A small change to the theory of gravity implies that our universe inherited its arrow of time from the black hole in which it was born.
"Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe." So concludes Nikodem Poplawski at Indiana University in a remarkable paper about the nature of space and the origin of time.
The idea that new universes can be created inside black holes and that our own may have originated in this way has been the raw fodder of science fiction for many years. But a proper scientific derivation of the notion has never emerged.
Today Poplawski provides such a derivation. He says the idea that black holes are the cosmic mothers of new universes is a natural consequence of a simple new assumption about the nature of spacetime.
Poplawski points out that the standard derivation of general relativity takes no account of the intrinsic momentum of spin half particles. However there is another version of the theory, called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of gravity, which does.
This predicts that particles with half integer spin should interact, generating a tiny repulsive force called torsion. In ordinary circumstances, torsion is too small to have any effect. But when densities become much higher than those in nuclear matter, it becomes significant. In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole.
That's interesting for a number of reasons. First, it has important implications for the way the Universe must have grown when it was close to its minimum size.
Astrophysicists have long known that our universe is so big that it could not have reached its current size given the rate of expansion we see now. Instead, they believe it grew by many orders of magnitude in a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, a process known as inflation.
The problem with inflation is that it needs an additional theory to explain why it occurs and that's ugly. Poplawski's approach immediately solves this problem. He says that torsion caused this rapid inflation.
That means the universe as we see it today can be explained by a single theory of gravity without any additional assumptions about inflation.
Another important by-product of Poplawski's approach is that it makes it possible for universes to be born inside the event horizons of certain kinds of black hole. Here, torsion prevents the formation of a singularity but allows a HUGE energy density to build up, which leads to the creation of particles on a massive scale via pair production followed by the expansion of the new universe.
This is a Big Bang type event. "Such an expansion is not visible for observers outside the black hole, for whom the horizon's formation and all subsequent processes occur after infinite time," says Poplawski.
For this reason, the new universe is a separate branch of space time and evolves accordingly.
Incidentally, this approach also suggests a solution to another of the great problems of cosmology: why time seems to flow in one direction but not in the other, even though the laws of physics are time symmetric.
Poplawski says the origin of the arrow of time comes from the asymmetry of the flow of matter into the black hole from the mother universe. "The arrow of cosmic time of a universe inside a black hole would then be fixed by the time-asymmetric collapse of matter through the event horizon," he says.
In other words, our universe inherited its arrow of time from its mother.
He says that daughter universes may inherit other properties from their mothers, implying that it may be possible to detect these properties, providing an experimental proof of his idea.
Theories of everything don't get much more ambitious than this. Entertaining stuff!
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587: Cosmology With Torsion - An Alternative To Cosmic Inflation
Comments
Wow. The only thing remarkable about Nikodem Poplawski's paper is that such pseudoscientific hogwash can originate from an institution of higher learning in this day and age. I say, shame on the University of Indiana. The very idea of a black hole is based on the concept of continuity, an idea that is not only illogical (it leads to an infinite regress), but is not even scientific in the Popperian sense of falsification. Even Einstein, Mr. Continuity himself, had doubts about continuity.
Worst of all is the idea that somehow time has a direction of flow, i.e., an arrow. The idea that we are moving in time in one direction or another is a conceptual disaster. Why? Because time cannot change by definition. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens" (source: Conjectures and Refutations). Absolutely nothing can move in spacetime for this reason. Why isn't Poplawski aware of this fact and how did his Star-Trek voodoo physics paper pass peer review? This is truly a sad commentary on the state of modern physics. This stuff is not even wrong.
The problem with the physics community is that theirs is an incestuous science that has been spawning hideous monstrosities for some time now. Their bunker mentality (the public is stupid and is the enemy) prevents them from considering other points of view, especially views that contradict their worldview. They have completely abandoned the search for a foundational understanding of nature and they insist on building up on their erroneous assumptions. Physicists do not even understand motion and yet they feel confident enough to create all sorts of silliness like wormholes, multiple universes and time travel. How dare they think that they are qualified to teach us about the origin of the universe when they are wallowing in ignorance about the most basic aspects of the universe?
Ask a physicist to explain why two bodies in relative inertial motion remain in motion and you'll come face to face with abject ignorance. Vast and profound ignorance is the norm in the physics community.
Let me add that I am deeply disappointed that publications like TR are still printing such pseudoscientific fairy tales under the banner of legitimate science. Paul Feyrabend was right when he wrote in Against Method, "[...]the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society." He might as well have been writing about physicists like Nikodem Poplawski.
Who will rise up to deliver us from this mountain of cr@p?
Mapou
07/13/2010
Posts:209
At this stage, theoretical physics must revisit the foundation again and sort out the mountain of problems accumulated because of the acceptance of invalid theories. Why we have to give massive amount of research money to these "researchers" who do not think or cannot think.
Einstein correctly claimed that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. How to do that? Astoundingly these "intellectual elites" of academic physics can not figure out. Even a good computer science student in middle school will figure it out in several minutes. At a point on the track, at 12:00 a light signal is flashed. At a point x km away from this point, we set the clock to 12:00+x/c when this signal is observed.
Now we can show that Poincre symmetry fails! A person in a moving train can look at the closest clock and measure the time of the track. He can look at the clock far away to measure the time of the track's time. They do not agree. So, time as per Einstein (time as clock reading) is not invariant under the geometric translation.
This is just a beginning of a whole bunch of troubles coming. By reading clocks right in front of them two observers on the train can observe the same time on the ground for the same time for the ground. So, Einstein's loss of simultaneity result is false.
It is ironic as Einstein used clock reading to interpret SR's time dilation. He correctly observed that we can place synchronised clocks along the track in his defense to the effect of Doppler's effect on time as clocks. A clock moving towards you will appear to speed up for you and it will appear slowing down when it is moving away from you. In the end, it backfired showing that his loss of simultaneity is false.
Indeed, Einstein's own thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity also deduces the negation of the loss of simultaneity. Assume a train runs on a track: when a passenger on the train is on the bisector of AB lighting strikes A and B. Using classical reasoning, Einstein correctly concluded that the observer will see that A and B are hit at different time. But he missed yet another possibility. According to the constancy of the speed of light, A and B are hit at the same time for this observer. This is because the speed and path of light has nothing to do with the motion of the emitter of light.
All of this simply shows that SR is logically inconsistent. Astoundingly those academic experts on SR seem to have some difficulty in understanding correct event and frame analysis in SR.
Many experts asked when I said the A and B are hit at the same time, in which frame? These experts have obvious double standard. They had no question when Einstein used the same setting to prove the loss of simultaneity. When I use it to show that simultaneity is preserved, all of sudden this assumption of Einstein becomes a problem. Quite a science, is it not? Any how Einstein was correct. The timing of A and B hit by lightning is in the frame of the track. Einstein then went on to investigate what happens when this observer on the train observes it.
To dismiss all of these contradictions, contemporary physicists deployed a diversion which uses nonphysical interpretation of inertial frames. They do not assume that inertial frames are moving relative to each other. They just assume that inertial frames are bundles placed locally in the 4D manifold of space time. They just consider Lorentz Transformations over the bundle of inertial frames. When I asked them, then what is v in Lorentz Transformations, they said that v is just a number. They did not know that this makes Lorenz transformation have physical dimension.
After all, what? black holes? Why we have to listen to these people who did not understand that the argument for black holes used a theory which is invalid as it is inconsistent?
I think that theoretical physicists should revisit the issues towards the end of the 19Th century and redo everything done since then in theoretical physics.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/13/2010
Posts:372
Why not put some time into actually solving the mysteries of the universe (which you seem so keen to uncover), rather than cutting down anybody who stumbles across a new idea.
You insist that one theory must be proven false, simply because another theory cannot be proven true? The fact is, even the greatest minds are limited by their society, technology and resources. The only way for scientific thought to progress is to open your mind to new ideas...
If you have any answers to how our universe was actually created, please share them... If not, please allow people to explore possibilities.
oli
07/14/2010
Posts:2
SR is a theory which proves both the loss of simultaneity and its negation. It also proves Length contraction and its negation. It indeed proves anything as virtue of inconsistent theories.
There is no point in discussion the cosmology. Go back to the foundation and sort out the problems there first.
What I am saying is nothing new. Many decent physicists felt that something was very wrong with cosmology and they said, "When we heard the word "universe" it is time to leave."
What do we know about the way how gravitational force travels? I asked this question to astronomers and cosmologists. I asked if the gravitation travels in exactly the same path with exactly the same speed. None of them gave me answer. They all said in the end they did not know.
Then I told them that unless this is the case, we have no understanding of the universe. This is because the optical locations of stars and gravitational locations of stars are different.
They called me "lunatic fringe" instead of giving me answer.
