5DuAhUawzgGHbp6BN4Q_h0wAXoECAgQBA&biw=1163&bih=525#imgrc=hGdIvNAXHioD5M

Yeah, that's sad. Yep, I do understand that, which is why I said "near" half. We of course in Australia also have compulsory voting, and while that's not fool proof [nothing stopping a voter from writing on his voting paper whatever he likes] I see it as at least an effort in making sure all eligible voters can and do have their say. I would also agree that the more radical and extremist be the potential voter, the more likely would he/she be to make sure he gets in his man to get his extreme views acted on. So, is compulsory voting the answer?

Observations from an old fart, from down under: Over the last few years, observations by many people in my country have made on American politics range from, [1] four years ago: How the bloody hell did the USA, the leader of the free world elect someone like Trump as their President? [2] After numerous gaffs and outrageous comments over those 4 years, why did his own party persevere with him? [3] Why the more recent unbelievable actions and words by Trump and that other fool acting as his Lawyer, have not immediately been acted upon? Trump, from my observations, has over the last four years, only acted on behalf of the typical reactionary racist redneck in American society. I don't really believe that the near half of Americans that voted for Trump, are typical as defined by the reactionary racist redneck. We have our own right wing perhaps more subtle version of Trump as our Prime Minister. He totally ignores the science for climate change, and also the present pandemic, although thankfully most of our state Premiers have taken in the science and acted to keep it under control. He is condoned because many people [like in the USA, near half] do not accept the fact that short term pain, means long term gain with relation to the Pandemic and climate change. I see it as a "f*&% you, I'm alright Jack" mentality. Those two important factors seem to be somewhat lost in the extreme crazy behaviour of Trump, and his outright attack on American democracy. We have a saying in Australia sometimes used in jocular fashion, when something extraordinary happens in the States, "Only in America" That has been used constantly over the last four years.

Sadly I have not had the pleasure of reading his sequel, but just checked on some reviews, which have prompted me to obtain it. https://www.amazon.com.au/Dark-Sun-Rhodes/dp/0684824140 extract: A dark tale told with gripping intensity....Chilling and brilliant. [The] authoritative and riveting sequel to [the] Pulitzer Prize-winning saga The Making of the Atomic Bomb.-Marcia Bartusiak, The Washington Post Book World Rhodes is a meticulous scholar, yet his tale is as riveting as any suspense thriller, replete with fascinating and bizarre characters, exotic locales, and a cliff-hanging plot. And all of it is true.-Paul Preuss, San Jose Mercury News

Thanks...Just viewed some coverage of the terrible "undemocratic" storming of Capitol Hill. Sad...I feel for the majority of decent US citizens on both sides of the political spectrum, that I guess would be cringing at such goings on.

Thanks for that...makes sense. But then again, why cannot the constitution be changed to suit the times? [Probably also many other areas of it could see the USA benefit by changes]

Can I ask a question here? Why the bloody hell, does the US leave a defeated President in office for 2 months, before installing the bloke [Biden] that defeated him? Is this something to do with the US constitution? I understand that vote counting can take some days or even weeks in certain circumstances, if counting is close...that happens everywhere. I just cannot understand for the life of me, why Trump after losing all his so called challenges, can still linger in that position, and potentially create and pass new laws and legislation that can stifle the incoming President. Can someone please educate me as to this apparent anomaly in US politics?

No probs.

Australia would have even fared much better if not for a couple of monumental mistakes...but essentially. most of what you say is true. ps: You're an Aussie I take it? Tip: If Labor loses the next election under Anthony Albanese, Daniel Andrews will be conscripted to Federal Labor and be the next leader. The incessant criticism and allegations made against his person by the Murdoch press and its cronies, during the Victorian lockdown, and how he never once wavered, says much for the man.

