The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,651
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Within limitations, trying to reconcile micro and macro
Posted: Nov 10, 2013 6:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Paul Stowe" <> 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(1-ux) ... 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

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

My Answer: Note no-one 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
sub-atomic particles are formed, also foreshorten under the influence of
strengthening gravity until, as in the presence of a 'black-hole'
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 sub-atomic
'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 big-bangs, super-strings, conflicting
mathematical models and such, does the fact of seeing - already twelve or
thirteen billion years ago - galaxies simultaneously twenty-four or
twenty-six billion light-years apart and accelerating not indicate even to
non-scientists a Universal lifetime of, by our temporal measurement, at the
very least twenty-four or twenty-six billion years, and size of at least
twenty-four or twenty-six billion light-years (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 better-informed 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
dark-energy 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...
<> , 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
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 ____
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 <>
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 <>
in ASCII. Did I get it right?
(equ. 52)
Boltzmann k = { [ L*(1+beta) ]^2 } / c = 1.381E-23

(equ. 49)
L = sqrt (h / q_0) = 6.427E-8

k -- Boltzmann's Constant (m-sec)
T -- Temperature (kg-m/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 = 6.673E-11

(Equ. 48)
P = sqrt(h*q_0) / 2 = 5.1546E-27

P -- momenta quanta (kg-m/sec
a -- Fine Structure, dimensionless
mu -- Permeability (what is mu_g?)
h -- Media Action parameter (kg-m^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,

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.