They called me "crank" when I asked them the following question: According to GR, space curves due to the distribution of masses in the universe. To figure out how the space is curved, we have to measure the distance between stars. To measure this, we have to know how the space is curves in between stars. We have come a full circle.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
It would be more like 12+p & 12+x/c+p.Where p is the signal processing time.
The relativity equation is tA-tB=t'A-tB and visa versa. (I know you know, just saying it for others) Its a theoretical equation meaning the clocks are infact the same (or begin at the same point). Like entangled clocks if you wish.
Or you have to take into consideration different transport mediums, space one way is not the same as space the other way. You cannot measure this difference in real-time.
The equation also proves no two clocks can be (considered) synchronous if they do not start at the same time/point or are not the same clock.
So technically setting 12+p & 12+p+x/c is wrong.
The only time the equation makes sense in measuring the time is when the clocks come back togther again. That is when the true time difference is real.
I don't understand the physics behind the universe, but i can see where the great minds are coming from.
Its impossible to set two clocks (perfectly) that are apart to be synchronous. Close enough is good enough for me though mostly...
Its one reason the synchronous clock experiment occurred by setting the clocks while together (on the ground) and then measuring them together at its end (after one flies around the world).
This interpretation agreed fully with the equation and so we got an accurate reading of relativity. Anything short of this would have been considered short-sighted.
mattgroom
08/07/2010
Posts:198
to name just a few areas of science that were considered "crack-pottery" at one time. Sign of a good scientist always keep an open mind until the theory is dis-proven.
gblaze44
07/13/2010
Posts:38
best regards
AKT
AKT
07/13/2010
Posts:372
goggs
07/14/2010
Posts:1
Respond scientifically to what I posted:
*************************************
Continuous or not, the theories which support the contemporary cosmology are mostly inconsistent. So, only a fool will waste time with this kind of nonsense.
At this stage, theoretical physics must revisit the foundation again and sort out the mountain of problems accumulated because of the acceptance of invalid theories. Why we have to give massive amount of research money to these "researchers" who do not think or cannot think.
Einstein correctly claimed that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. How to do that? Astoundingly these "intellectual elites" of academic physics can not figure out. Even a good computer science student in middle school will figure it out in several minutes. At a point on the track, at 12:00 a light signal is flashed. At a point x km away from this point, we set the clock to 12:00+x/c when this signal is observed.
Now we can show that Poincre symmetry fails! A person in a moving train can look at the closest clock and measure the time of the track. He can look at the clock far away to measure the time of the track's time. They do not agree. So, time as per Einstein (time as clock reading) is not invariant under the geometric translation.
This is just a beginning of a whole bunch of troubles coming. By reading clocks right in front of them two observers on the train can observe the same time on the ground for the same time for the ground. So, Einstein's loss of simultaneity result is false.
It is ironic as Einstein used clock reading to interpret SR's time dilation. He correctly observed that we can place synchronised clocks along the track in his defense to the effect of Doppler's effect on time as clocks. A clock moving towards you will appear to speed up for you and it will appear slowing down when it is moving away from you. In the end, it backfired showing that his loss of simultaneity is false.
Indeed, Einstein's own thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity also deduces the negation of the loss of simultaneity. Assume a train runs on a track: when a passenger on the train is on the bisector of AB lighting strikes A and B. Using classical reasoning, Einstein correctly concluded that the observer will see that A and B are hit at different time. But he missed yet another possibility. According to the constancy of the speed of light, A and B are hit at the same time for this observer. This is because the speed and path of light has nothing to do with the motion of the emitter of light.
All of this simply shows that SR is logically inconsistent. Astoundingly those academic experts on SR seem to have some difficulty in understanding correct event and frame analysis in SR.
Many experts asked when I said the A and B are hit at the same time, in which frame? These experts have obvious double standard. They had no question when Einstein used the same setting to prove the loss of simultaneity. When I use it to show that simultaneity is preserved, all of sudden this assumption of Einstein becomes a problem. Quite a science, is it not? Any how Einstein was correct. The timing of A and B hit by lightning is in the frame of the track. Einstein then went on to investigate what happens when this observer on the train observes it.
To dismiss all of these contradictions, contemporary physicists deployed a diversion which uses nonphysical interpretation of inertial frames. They do not assume that inertial frames are moving relative to each other. They just assume that inertial frames are bundles placed locally in the 4D manifold of space time. They just consider Lorentz Transformations over the bundle of inertial frames. When I asked them, then what is v in Lorentz Transformations, they said that v is just a number. They did not know that this makes Lorenz transformation have physical dimension.
After all, what? black holes? Why we have to listen to these people who did not understand that the argument for black holes used a theory which is invalid as it is inconsistent?
I think that theoretical physicists should revisit the issues towards the end of the 19Th century and redo everything done since then in theoretical physics.
******************************************
If you have any criticism or question, let me know.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
Shootist
07/15/2010
Posts:31
If you have objection, just start discussion if you can, my friend.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
mawhite
07/13/2010
Posts:1
I happen to know that the reason that physicists still don't understand why the universe is probabilistic is that they are handicapped by their belief (mostly because of Einstein's influence) in the existence of a time dimension, a concept that is trivially easy to falsify. The number of things that are wrong with Einstein's physics are so numerous that it boggles the mind it is still considered one of the greatest achievements of 20th century science. Shame, really.
The fact is that Einstein has shot physics in the foot and got everybody chasing after a red herring for a hundred years. Fortunately, this is the beginning of the end of the Einstein era. Sooner than you think.
Mapou
07/13/2010
Posts:209
Popper presented no "method". Your statement is nothing but the manifestation of the intellectual challenge of physicists who cannot think. Logical consistency is a most fundamental principle in human intellectual activity. Physics is not science it is just a cult.
Assume that a train runs on a track.when a passenger on the train is on the right bisector of AB lightning hits both A and B. Einstein correctly concluded that this observer will see that A and B are hit at different moment. Thus he declared the loss of simultaneity. I added another possibility for this situation. This observer will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment because according to the CSL the light path and the light speed is independent of the motion of the emitter of light.
According to Einstein, all thought experiments he used to frame SR are invalid due to the light cone interpretation.
Mental illness is not science.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/13/2010
Posts:372
Also, you present the thought experiment in a confusing manner. Would you mind presenting it in a clearer form? Note, you mention that Einstein "correctly" concluded that the passenger sees A and B get struck at different moments? Or perhaps you mean that it is easy to imagine two different frames where the two events do not occur simultaneously. Further, after judging Einstein to be "correct" you then go ahead and present an alternate possibility, based on CSL (what is that?).
Please help make the discussion more intelligent by being as precise as possible, thanks.
- Uppergraduate Physics Student
Brin
07/14/2010
Posts:5
My presentation of the thought experiments is more precise than original Einstein's. If you have difficulty, let me refer you yo a contradiction which appears at more developed stage.
Transformation of waves as mathematical functions leads to an equation
v_g =c^2/w.
This means that unless the group speed v_g has the same value as the value of the phase speed w, in which case both of them have value c, either v_g or w must exceeds c. This contradicts to the SR's claim that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.
Moreover, we know that sound waves have the same value for phase speed and group speed and the speed is less than c.
Best regards,
AKT.
P.S. If you still want the explanation of the thought experiments, let me know. I will explain themin more details.
Also be reminded that your textbook is written by those who do not know what they are talking about. They did not see anything wrong with SR. They thought the troubles will go away bu intimidation, name calling and blackmailing.
AKT
07/14/2010
Posts:372
Rcomian
07/14/2010
Posts:1
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
There are other chapters before and after it that preface and further explain, but this is where it is drawn down.
icecycle66
07/15/2010
Posts:2
cgrayce
07/15/2010
Posts:2
Poplawski is probably brainwashed, indoctrinated, educated stupid and cannot comprehend Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Perpetual Time Cube Creation.
When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 - major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth - known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minorTime points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown.
The 4-equidistant Time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24 hour Days within a single rotation of Earth - equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
Ignorance of the Time Cube is evil.
Tareeq
07/15/2010
Posts:1
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
Rotating your square 3 times and including the start does make a total of 16 corners for all 4 squares positions. The day is still 24 hours, which can be viewed only by you as different ...because you are special. If you have a square representing 24 hours and it has 4 corners and it is rotated 4 times, 1 rotation is 24 hours, 2 is 48 hours...and 4 rotations is 96. 4 rotations is 4 days...
What was your last part about being high? Joking Have fun, i enjoyed the test. There are some nice mathematical puzzles for the mind that baffle me, when you add this, multiply this do this and this is your number. Im like omg how did you do that.
mattgroom
08/07/2010
Posts:198
This poster should learn mathematics before he insults himself in public in this way. He knows little about continuum or continuity. The set of rational numbers is not continuum. It is a countable set. Yet it has what mathematicians call "density". In between two rational numbers x <y, we always find yet another rational number. So, we go into infinite regress.