Just found this........................ https://jsystchem.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/1759-2208-2-1 Abstract Though Darwinian theory dramatically revolutionized biological understanding, its strictly biological focus has resulted in a widening conceptual gulf between the biological and physical sciences. In this paper we strive to extend and reformulate Darwinian theory in physicochemical terms so it can accommodate both animate and inanimate systems, thereby helping to bridge this scientific divide. The extended formulation is based on the recently proposed concept of dynamic kinetic stability and data from the newly emerging area of systems chemistry. The analysis leads us to conclude that abiogenesis and evolution, rather than manifesting two discrete stages in the emergence of complex life, actually constitute one single physicochemical process. Based on that proposed unification, the extended theory offers some additional insights into life's unique characteristics, as well as added means for addressing the three central questions of biology: what is life, how did it emerge, and how would one make it? Concluding remarks Darwin's contribution to modern scientific thought is profound and irrevocable. It has forever changed man's view of himself and his place in the universe. By demonstrating the interconnectedness of all living things, Darwin brought a unity and coherence to biology that continues to impact on the subject to this day. But a paradoxical side product of that extraordinary contribution with its specific focus on living things, was that it resulted in a distancing between the biological and the physical sciences, one that continues to afflict the natural sciences. The disturbing result - despite the enormous contribution of the Darwinian theme, Darwinism remains unable to explain what life is, how it emerged, and how living things relate to non-living ones. The challenge therefore is clear. The scientific goal - the relentless striving toward the unification of science - requires that the chasm that divides and separates the biological from the physical sciences be bridged. In this paper we have attempted to demonstrate that by reformulating and incorporating the Darwinian theme within a general physicochemical scheme, one that rests on the concept of dynamic kinetic stability, the animate-inanimate connection can be strengthened. What the general scheme suggests is that life is, first and foremost, a highly complex dynamic network of chemical reactions that rests on an autocatalytic foundation, is driven by the kinetic power of autocatalysis, and has expanded octopus-like from some primal replicative system from which the process of complexification toward more complex systems was initiated. Thus life as it is can never be readily classified and categorized because life is more a process than a thing. In that sense Whitehead's process philosophy [65] with its emphasis on process over substance seems to have been remarkably prescient. Even the identification and classification of separate individual life forms within that ever expanding network seems increasingly problematic. The revelation that the cellular mass that we characterize as an individual human being (you, me, or the girl next door) actually consists of significantly more bacterial cells than human cells (~1014 compared to ~1013) [66], all working together in a symbiotic relationship to establish a dynamic kinetically stable system, is just one striking example of the difficulty. As humans we naturally focus on what we identify as the human component of that elaborate biological network, but that of course is an anthropocentric view, one that has afflicted human thinking for millennia. A description closer the truth would seem to be that life is a sprawling interconnected dynamic network in which some connections are tighter, others looser, but a giant dynamic network nonetheless. And it is life's dynamic character that explains why identifiable individual life forms - small segments of that giant network - can be so fragile, so easy to undermine through network deconstruction, whereas the goal of creating life is such a formidable one. A closing remark concerning life's complexity. Life is complex - that is undeniable. But that does not necessarily mean that the life principle is complex. In fact we would argue that the life principle is in some sense relatively simple! Indeed, simple rules can lead to complex patterns, as studies in complexity have amply demonstrated [67, 68]. So we would suggest that life, from its simple beginnings as some minimal replicating system, and following a simple rule - the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability within replicator space - is yet another example of that fundamental idea. A final comment: this paper has discussed the concept of dynamic kinetic stability in some detail, and the question as to which stability kind - dynamic kinetic or thermodynamic - is inherently preferred in nature, could be asked. There is, of course, no formal answer to this question. In contrast to thermodynamic stability, dynamic kinetic stability is, as noted earlier, not readily quantifiable. Nevertheless an intriguing observation can be made. Since the emergence of life on earth from some initial replicating entity some 4 billion years ago, life has managed to dramatically diversify and multiply, having taken root in almost every conceivable ecological niche. Just the bacterial biomass on our planet alone has been estimated to be some 2.1014 tons, sufficient to cover the earth's land surface to a depth of 1.5 meters [69]. The conclusion seems inescapable - there is a continual transformation of 'regular' matter into replicative matter (permitted by the supply of an almost endless source of energy), suggesting that in some fundamental manner replicative matter is the more 'stable' form. What implications this continuing transformation might have on cosmology in general is beyond both our understanding and the scope of this paper. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Accepting the above, could it simply, scientifically and logically, be seen that Abiogenesis is an axiom and actually self evident?

Can I add something here? The BB model of universal/spacetime evolution applies to the observable universe only. If the following is correct that is and I don't see any reason to doubt it...... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html And of course as mentioned, the BB isn't about how the universe started, just how it evolved from a hot dense state at the quantum/Planck era at t+10-43 seconds. In my layman's opinion, the biggest bit of evidence the BB has going for it, after the CMBR, is how it fits in nicely with GR.

A Greek Angel: An Aussie Angel: I was one of the 38,000 at this extraordinary concert

OK thanks fellas....I like the above statements.