Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Within limitations, trying to reconcile micro and macro
Replies:
4
Last Post:
Nov 14, 2013 12:46 PM



hanson
Posts:
1,651
Registered:
12/13/04


Re: Within limitations, trying to reconcile micro and macro
Posted:
Nov 10, 2013 6:46 PM


"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist@gmail.com> wrote You wrote: .. [(who is you?)] [...] 1. To what degree will the arriving light be shifted there?
My Answer: Both the frequency (f') and intensity (i') shifts from the source to the detector depends upon the attenuation and absorption coefficients of the region it travels thru. Mathematically that's,
f' = fe^ux, I' = ie^ax , If either ux or ax << 1 then f' = f(1ux) ... etc.
2. Does the  to our eyes  extending space also expand to fill the dimension it enters and, if the words can have any relevance here, will such expansion be 'real' or 'apparent'?
My Answer: In my opinion there exists no credible evidence that space expands...
3. If 'real', then do the galaxies that the extending space contains also extend and expand physically in proportion, and, if so, does their mass also increase?
My Answer: Note noone has ever observed galaxies expanding with space
4. Will the light now passing here, always travelling through what to itself is conventional space, eventually be able to catch up with the physical galaxies to the right, even now logically receding from us at many times the speed of light?
My Answer: No, over long enough distances attenuation and absorption will degrade it to nothing
5. Why could it possibly not be that there is indeed here an already complete timeless Universe of inorganic matter, across which our organic matter persists, with the senses that its metabolism provides affording us the impression only of 'the present' with the experiences of 'time' and 'activity'? Why not indeed?
My Answer: It is beyond science at this time to provide a credible answer to the question of the state or fate of the universe.
6. Does space, in such a timeless Universe the single ingredient of which subatomic particles are formed, also foreshorten under the influence of strengthening gravity until, as in the presence of a 'blackhole' singularity, the light cannot then travel fast enough through the compressed space to escape from the vicinity? This would then explain the mechanics of the consequent 'blackness'.
My Answer: There exist in our universe no such thing as atomic or subatomic 'particles'. Instead there exists complex torroidal fluidic structures which have, again, in my opinion, been misidentified as 'particles'.
7. And, asking from profound bewilderment, in the likely event that we are not in fact slap bang in the precise centre of everything, and irrespective of any prejudice to vested interest in bigbangs, superstrings, conflicting mathematical models and such, does the fact of seeing  already twelve or thirteen billion years ago  galaxies simultaneously twentyfour or twentysix billion lightyears apart and accelerating not indicate even to nonscientists a Universal lifetime of, by our temporal measurement, at the very least twentyfour or twentysix billion years, and size of at least twentyfour or twentysix billion lightyears (instead of the more probable sixty or seventy or  with that acceleration  by now 960 billion)?  And if so, then how and why is the notion of the much more recent 'big bang' so willingly embraced by the betterinformed scientific community? Or are they just waiting for some mathematician to put the evident facts into algebraic terms so they can all then agree without fear of questioning from the hoi polloi? And, incidentally, would such expansion and the effect of such acceleration not be involved in the question of the alleged elusive darkenergy and matter? Or,
My Opinion: Most of current cosmological thinking is pure fantasy, blind men groping the Elephant...
8. Does the writer have entirely the wrong end of the cosmological stick?
Keep asking questions... you might find this of interest... <http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237> , Regards, Paul Stove. > > hanson wrote: Stowe, old pal, it's good ton have you back. Great tripe! A "Yes" on your last line in your para 7 above, and on your para 8, I say "No" because of the human aspects in cosmology which touch a deep archaic and evolutionary response in most of us, which amounts to: ** Cosmology is the greatest story ever told ** All religions contain cosmological aspects.. 'nugh said? > OTOH **Reality**?. That's altogether a very different bag. Some views of it are outright bizarre and insane and perverted like the Gedanken farts of Einstein et.al with his hordes of Einstein Dingleberries who carry on with their worship of Albert's sphincter even now, 60+ years after ___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____ <http://tinyurl.com/EinsteindeniedhisSRandGR> > Einstein's contributions to physics are what his fellow kike Pablo Picasso's contributions were to fine art, be they notions that Time & Space produce Spacetime, or the torn and twisted human faces painted by Picasso. > Now Stowe, in your <http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf> on page 9 you say: "We have also discovered new physical relationships such as how Boltzmann's constant is defined by Planck's action, charge, and light speed. This model removes all arbitrarily defined units providing both Temperature (°K) and charge (q) with fundamental dimensions of mass, length, and time." > So Paul, I rewrote your *.pdf equations of interest in your <http://vixra.org/pdf/1310.0237v1.pdf> in ASCII. Did I get it right? > (equ. 52) Boltzmann k = { [ L*(1+beta) ]^2 } / c = 1.381E23
(equ. 49) L = sqrt (h / q_0) = 6.427E8
k  Boltzmann's Constant (msec) T  Temperature (kgm/sec^3 q  Elemental charge, Coulomb (kg/sec) L  Interaction Length (m c  Wave propagation speed (m/sec) beta  v/c dimensionless gamma  Frequency (1/sec)
===== and ======
(Equ. 54) G = [a * P * c * (mu_g)^2] / 2 * pi * [ L* (1+beta) ]^3 = 6.673E11
(Equ. 48) P = sqrt(h*q_0) / 2 = 5.1546E27
P  momenta quanta (kgm/sec a  Fine Structure, dimensionless mu  Permeability (what is mu_g?) h  Media Action parameter (kgm^2/sec) > I asked you this so that we can discuss the items that interest me in a common format. Thanks and take care, Paul, hanson