Einstein did not understand what continuum is at all. Virtually no physicists understadn what it is. They think that a fuction f(x)=x+5 moves point 1 to point 6 on real number line. If you move 1 to 6 where 6 will go? should 6 go to 1? ... If 1 goes to 6 and 6 goes to 1, then the real number line is not continuum anymore.
So, what makes the real number line continuum? It is beyond those people who learned mathematics through proof by examples. Each subset of real numbers which is bouned upward (or down ward) has a least upper bound (or greatest lower bound). This property aka the completeness of real numbers make real number line continuum. I do not think any teoretical physicists really understood this elementary fact of pure mathematics.
After all, mathematicians have no culture and time to insult each other calling each other "crank", "crackpot" etc. I reckon that theoretical physics is where these mediocre minds who think too much of themselves learn how to be nasty to each other.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/17/2010
Posts:372
niebieskie...
07/17/2010
Posts:6
you have a very newtonian view of things. Even the most sceptical person realises if you travel on a train travelling at c and walk up it at 1/2c you are only doing 90% of c(einstein equation) and not 1.5c as newtonian physics predicts.
Most people understand time/motion/direction etc. A few understand it in relativistic terms and a few understand it all. Im not one of those that understand relativity, becuase i can never compare myself to someone with an iq that frankly makes mine look like a cats. I can make proposals is all, they may be right, they may be wrong...
As a note for you i postulate:
1. time is destroyed/created when matter is converted to energy and back again.
2. Every particle has a different age.
It would be nice if these were reasonable and i could consider myself to have a genius level iq( :) ). But alas in front of the greats i am but a worm and i hope i dont get trod on.
mattgroom
08/07/2010
Posts:198
I mean, c'mon all those badass physicist saw too much startrek and stargate and now they jump with idiotic ideas. I'm no physicist but I like to think about myself as a person possessing common sense.
Worst of all is that websites like these (T R or Newscientist) are decaying to this level.
ano.nimul
07/13/2010
Posts:1
darthearkl...
07/13/2010
Posts:1
http://www.trueliberty.us/Act_IX_The_Occurrence_of_Singularities_in_Space.html
The expansion of the universe is caused by pressure release and space-limit recoil.
icecycle66
07/15/2010
Posts:2
howiem
07/13/2010
Posts:11
best regards
AKT
AKT
07/13/2010
Posts:372
howiem
07/13/2010
Posts:11
Matter once passing the event horizon of a black hole becomes infintly dense. matter converts to pure energy.
Mater once passing the event horizon seperates from the rest of the universe. Eg. becomes a new universe.
Big bang
Pure energy converts into matter (hydrogen)
Gravity creates stars, stars create all other forms of matter.
If all the laws of physics breakdown inside a black hole, how can you say with any certainty that anything happens or doesn't happen. it all looks great on paper but what experimental evidence do you have for anything past the event horizon. I have yet to hear of anyone measuring Hawking radiation...
Being myopic is not your fault it is your teachers.
geoff
07/13/2010
Posts:4
rsanchez1
07/13/2010
Posts:127
Newton claimed that in this universe all we see are blackholes.
Best regards
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
The fact that you can write this sentence as if it were the most obvious thing in the world is a sad commentary on the state of physics as a science. Why doesn't the expression 'infinitely dense' immediately ring a thousand alarm bells in your mind? Why is it not instantly flagged as nonsense? I'll tell you why? It's because you have been so brainwashed with crackpottery by the so-called scientific authorities that you never stop to consider that infinity might be pure unmitigated hogwash. Well it is. Anything with infinity as part of the explanation is bogus because infinity is a bogus concept.
The reasons for the 'bogosity' of infinity are so trivial, it is a crying shame that the scientific community is still talking about it as a possibility. What the hell is going on in the physics community? Has it become possessed by a powerful spirit of stupidity and incompetence?
One wonders but the truth is that someone has to continually cast doubt on the lessons being taught and question the teachers. Otherwise we are doomed as a species. Science is not served by debunking astrologers and snake oil peddlers but by debunking the scientists themselves. And, from the looks of it, there is a lot of debunking to be done.
Mapou
07/13/2010
Posts:209
Thanks.
Brin
07/14/2010
Posts:5
Another reason is that any finite quantity is infinitely small compared to an infinitely large quantity, which is a contradiction.
Simple, really. However, you can always count on mathematicians and others with a hidden agenda to obfuscate the hell out of it and try to pull a wool over your eyes.
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
For example, the probability of picking an even number from all natural numbers is 1/2.
Think of an interval [0,1]. Assume f is a function defined as follows:
f(x)=0 if x is a rational number
1 if x is an irrational number.
Then INT_[0,1]f(x)dx = 1.
Please learn pure mathematics before you venture into this kind of things. The distinction between finite and infinite is something which cannot be understood without going through basic discipline of mathematics. Unlike physics, mathematics is an extremely well thought discipline. Most of the results in pure mathematics are solid. There are problems to which mathematicians have not answer yet. We are honest about it. We do not call those who ask about these questions "crank".
I am a recursion theorists and so, the issue of finite and infinite has been always the issue in my mathematical activity. I can tell you that you still have a lot to learn about mathematics before you jump into premature conclusion.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
Mapou
07/15/2010
Posts:209
The problem with you is that you do not understand what is infinity. For you infinity is something which is not finite. Then you complain that infinity does not satisfy the propery of finite ojects. Please learn to think logically.
Mathematics is not something which can be understood in the way American students have been taught. There is no such thing as proof by examples.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
Yeah, sure. The difference between you and me is that you're trying to score points with (kiss the @ss of) the physics community but I am not. This is why you write stupid things like the above. I just dumped you in the same snake oil bucket that I dumped Nicodem Poplawski and his buddies.
Mapou
07/18/2010
Posts:209
The difference between you and me is that you do not know what infinite means. You do not know what finite means either. Only mathematicians working in foundation of mathematics really know the difference.
Just for your information: if you are interested in one third probability, just choose multiples of three from natural numbers.
To understand the intricate connection between finite and infinite in mathematics, you should start learning measure theory as I said. For example, on the real number line there are infinitely many points between 1 and 2. Yet the length of this interval is 1. Why this happens is what measure theory is about.
More interestingly, we can show that the open interval (0,1) has precisely the same number of points as the set of real numbers.
You "attack" physicist and mathematicians without just reason. You do not know what you are talking about. What you are doing is not even an attack on physics or mathematics. It is just an attack on yourslef. Please keep attacking your self.
Yours sincerely,
AKT
AKT
07/18/2010
Posts:372
Mapou
07/22/2010
Posts:209
Just for your information.
There are three kinds of infinity accepted by mathematicians. Two of them are equivalent.
One third of infinity is a illconceived concept. Unless you learn mathematics properly you keep asking this type of embarrasing questions!
As I said, you have to use measure theory to put your issue into the correct mathematical context. it is unfortunate that your arrogance blocks you to humble yourslef and learn things properly.
I showed you that the probability of picking even number from the set of all natural number is 1/2. I also told you just because I know you have no capacity to go further on your own from here, that the probability of picking a multiple of 3 from the set of all nutural number is 1/3. Probablly your are so bright that you need not to be told what happens when you calculate the probability of picking multiple of 7 is.
Probalility theory is not limited to the finite universe. Only those who did not learn mathematics beyond secondary school probability theory are trapped in this finite universe of events. Depending upon the nature of the infinte event universe, some times we suceed defining probability and sometimes we do not.
Mathematics is not for a terribly trivial mind as you know quite well. It requires a little more than simple mind to understand mathematics.
You mentioned fighting filthy war of insults to defend your theory. I am sure you have a wonderful "theory" to defend considering the fact that you have no idea at all about what is finite and what is infinite.
In Japan we have asaying: "Asking a question is an embarrasement for a moment. But not knowing is a life time embarrasement." Of course, as a memebr of the old world, Japan is not a land of instant experts. We make sure that students make due effort to learn things properly.
When I was teaching combinatorics in a mid western University of America, just after I finished my Ph.D. in UK, I was shocked because when I presented a proof using mathematical induction, a student raised his hand and complained that I used what I was supposed to prove. My colleague from Tecnhion just smiled and told me that he was a good student. He at least noticed that. Oh yes, I learned that there is such thing as proof by examples in this land of instant experts.
I found that the mathematics of physicists is appauling. But I noticed that they are still better than most of the dissidents.
When it comes to you, you are just arrogant and not terribly smart. You have primitive fixed ideas which you think are great and you try to defend it with vengence breaking all code of conducts which inetlligent people accept. We are here not to engage in personal attacks as you have been doing with Uncle Al. We are here to learn from each other. it is unfortunate that there seems to be nothing we can learn from your isolated bigoted irrational world of "finite". Please learn what finite means mathematically. They you may have some chance of learnig some thing about mathematics.
Best reagrds,
AKT
AKT
07/22/2010
Posts:372
Mapou
07/24/2010
Posts:209
Regards
AKT
AKT
07/24/2010
Posts:372
Albert Einstein in [Geometry and Experience, 1921]:
"As far of the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Therefore you shouldn't argument with pure formal model at physical forum, with infinity the less as physics doesn't operate with unmeasurable quantities. Use nonformal logical model instead.
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
If you use mathematics you should understand it. The problem with physics is that it uses mathematics which they do not understand at all.
Dr Broglie showed that SR proves
v_g = c^2/w
where v_g and w are group speed and phase speed of waves.
Mathematically this is the end of SR. It shows that unless v_g = w = c, either w or v_g must exceed c.
Moreover, for sound wave v_g = w and it is not c.
Physicists are all fools who think too much of themselves. No excuse for false theories and false claims.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
One plus one will always two. Add one and you have three. Etc, etc.
What am I missing here?
anc
07/15/2010
Posts:1
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
Finite and infinite are very elaborate concepts which very few theoretical physicists really understand.
Think about that amusing chap. He complains that infinite is bad because it lead us to infinite regression. This is what normal people call vicious circle, or infinite regression. He complains infinite regression using argument which involves infinite regression.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/25/2010
Posts:372
Think about Boolean algebra. we have 1+1=0. Does this make Boolean algebra invalid. No. We know the algebra itself is consistent as it has two elements in the universe of interpretation. This does not contradict number theory as the meaning of 1, 0 and addition is different.
However, careless usage of infinity can lead quickly to contradictions. But does it matter for physics. I now understand physicist are the unique species who think that they are above logic.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
luddite
07/13/2010
Posts:82
HarrisTwee...
07/13/2010
Posts:1
luddite
07/13/2010
Posts:82
Einstein would disagree and so would Stephen Hawking and most physicists. After all, spacetime is not spacetime unless there is a time dimension. And, besides, did not Hawking write an entire book on the history of time? Are you calling Einstein and Hawking morons? LOL.
Ok. If you're not brave enough to do it, let me do it for you. Yes, Einstein was a moron in many profound and significant ways and his influence on physics has retarded progress in the field by at least a century. So there you go. And what can be said about Einstein's cheerleaders? Don't get me started.
How Einstein Shot Physics in the Foot
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
As I keep saying science is not to worship big names. Both Einstein and Hawkins are guilty of promotong theories which are logocally inconsistent and building a Sapnish Castle upon the dung heap of inconsistent theories.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
I don't think Einstien ever claimed that time was a real thing. Rather, he simply pointed out, that it could be used mathematically, as a dimension, to descibe the universe, which is a real thing.
But many cultists have twisted his words.
One thing : the "arrow of time" seems to be activating my "arrow of BS".
Xiaoding
07/15/2010
Posts:3
I don't think Einstien ever claimed that time was a real thing. Rather, he simply pointed out, that it could be used mathematically, as a dimension, to descibe the universe, which is a real thing.
But many cultists have twisted his words.
One thing : the "arrow of time" seems to be activating my "arrow of BS".
Xiaoding
07/15/2010
Posts:3
Stop apologizing for Einstein's crackpottery. Nobody's fooled. Einstein certainly presented the geometry of spacetime (spacetime curvature) as the explanation of gravity. Look it up. The recorded history of Einstein's ideas on physics cannot be erased.
Mapou
07/15/2010
Posts:209
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/18/2010
Posts:372
mela
07/13/2010
Posts:2
mela
07/13/2010
Posts:2
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif
Torsion has different outputs given left-handed versus right-handed inputs. Right-handed screws are only driven in clockwise. A left foot cannot be detected by a pair of socks or a left shoe. A right shoe gives a different result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_tensor#Characterizations_and_interpretations
Given spacetime torsion, opposite shoes will not vacuum free fall identically - parallel displaced paths and same rates of fall versus time. This is testable to one part in 20 trillion difference/average
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/erotor1.jpg
The experiment, in existing apparatus
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
The structural explanation, with pictures.
Somebody should look. The worst it can do is succeed.
UncleAl
07/13/2010
Posts:90
Postulated process: Black Hole - Big Bang +
matter, infinite compression, conversion to pure energy, space time rip, energy decompresses, matter forms, left or right handed....
Please speak plainly in english some of us are not "Teckno Mages" or Latinos or Geeks...
geoff
07/13/2010
Posts:4
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/13/2010
Posts:372
"Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe."
"In particular, says Poplawski, torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole."
If our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing in another universe, AND torsion prevents the formation of singularities inside a black hole, THEN how can singularities exist in our own Universe IF it is the interior of a black hole existing in another universe?
??
Netizen
07/13/2010
Posts:67
Gurthang
07/13/2010
Posts:36
Is what is happening inside a black hole physics?
Do not tell me that the prediction is purely mathematical. The mathematics used here is invalid. It is inconsistent mathematics which is used. No mathematicians will take inconsistent theory seriously.
Physicists should complain that this kind of work has nothing to do with decent physics. As a mathematician, I complain that this is not mathematics. What is it then?
Best regards,
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
xRedfox69x
07/13/2010
Posts:3
Where's the humility in these posts? How does everyone here become so confident as to exclaim that they know the truth?
I see a lot of nay-saying without justification. At least propose an article, an author, a book even that one could read for justification.
Brin
07/14/2010
Posts:5
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
When one violates this most fundamental principle in human intellectual activity, he ends up with all kind of anomalies and contradictions as such nonsense proves "anything". He starts to live in mad house.
Then to defend his "ideas" he becomes ruthless personal attackers, blackmailers etc. He has no other way to "defend" his ideas. These people are so certain that they are on the right that they start to believe that everybody else is "moron", "idiot", "uneducatable" ... and tell him to go away or does anything to let him go away.
Prof. Herbert Dingle lost his professional and social life after he questioned SR. Prof. Dr. Paul Marmet of Laval University, Order of Canada, lost his profession after he presented an alternative to SR. Cambridge cosmologists Prof. Dr. Magueijo wrote in his book "Faster than the speed of light" that criticising relativity theory was equivalent to academic suicide for academic physicists.
There are tons of mathematicians who are way more intelligent than the "geniuses" of physics. The intellectual capacity of the "geniuses" in physics is likely lower than that of good undergraduate pure mathematics students. Standard is different.
Only low standard scientists such as physicists have nerve to call themselves the "king of science". The King has no cloth!
In mathematics, we have no geniuses. We do not need them for the PR either. We say that we never fail to find somebody better in mathematics.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
That our Universe formed inside a black spot,
Now although he stuck to his premise,
He found it stirred up a big tempest,
And that the rebuttals got a little too hot.
luddite
07/13/2010
Posts:82
doctorentr...
07/13/2010
Posts:1
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
Xiaoding
07/15/2010
Posts:3
There is no arrow of time. All the particles in the universe is in constant motion. We cannot go back to the point that is yesterday at 10AM is because the particles have all 'moved on' and we don't know how to control those particles to get them to go back to the exact state at the precise time.
We've been slapped in the face by the two notions in this article. The HORROR!
doanwon
07/14/2010
Posts:62
Brin
07/14/2010
Posts:5
A motion picture film can is a hollow right cylinder of large diameter and small height. Drill a port in the center of one face and weld on a pipe normal to that face. Drill a port on the edge and weld on a pipe tangent to the edge. Fill the can with water.
Pump water into the face. It flows in normal to the face then out the tangent port. There is no problem even at high flow rates until the can bursts from applied high pressure (you did weld the edge overlap together, right?). Make a video and play it backards.
In the reverse, water enters the tangent port at high velocity and exits the center port - spontaneously making a tight right angle turn - without any swirl. That is ridiculous.
Feynman's sprinkler is a hydraulic diode. Flow in one direction is spontaneous. Reverse flow is choked by conservation of angular momentum. The direction of time is absolute because angular momentum is conerved. Conservation of momentum is the basis of both relativity (e.g., the four-vector) and quantum mechanics (e.g., the Periodic Table).
UncleAl
07/14/2010
Posts:90
Just because someone has read a thing or two in a few science books--and mindlessly regurgitating them back, does not make the person less ignorant than any other. Too many unthingking hacks out there.
Brin, what other reference do you need? It's all there. Either you agree with the logic or you don't.
doanwon
07/14/2010
Posts:62
doanwon
07/14/2010
Posts:62
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/09/aether-and-definition-of-time.html
From this model follows, when object travels in time, it actually expands or collapses, because it advances or receded the omnidirectional expansion of space-time. The direction of this travel depends on size of object too: 2 cm is the boundary between traveling into cosmological past or quantum future of Universe.
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
Entropy is the Second Law of thermodynamics, promulgated by the Large Numbers Theorem. Entropy is statistical. Stupid investment though it is, somebody usually wins the Lotto.
Conservation of angular momentum is the isotropy of space plus Noether's theorems. You have only two ways to get around that: 1) Overthrow mathematics, or 2) demonstrate the vacuum is anisotropic. As for your torrent of words... if it doesn't reduce to mathematics it is only opinion. Physical reality ignores opinion.
Aristotle was poster boy for irrelevant derivation in science; Galileo drove the point home. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong," Richard Feynman.
You are wrong.
UncleAl
07/15/2010
Posts:90
> Entropy is the Second Law of thermodynamics, promulgated by the Large Numbers Theorem. Entropy is statistical. Stupid investment though it is, somebody usually wins the Lotto.
The second law of thermodynamics does not say that time flows forward. it assumes that time folws forward.
best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
You are half right.
Everything does go through time as you mentioned. What ill add or you didnt add is that everything goes through time at a different pace.
Future particles and past particles all interact with present particles. Sorry youll need to understand relativity (perhaps as i do) to get that one.
summarising some of my interpretatons of relativity:
1. Every particle has a different age.
2. Time is created/destroyed when matter is converted to energy and visa versa.
3.Time travel is possible to the present (and happens all the time). (keeping it short you work it out)
mattgroom
08/07/2010
Posts:198
To be honest, none of the contemporary theoretical physicists graduated from this level of thinking. They just learned how to make this type of "reasoning" more "impressive" and "intimidating".
In the minds of the contemorary physicists, [time] and [length] are defined by [speed] and [accleration] which are defined by [time] and [length]. [mass] is defined by [energy] and [momentum] which are defined by [mass].
Well some says that time does not flow backward. But they also say that positron is an electron "moving backward" in time. Naturally they cannot explain the interaction of particles which involve positrons in words. They say they have a language problem to explain it. Is it really a language problem. Is it not a conceptual problem?
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
Henri
mhenriday
07/14/2010
Posts:16
DeepThinke...
07/14/2010
Posts:1
Mapou
07/14/2010
Posts:209
Learned people will not call themselves "king of science".
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/14/2010
Posts:372
According to dimensional analysis, [momentum] is defined in terms of [time]. [time] has say to [momentum] but [momentum] has no say to [time].
Mental illness of the 20Th century physics is precisely here. Einstein defined [time] and [space] using [speed] and [acceleration]. [speed] and [acceleration] are defined in terms of [time] and [length]. This whole nonsense ended up with the Higgs particle which defines [mass] from [energy]. This ultimate nonsense, mental illness cost $8 billion European taxpayers money when more and more people are loosing their jobs and majority of the population on this planet is starving.
From the elites who preach this nonsense, all we hear as response to criticism are "crank", "idiot", "moron", "lunatic fringe" etc. etc.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
On a serious note, this is an example of construct of the mind.
doanwon
07/15/2010
Posts:62
It is the mechanical thinking of physicists whose job is to plug in numbers to get the number correct without understanding what the formulas mean which lead them to fail to understand what time is about.
It is nothing but complete nonsense to try to physically "measure" the natural flow of time as time transcends physics. Moreover, to measure such thing physically, one has to rely upon motion which is already governed by the natural flow of time.
This idiocy crystallises in QED's theory of positrons. They claim that positrons are electrons moving backward in time. There is no such thing as moving backward in time. Any motion must follow natural flow of time. Naturally they have to admit that they have a "language problem" to explicate the positron's intercation with other particles when we consider them as electronhs moving backward in time. They still have not gotten yet. It is not a language problem It is a logical conceptual problem.
The whole concept of time traveling is nonsense. May I ask those who talk about things like this how long will it take to move backward in time?
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html
Antiparticles are smaller then the human scale, but they're considered a bubbles in dense aether with negative curvature, so they're repelled mutually by their gravitational field. So they're running in reversed time arrow with respect to thermodynamical time arrow, too. They're expanding where normal matter collapses and vice-versa. Because the gravity profile of massive objects has a bell shape profile with somewhat concave boundaries, antimatter particles tend to cumulate inside of clouds of dark matter, surrounding the massive objects.
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
Your criticisms of SR are completely incoherent. You provide no valid criticism of the subject, say nothing that refutes or calls SR into question. You ramble and insult, but add nothing. Reading your posts are like watching a train wreck. At once disturbing but fascinating.
You also seem to advocate a "natural flow" of time. What is that? You also seem to believe that scientists think reverse time travel is possible under relativity. It is not. Does time's "natural flow" move at different rates relative to inertial reference frames? If not, how do you explain the many experiments that verify this fact?
Relativity could be, and almost certainly is in some way, wrong. But you haven't shed any light on this. You sound like a wacko. Cheers!
pcrh
07/15/2010
Posts:1
Instead of posting this kind of "response" why don't you respond scieitifically to each point I made. I am willing to have good scieitific discussion with you.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/15/2010
Posts:372
> You also seem to advocate a "natural flow" of
> time. What is that?
In order to talk about time it's indispensable to have an idea what time really is. Time doesn't flow because time simultaneously doesn't exist.
> You also seem to believe that scientists think
> reverse time travel is possible under
> relativity. It is not. Does time's "natural
> flow" move at different rates relative to
> inertial reference frames? If not, how do you
> explain the many experiments that verify this
> fact?
As far as I know we use an unchangeable unit of time. Time is motion (of something), hence one is not feasible to manipulate motion of something, because it is not a physical entity. Nevertheless, we can have influence on velocity of something which is always real. By the way, no experiment confirms alleged time's change of rate (it's rubbish). It's impossible, because time simultaneously doesn't exist and it is not a physical entity.
Cheers,
niebieskieucho
niebieskie...
07/19/2010
Posts:6
Nevertheless, the dense aether theory (AWT aka Aether Wave Theory) doesn't require Universe to sit/be formed inside of some particular artifact, it's completely Copernican one. Instead of this, the event horizon of Universe is formed/represented here with dispersion of light.
We would observe the same situation at the completely flat water surface, too - at the sufficient distance all surface waves would be dispersed by Brownian noise into this noise, too.
Black hole model of Universe can be falsified easily by observation of another galaxies outside of event horizon. Currently we cannot observe such galaxies there from apparent reasons, but we have evidence, the most distant galaxies contain as old stars, as the close ones.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/09/awt-and-big-bang-theory.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/could-the-universe-be-far-older-than-we-think-new-findings-point-that-way.html
So currently I don't see any reason, why our Universe should have been born inside of black hole. With increasing distance/age our Universe appears more and more random and no apparent trend or history can be observed in it.
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
asiwel
07/15/2010
Posts:13
Actually this is what, we are observing by now, which means, the model of evaporating "black hole" plays well both with classical astronomy, both with dense aether model.
BUT dense aether theory can explain the increasing speed of space-time expansion even without assumption of black hole by using of dispersion of water ripples.
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/quantum_theory_waves/ripples.jpg
Due the dispersion, the wavelength of ripples collapses with increasing speed too and the whole model remains Copernican one, i.e. invariant to our actual position within metaUniverse. We would see our Universe expanding with increasing speed at all places of it - not just inside of some black hole.
Extended info:
Actually the dense aether model is even more predicative and it explains, the omnidirectional Universe expansion is relevant only for observations mediated by wavelengths longer then the human/CMB scale.
For longer wavelength the dispersion of surface ripples is exactly the opposite and we should observe a blue shift for distant radiowave sources. Which makes the concept of Universe expansion relative too.
http://www.aetherwavetheory.info/images/physics/aether/water_ripples.jpg
AWT explains the space-time expansion by geometry of dispersion of light at the space-time fluctuations, which are having character of hyperbolic foam and we can observe similar effects during dispersion of light between primary and secondary rainbows during heavy rain, for example.
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2010/01/universe-and-rainbow-of-black-holes.html
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
But from dense aether model follows it would appear so at all places inside of it. We can compare this experience to the walk in foggy landscape - our view would be limited by hemi-spherical visibility scope (i.e. by analogy of event horizon) - but this visibility scope will travel together with us.
Therefore we can expect, event horizon of our Universe will travel together with us - which is not, what the black hole model of Universe predicts. If unsure, just trust the Copernicus - he was proven true repeatedly.
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
Cosmic background radiation temperature is 2.725 kelvins. Black hole temperature is (h-bar)(c^3)/8(pi)GMk. Newton's G, M is black hole mass, k is Boltzmann's constant. Hawking radiation from a solar mass black hole is 9x10^(-29) watts. In an otherwise completely empty universe, an evaporation time of 2x10^67 years obtains. In this universe, it accretes by swallowing photons (and neutrinos).
The mass threshold for black hole evaporation while immersed in CBR is less than 0.8% of one Earth mass. Work out its event horizon temperature. You do the math and post the lifetime of such a low-mass black hole. Hint: 10^43 years will be a factor in the answer.
No contemporary black hole can evaporate.
UncleAl
07/15/2010
Posts:90
/*..no contemporary black hole can evaporate. */
This is semantic tautology, because black object doesn't radiate by definition. But we can assume larger sparse holes, younger then our Universe, which are quite radiative and they're shinning like quasars. When such white hole evaporates its matter, it will radiate through polar jets only, until it changes into dark remnant, similar to this one, sitting inside of Milky Way.
This model is easy to understand, if we realize, the energy travels more and more slowly in dense vacuum forming black hole. For complete collapsing of hole larger then the 2 cm limit the age of observable Universe is not sufficient and such holes are actually white holes, which are radiating their excessive matter into outside.
We should realize, the classical Schwarzchild model of BH is steady-state and as such unphysical for event horizon larger then 2 cm: it doesn't care about time, which would be required for complete collapse of matter into true singularity.
As the result, no black holes with event horizon larger then 2 cm can contain singularity/daughter universe inside and every hole with physical surface ("singularity") larger then 2 cm is expected to evaporate some matter via photons and neutrinos to complete their collapse - they're "white holes" and/or "naked singularities" effectively. The black holes with physical surface between zero and 2 cm are those with jets - their event horizon is not completely developed (they're "half-dressed singularities").
ZephirAWT
07/15/2010
Posts:295
http://mohammed-golden.blogspot.com/
http://www.msel-naschie.com/work-google-scholar.cfm
M. Kareef
M. Kareef
07/15/2010
Posts:2
The universe itself is an impenetrable mystery, yet it waits to be unraveled. And not coincidentally, humans are the only beings capable of taking on that task. Thus it can be asserted that the universe wishes to be known, and humankind was created to that end.
Clearly, the universe has a beginning and thus a cause behind that beginning. But we cannot point to a beginning, nor can we ever begin to fathom what cause is more powerful than the very universe that we cannot comprehend.
The finite can never comprehend the infinite, but the infinite has all the answers and can surely guide us on our way. To reject that guidance from above is sheer folly, and can only lead to disaster.
In order to discover "the beginning that has no beginning", we have to have a "hearing ear" and a "seeing eye" that transcend the obviousness of the physical world.
Even as every one of us had parents, the universe did not invent itself. Rather, the universe is a passive entity that receives its power from an "active force" that supersedes it.
I do not posit this fact as the product of my own learning.
Rather, these are the teachings of the prisoner Baha'u'llah on this very subject:
"As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men's thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure.
"This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of 'I did wish to make Myself known', God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.
"That which hath been in existence had existed before, but not in the form thou seest today. The world of existence came into being through the heat generated from the interaction between the active force and that which is its recipient. These two are the same, yet they are different.
Thus doth the Great Announcement inform thee about this glorious structure. Such as communicate the generating influence and such as receive its impact are indeed created through the irresistible Word of God which is the Cause of the entire creation, while all else besides His Word are but the creatures and the effects thereof. Verily thy Lord is the Expounder, the All-Wise.
Know thou, moreover, that the Word of God -- exalted be His glory -- is higher and far superior to that which the senses can perceive, for it is sanctified from any property or substance. It transcendeth the limitations of known elements and is exalted above all the essential and recognized substances. It became manifest without any syllable or sound and is none but the Command of God which pervadeth all created things. It hath never been withheld from the world of being. It is God's all-pervasive grace, from which all grace doth emanate. It is an entity far removed above all that hath been and shall be.
"We are loath to enlarge on this subject, inasmuch as the unbelievers have inclined their ears towards Us in order to hear that which might enable them to cavil against God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. And since they are unable to attain to mysteries of knowledge and wisdom from what hath been unravelled by the Source of divine splendour, they rise in protest and burst into clamour. But it is true to say that they object to that which they comprehend, not to the expositions given by the Expounder, nor the truths imparted by the One true God, the Knower of things unseen. Their objections, one and all, turn upon themselves, and I swear by thy life that they are devoid of understanding.
"Every thing must needs have an origin and every building a builder. Verily, the Word of God is the Cause which hath preceded the contingent world -- a world which is adorned with the splendours of the Ancient of Days, yet is being renewed and regenerated at all times. Immeasurably exalted is the God of Wisdom Who hath raised this sublime structure.
"Look at the world and ponder a while upon it. It unveileth the book of its own self before thine eyes and revealeth that which the Pen of thy Lord, the Fashioner, the All-Informed, hath inscribed therein. It will acquaint thee with that which is within it and upon it and will give thee such clear explanations as to make thee independent of every eloquent expounder."
Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 140.
George--a ...
07/15/2010
Posts:1
Anyways to time, I believe its possible to measure time and prove it is a funny animal.
I believe we have reactors that measure decaying particles, from A to B to C. Lets measure the time it takes to go from B to C and if they are different it proves time is not flowing in one direction only.
If time flowed in one direction only the exact time from B to C would be consistent across all decays (of the same element)
Is my thinking wrong? and more importantly are there any measurements of this time decaying given differing times?
I used decay as it incorporates speed which is the only known variable that changes time. Surely we can once and for all try to understand time.
My feeling is time is consistent and one way only, not even relative. But that somehow we are relative..theres something wrong with our interpretation of us.
mattgroom
07/16/2010
Posts:198
Please explain what do you mean by "infinite" and "reality" and substantiate your claim that infinity does not exist in reality.
Thank you,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
Notion of time in physics is as simple as a construction of a flail.
Particles likewise any form of matter has to do with time because it's the property of matter, as any form of matter is in motion. Time (of something) is a synonym of motion (of something). However notion of time hasn't a univocal meaning due to its ambiguity (i.e. unit of its measure; measured motion of something). Nevertheless, if we talk about time of something, the sequence is: velocity (of something) then time (of something). Time obviously autonomously doesn't exist.
Time/motion (of something) is always real. It can have its direction only in case of a concrete physical entity, as there is no general direction of all forms of matter.
niebieskie...
07/18/2010
Posts:6
So, the finite line segment between 2 and 15 have infonitely many points. These points are no imaginary points as we can draw such mid points using compass.
Besty reagrds,
AKT
AKT
07/18/2010
Posts:372
Cheers,
niebieskieucho
niebieskie...
07/19/2010
Posts:6
> AKT, you are amazing. I had to register here just to comment. Your criticisms of 'punk science' are all bunk. You criticize the use of "may" in the article, saying no one publishes uncertain results. My friend, all of science is uncertain. It is fundamental to scientific inquiry that some, if not all, of our science is incorrect. Science is a process of inquiry, not a result or destination where we achieve actual knowledge of the universe. If my argument is incoherent, the Einstein's argument is incoherent too.
When you base your "science" upon inconsistent theory, it is not the matter of "may" anymore. The theory tells you notA for any A which we observe. This is precisely what contemporary science is doing.
> Your criticisms of SR are completely incoherent. You provide no valid criticism of the subject, say nothing that refutes or calls SR into question. You ramble and insult, but add nothing. Reading your posts are like watching a train wreck. At once disturbing but fascinating.
You failed to provide any reference to and legitimate argument against the criticism I made. Show us which argument is wrong in which way. What you are doing is an anti-scieitific activity of "personal attack" which seems to be the only weapon left to people like you who try to "defend" what you do not understand at all.
What is incoherent about Einstein's thought experiment for loss of simultaneity for example? It goes as follows: Assume that a train runs on a track and when a passenger is on the right bisector of AB lightning hits point A and B on the ground. Einstein using classical argument rightly concluded that this observer will see that A and B are hit at different moment. Thus he concluded that the simultaneity on the ground is not on the train. I presented an alternative observation on this situation. Using Constancy of the Speed of Light, we can conclude that this observer on the train will observe that A and B are hit at the same time. This is because CSL tells us that the speed of light and light path is independent of the inertial motion of the emitter of light.
Let me make it easier for people like you. Assume two bikers A and B run in parallel on a road with the same speed. Assume that A flashes light signal towards B. From biker's perspective due to CSL light reaches B. But from the road's perspective, light misses B. So what is incoherent about this?
When we consider the point from which the light is emitted towards a moving mirror as a point on the ground, Einstein's conclusion of length contraction is deduced. But we can also consider this point as a point of the frame of the moving mirror, we have no length contraction.
All of this is what we call contradiction. It is a triviality of logic that any theory which deuces contradiction is an inconsistent theory and it proves anything. This means that such theory is "bunk"!
Einstein correctly claimed that we can place synchronised clocks along a train track. It can readily be done as follows. Make an agreement that at location say O, light signal is flashed. At a location which is distance x away from O, they set their clock to 12:00+x/c.
So a train's passenger can observe the time on the ground by watching the clock closest to him. But at the same time he can watch a clock on the ground far away. Then he will observe that the time on the ground is different. This means that time is not invariant under the geometric translation. This is a violation of the assumed Poincare symmetry. This destroys all modern physics.
When we consider the point from which the light is emitted towards a moving mirror as a point on the ground, Einstein's conclusion of length contraction is deduced. But we can also consider this point as a point of the frame of the moving mirror, we have no length contraction.
At a more developed level, relativistic transformation of wave functions gives us a result
v_g = (c^2)/w
where v_g is the group speed of the wave and w is the phase speed of the wave. This means that unless v_g = w =c, either v_g or w must exceed the speed limit c.
This is what we call contradiction too my friend. This means that all waves have speed c.
We have yet another problem. We know that sound waves travel with the same group speed and phase speed. But it is not c.
According to SR, c^2E^2 - p^2 is relativistic invariant. Moreover,
E^2 =(m_0c^2)^2 +p^2c^2.
So, clearly, p^2=[(E^2)/(c^2)-(m_0)^2c^2]. So we have a problem then. Now,
c^2E^2-E^2/c^2+(m_0)^2c^2
= E^2(c^2-1/c^2)+m_0^2c^2
is relativistic invariant. This means E is relativistic invariant.
Only incoherent mind like yours will see that there is nothing wrong with this.
> You also seem to advocate a "natural flow" of time. What is that? You also seem to believe that scientists think reverse time travel is possible under relativity. It is not. Does time's "natural flow" move at different rates relative to inertial reference frames? If not, how do you explain the many experiments that verify this fact?
It is not something which simple brain of the so called scientists can grasp. I told people like you to answer a question. What how long does it take to move in time? The mathematical function of identity over the time will not give us the flow of time at the pain of vicious circularity. Newton was not as simple minded as what we call scientists. He was a great improvement to all of his successors. He in fact spent only a few years on physics. His profession was theologian. His intellect superseded simple mind of the so called scientists.
> Relativity could be, and almost certainly is in some way, wrong. But you haven't shed any light on this. You sound like a wacko. Cheers!
What do you mean by "wrong"? Make a coherent definition of it. We are not "chatting". Anyone who think logically knows that an inconsistent theory is wrong even in empirical sense. This is because such theory proves anything including notA for an experimentally verified result A.
It is the sheer stupidity of physicists to waste massive amount of money trying to verify or disprove a theory such as SR which is inconsistent. Of course it is good for their political agenda. It is us taxpayers who pay for such pointless experiments. 8 billion dollars to try to verify "Higg's" particles. Enough is enough.
The sheer nonsense of this can be shown in one line. [energy] is defined in terms of [mass]. Only absolute fools or those with agenda will try to make experiment on this.
It is called etiquette to provide detailed scieitific arguments to back up your claim especially when it is insulting. Now you have responsibility to provide scientifically acceptable substantiation of your self-defeating, self-degrading comments.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
When you make a statement that some-body's argument is "bunk", you better have good reasoning to substantiate your sweeping statement.
I am not talking about your usage of "bunk". I am very disappointed by your failure to have human decency and intellectual capability to substantiate your strong statement.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/17/2010
Posts:372
> Entropy is the Second Law of thermodynamics, promulgated by the Large Numbers Theorem. Entropy is statistical. Stupid investment though it is, somebody usually wins the Lotto.
To my recollection the large number theorem is a theorem on "relative frequency" interpretation of probability. I do not think that thermodynamics uses this interpretation of probability.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
I'm loving the interaction here! Until now, I didn't really realize that you physics professionals could disagree so fundamentally.
Please, keep the discussion going...
RabbitDawg
07/16/2010
Posts:1
The problem started when armatures with no background such as US and UK media used their secular influence to promote one specific agenda in science. We have just witnessed yet another example of this secular influence ruined the reputation of science in the Global Warming bunk. There is no commonly agreed cause for the current global warming. In fact if global warming exists or not is highly questionable. Never mind its alleged connection with CO2.
They claim that the melting ice on ocean will raise water level. Even middle school science students in decent old wold will understand that melting ice on ocean will not raise water level. The amount of ice trapped as glacier on the high mountains is negligible compared with ocean water. Moreover, CO2 is the heaviest component of atmosphere. Dispersion of gas is random and gravitation is not. So, the only thing we can say is that CO2 stays at ground level. Why the ice in the glacier of high mountains are melting if they are?
It is important to question the foundation of "scientific argument" as the foregoing suggests.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
Uncle AL wrote,
> Conservation of angular momentum is the isotropy of space plus Noether's theorems. You have only two ways to get around that: 1) Overthrow mathematics, or 2) demonstrate the vacuum is anisotropic. As for your torrent of words... if it doesn't reduce to mathematics it is only opinion. Physical reality ignores opinion.
Poincare symmetry fails because time is not invariant under the translation. A most fundamental assumption of theoretical physics fails.
It goes as follows:
1. As Einstein rightly claimed we can place all synchronised clocks along a track on which a train runs. When an observer on the train reads the clock right in front of the train's window, we reads the time of the ground. When he reads the clock far way, he will reads the time of the ground differently. This means that time read from external frame is not independent upon translation.
So, is it the fault of mathematics or physics? You should learn to discern mathematics and mathematical physics which is neither. The correct view is that neither physics not mathematics fail. It is the so called mathematical physics which fails.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/16/2010
Posts:372
dudemanicu...
07/16/2010
Posts:1
(0/0)*3 = 1*3 = 3
But due to the law of fractions we have
(0/0)*3 = (0*3)/0 =0/0 = 1.
Now we have 1=3.
This very basic error which can be understood by middle school maths students could not be understood by the greatest genius Einstein, the physicist. He thought that 0/0 which appears when we consider the E = mc^2 for photons was indefinite, meaning any real number. He thought that this would allow him to assign multiple values to photons using his photon energy formula.
This genius did not see that assuming 0/0 to be a real number will cause a contradiction. Let 0/0 be a number. Then by the law of fractions, say a/a =1, we have
0/0 =1.
This already kills his plan to assign multiple values to photon's energy. Moreover, by the argument above, we have a contradiction 3=1.
Prof. Adamec of Hungarian academy of science responded proposing that the problem would be resolved by using
m_0*c^2 = E*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).
Mathematically this makes sense as x*0=0 means that x can be any number. Since when I pointed out that this still does not help the problem of the length contraction formula,
d=sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)d'
I never heard from Prof. Adamec who insisted that SR and relativistic theory of photon are both consistent.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/17/2010
Posts:372
I remember being told once by a mathematician that 0/0 tended towards 0 and 1 depending on circumstance.
Interpretting this i see no problem with 0/0=1 and 0/0=0. Which tends to means its application in reality is in fact a quantum effect. When you measure it, it appears at a point in that range depending on some(unknown) circumstance.
I agree with you that any floating ice would not effect the sea level if it melted.
mattgroom
07/17/2010
Posts:198
The problem with "calculus" physicists and engineers learn is that as epsilon-delta topological calculus is too advanced, they use the language of "infinitesimal calculus". This was the original idea behind Newtonian calculus but it took 3oo years for mathematicians to come to the precise understanding of infinitesimals and the theory requires even higher background in mathematics. So, nobody in physics learns this. Infinitesimal calculus is a product of advanced mathematical logic and it certainly is not for those people who do not understand that logically inconsistent theories are not theories.
To make the post short, let me sum up. when we mathematicians write 0/0 we implicitly assume that 0 there is not 0 as a real number. It is infinitesimal which is a positive nonstandard number which is smaller than any positive real number.
For your information correct theory of infinitesimal calculus was developed by Abraham Robinson in the 1960's using ultra-product construction of model theory, a branch of mathematical logic.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/17/2010
Posts:372
If in deed all the ice melted on the planet, there would be a sea level rise. As to what extent...i dont know.
The earth is not a sphere and i would say that the Earth is distorted in its orbit by the moon and perhaps to a lesser extent the (other masses) sun. Thus distorting the accuracy of measurements.
Im wondering why if current physics are currect, it should be easy to measure the earths volume to a considerable degree and yet i dont see anything more than educated guesses.
As a side note the sun is turning its material into heavier and heavier particles, while ejecting particles. Im assuming the sun is getting lighter though on average with each day, thus the gravitational effect should be lighter on the earth every day. Hence the earth should be moving away from the sun i presume. With that in mind tidal forces from the sun should be lessened. Also the moon is moving away from the earth every day, so its force is also lessoned.
I would say that tides are getting lower, less frequent and that even if all the ice melted it would be insignificant to not having any tides at all.
Im looking at thousands of years hence.
mattgroom
07/17/2010
Posts:198
I have been talking about what they say, namely arctic ice meting at alarming speed causing the ocean level rising. Arctic ice is ice floating in ocean. Melting this will not cause the change of ocean water level.
There is yet another scieitific lie in the global warming theory. It says that the warming is caused by the CO2 in the atmosphere. This melts ice. I will agree that the arctic ice will melt if the CO2 in the air increases for the following reason. CO2 is the heaviest component of the air and the dispersion is random. So, mathematically gravitation wins and CO2 stay as the lower level of atmosphere. This means at the lower altitude, air temperature increases.
However, the most recent geological study revealed that the cause of arctic ice melting is not the rise in air temperature. It is caused by the warming up of the under ice ocean water of the Arctic. This explains why it melted faster than any global warming model predicted.
Also Inuit record shows that the sun in the arctic in summer is too high.
All of this seems to suggest that the melting of ice and rise in atmospheric temperature is not caused by CO2. It seems to suggest that some geological magnitude change such as the shift of earth's rotational axis is happening.
Anyhow if they are not telling us a lie, we are loosing alpine glaciers at alarming speed. Now they admitted that there is some exaggeration in this. But this apology will not let them off the hock. If mountain glaciers are melting at very high altitude, there must be a reason and the CO2 theory will not do. I am not saying that global warming is false. I lived long enough to realise that the temperature raised. I am questioning if it is really caused by CO2 in air? So far, I am not satisfied by the explanation given. None of their explanation really makes much sense. It is less than science.
I am questioning because I see the same social problem behind all of these hypes in modern science. We have just realised that the hawk of pig flue epidemic was created to meet the interest of pharmaceutical companies. Tax payers paid fortune for this lie.
I suspect that the global warming is also serving green industries including automobile industries and oil industries. It also appears to block entry level economy in this globalised economy. As oil is discovered everywhere, to maintain the hegemony, western energy industries are switching to nuclear energy on which they have absolute monopoly.
I look at the cult of relativity on the same platform. It was science coerced to meet the political agenda of "international revolutionary movements" which sent the world to the blink of nuclear and economic extinction. The genius of Einstein and Max Plank certainly made people abandon traditional value systems which did not serve the derailed capitalist greed to sell unnecessary things and make people waste.
My parents generation did not allow us to start dinner before we thanked farmers who produced food and prayed for those unfortunate people who have no food on the dinner table. We are scold when we did not finish food given to us. The "revolutionary movement" of the last century condemned these old human values as "reactionary", "anti-revolutionary", "outdated evil". They went even to condemn this old tradition of making sure that everybody thank for the blessing of being able to have food and pray for those who cannot have it as "repression" and "child abuse".
In the end, we produced generations after generations of totally self-centred morally deformed brats whose ant-social greed destroyed world free market economic system. The same social problem destroyed equally vital function of science. In the old days, we were told that one should publish a paper only when he has something to say. People wrote a paper with some contents once a few years. Now everybody is adding 30 meaningless papers to the Spanish Castle upon dung heap of logically inconsistent theories and says that "but it works". In the old days it was said that money and prestige do not go together. Now money buys prestige.
I am saying "just leave science alone."
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/17/2010
Posts:372
AlfredNobe...
07/23/2010
Posts:1
Neither of them understood that speed c rest mass zero photons causes a contradiction at the length contraction formula:
d = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))d'.
They did not understand that em waves and em fields are different things. So, Einstein's photons and Dirac's photons are entirely different things.
Neither of them realised that in SR, Lorentz transformation was obtained by applying Length Contraction and Time Dilation to Galilean transformations. This is what normal people call shooting own feet.
Neither of them realised that Einstein's thought experiment for the loss of simultaneity indeed proves existence of simultaneity. Assume a train runs on a track and when a passenger on the train is on a right bisector of AB lightning hits points A and B on the ground. According to Einstein, due to the classical reasoning, A and B appear to be hit at different moment for the passenger. But due to the Constancy of the Speed of Light the speed of the light and light path is independent upon the motion of the emitter of light. So, this passenger will observe that A and B are hit at the same moment.
By relativistically transforming wave functions, we can obtain
v_g = c^2/w where v_g and w are group speed and phase speed of the wave respectively. This means that unless v_g = w = c, either group speed or phase speed exceeds c violating SR. Moreover, we know that the sound wave has the same group speed and phase speed. But it is not c.
According to the genuis of Einstein, E^2/c^2 - p is relativistic invariant. Combining this with
E^2 = (m0^2c^2)^2 + (cp)^2, we conclude that E is relativistic invariant.
They did not realise that the light cone interpretation undermines all of the thought experiments Einstein used to frame SR which deduced the light cone intepretation. A grand example of shooting one's own feet. According to the light cone interpretation, all tohght experiments Einstein used to frame SR are invalid becuase there is no causality between the event of emitting light and receiving it.
Oh yes, Einstein, Penrose, Hawkins know so well. They are "geniuses". The latter two thought that because of Godel's second incompleteness result, there may be no complete theory of everything.
What do they know about mathematics and logic? First of all they did not know that all inconsistent theories are already complete, indeed over complete. They prove anything.
They did not know that correct way of stating Godel's work goes as follows: "Any consistent reasonable extension of First Order Arithmetic" has a formula which means the consistency of the extended theory under the standard interpretation of the first order arithmetic.
They certainly did not know anything about intensional nature of Godel's work. Godel showed that there is a formula which can not be proved and it means the consistency of the system under the standard interpretation. Even the introductory students of mathematical logic will understand that there are infinitely many other sentences of the first order arithmetic which means the consistency of first order arithmetic under the standard interpretation of the first order arithmetic.
Indeed Fefferman and Mostowski independently presented sentences which means the consistency of the first order arithmetic under the standard interpretation of the first order arithmetic and which is provable within the first order arithmetic.
Moreover, there are many sentences of the first order arithmetic which means the consistency under nonstandard interpretations.
Penrose and Hawkins are armatures who know little about real issues of mathematics and mathematical logic. Their followers receive Nobel prise in Physics.
Mathematicians do not appreciate Nobel Prise at all. They are for corrupted minds who cannot think logically, like physicists. As you know, mathematics is not empirical science. It is a severely precise metaphysics. When we frame an inconsistent theory, we readily admit the error an move on. We do not deny, intimidate, insult and blackmail to cover up the error. We have nothing more than mathematics at stake.
An individual like this chap who has nothing intelligent to say is a good public relation to the dominating cult of academic physics.
The only way to silence me is to present a mathematical proof that contemporary physics is logically consistent. Not your kind of moronic self-degrading posts.
Post only after you learn how to think rationally stupid chap.
It is not my policy to use this kind of offensive expressions but I think a chap like this deserve it.
AKT
AKT
07/23/2010
Posts:372
DariusM
08/02/2010
Posts:1
This moronic response by Alfred Nobel which has zero scientific contents unfortunately is the common denominator of the defenders of relativity theory.
Historically to cover up their error, they deployed this type of filthy anti science anti human decency tactics of personal attacks and most of it are already archived and documented.
Prof. Magueijo of Cambridge University wrote in his book "faster than the speed of light" that to question relativity theory meant academic suicide. Prof. Dingle, a renown relativists lost his social and professional life after he questioned SR. Prof. Marmet of Laval University lost his professional life after presenting an alternative to SR. Cornell University Physics department will be remembered for publishing crank list on INTERNET to blacklist "undesirable" physicists. The university was legally forced to remove it from the INTERNET.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/24/2010
Posts:372
@AKT: Your views on global warming are clinically, singularly (pun intended) logical, and yet totally useless when applied to the real world. Wanna know why you're not walking around in a sea-level cloud of CO2? Take a glass of water (light). Add two spoons of sugar (heavy). Apply a little heat and stir. Voila! Remember - in the world of gasses, gravity is a _weak_ force. Sometimes you need to do more than just apply logic. You need to know the things to apply it to.
gordonwh
08/16/2010
Posts:10
This post contains no science at all. It is not even coherent. In the world of gasses, it is well know that heavy gas stays at lower level. Certainly it is due to the gravity. As I said, the only factor which allows gas to go everywhere is dispersion. However, it is random in direction. So, the other factor which is gravity over all takes over. It is just a basic mathematics. You may think about upward air flow but we also have down ward air flow and over all it is not a factor. After all, if gravity is not the factor here as this this chap claims, we have no atmosphere. It is the gravity which cretates atmosphere around the surface of earth. The dynmaics of fluid and gas are entirely different things!
The problem with most of the theoretical physicists is that they are not trained to model reality with mathematics. "Big guys" in physics did this interesting part and the rest are sheep. They just worship big name and plug in numbers to the big name's formulas without understanding the formulas.
The problem with the global warming cult activity is that they do not understand how our climate system is complicated. This poster's amusingly naive "science" would not do that. The Ph.D.'s with "peered review journals" did not know that melting ice floating on water does not change the water level. They kept preaching us that melting arctic ice will cause flooding world wide. This, even a good middle school science student readily understands. When I was young, we were told how the Americanisation of science lowered the standard of Ph.d. in science. To my knowledge, today's Ph.d. thesis in hard science is less than the Diploma thesis in Germany in the old days.
The unique feature of this upstart culture is that people lost the concept of self-respect and embarrassment. Ah, we call it instant expert culture.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
08/16/2010
Posts:372
In the world of gasses, it is well know that heavy gas stays at lower level. Certainly it is due to the gravity. As I said, the only factor which allows gas to go everywhere is dispersion.
No it's not quite. At a basic level, convection/advection currents, due to the Earth's spin, tectonic events + heating events that are locally random, provide a mechanism for gas mixing. It is wrong to say that all CO2 will pool at sea-level. It is not a static system.
You're a mathematician. And you're wrong. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
gordonwh
08/16/2010
Posts:10
In the world of gasses, it is well know that heavy