Re: French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG

On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:43:45 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 13, 10:13 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

It's just a speculation that if our area of space is curved, then we
can see outside light but they may not be able to see us. There are
voids according to the wikipedia link that you have earlier left here
(I've trimmed because it's getting hard to read this posting) that are
millions of light years between lumps of matter in the universe.

It's the galactic version of a black hole where space-time is so
curved near a black hole that no light can escape.

OK, if you're saying the voids are not really voids, but
places where space-time is locally curved such that their
light doesn't reach us, that's a thought I've not heard of
before but it removes the "principle of mediocrity"
objection that we're "special", so I see your logic. We
do have a lot to learn still. There's the "dark matter"
conjecture to explain the "missing mass" problem, but
we haven't found the "dark matter" yet. There are
some baffling instances with red shifts, where objects
show signs of being associated with each other (such
as apparent connecting filaments or apparent distortion
of one object from the gravity of the other object) but
which have wildly different redshifts, which troubles our
whole idea of the expansion of the universe being the
only major factor in redshifting of diffuse objects.

You see that dark matter is a major ingredient in explaining the state
of the current universe.

That gravitation affects space is obvious. But a good theory with
gravitons has not emerged. There are theories on the microscopic
quantum level, but a general theory needs to include gravitation and
can be tested. No one has seen gravitons yet. Perhaps the HIggs Boson
will be progress in that direction???

I don't really know what we'll learn from finding the Higgs
boson, other than confirmation of the theorization that
requires it. I'm not too troubled with not seeing gravitons
yet. My suspicion about all these "particles" that represent
"forces" is that nature might be playing tricks on us. That
feeling comes partly from my devotion to "many worlds", in
which I see such particles as possibly being just artifacts
of splitting "events" between "worlds" (Where even the
"worlds" are just artifacts of our point of view). It seems
odd to me that an apparently continuous force can be
represented by discrete real particles, but everything in
QM seems odd to us "macro" and arguably "emergent"
beings, of course.

At large dimensions a continuous force can have a continuous
explanation. For example, Maxwell's equations summarize the
experiments which do not depend on an ether to explain. Continuous EM
waves drop out of these equations. However, at quantum dimensions,
this continuous object is better represented as a photon exchange.



But, as you note, we haven't detected any such exchange
in the case of "gravitons', or the "gravitons". This is not a
case of recognizing particles. It's a case of finding particles
that are supposed to be responsible for forces. That is
different, and there's a very long way to go yet IMV.



This is a duality of view on the same EM wave. To describe it's
behavior in interacting with a lens requires it to be a continuous
wave. To describe it's behavior in the photoelectric effect or at an
atomic level requires it to be a photon. We need to do the same thing
with the gravitational field at a quantum level.



Mmm, as far as I know, the photoelectric effect is specifically
about particles under sway of the electromagnetic force, not
about the electromagnetic force itself..



At one time, theorists believe that a material called the "ether"
existed in the vacuum of space's void. It was needed in their theory
for the propagation of light waves. It's an untestable hypothesis at
the time. But eventually it was found to be undetectable even with
very sensitive measurements. Some could have appealed to God for help,
but others chose to refine the theory so that an ether was not
required. Nevertheless, there are still some questions that cannot be
answered. It does not mean that there is no God to answer. To some,
there is ample communication. It's a subjective thing.

I don't think the ether has been completely dispelled,
though I may be almost alone in that view. Einstein's
ideas showed that when we talk of velocity, that
velocity can only be expressed in relation to something
that has a different velocity, so Einstein succeeded in
dispelling the "ether" in terms of velocity. But what
about "acceleration"? Acceleration has real effects
that are not just artifacts of the perspective of
"something else" unless one (very mysteriously) says
that the universe as a whole acts as the "something
else". So I don't think the "ether" has really been
dispelled, it's just been bumped up a derivative-of-
integration level.

One interesting thought-experiment that's been
proposed to illustrate the remaining problem is the
question "If the rest of the universe disappeared,
would the earth still be spinning?" If there were
no universe to compare the earth with, you'd have
to ask "Spinning with respect to what?" and you
wouldn't have a good answer without a universe
to refer to. But if the earth is not spinning, there
are real consequences. The earth bulges at the
equator because of its angular momentum, but
if there were no universe (acting as "ether") to
act as a referent, then there'd be no way to say
if it was spinning. The world would have to
adjust itself into a more spherical shape if only
gravitation, not angular momentum, were acting
on it. That would cause huge earthquakes and
tsunamis as the earth adjusted to the loss of
angular momentum.

Yes. The ether has just been proved by experiment not to exist beyond
a certain level.


I just showed that it hasn't. The ether in the old sense
(with reference to velocity only) has been disproved, not
just beyond a certain level but there's no need for it at all
in the old sense.

I could have called "the ether" in the sense of
acceleration something other than "the ether", I suppose,
but I see no need to do so and I do think the analogy is
very apropos. As I noted, the only difference is bumping
it to a higher (call it "lower" if you want) derivative level.



Of course more sensitive experiments might detect it.
However, Maxwell's equations completely describe and predict the light
wave so that there is no need of a more complicated theory of the
ether. Scientists usually accept the simpler explanation.

If we could observe no other celestial body, we would still observe
unusual accelerations in our environment that cause rotation. For
example, the Foucault Pendulum, or Coriolis forces would require the
assumption of a rotating earth.

Nevertheless, I'm amazed at how angular momentum can be transferred
back an forth without a sensation of that happening. I noticed that at
a science museum. Holding a bicycle wheel rotating starts me rotating
about a vertical axis as I rotate the wheel from a vertical to a
horizontal axis. There after, the momentum seems to shift back and
forth between me and the wheel. Weird.


I don't find that so problematic myself. Conservation of
angular momentum is just an aspect of inertia. I was trying
to think of an analogy with regular momentum, but I can't
think of a good one.

The best I could come up with is too artificial to be clear.
Imagine a ten pound rocket moving at ten miles a second
with respect to the ground. Now jettison five pounds of
the rocket to the ground at ground speed so that it falls
straight to the ground and doesn't skid or skip. The
remainder of the rocket would have to move at twenty miles
a second to conserve linear momentum. The reason that's
not a very clear analogy is that from the standpoint of the
rocket, you'd have to jettison the material backwards at five
pounds per second in order for the jettison to be zero with
respect to the ground. That backwards jettison creates an
equal-and-opposite computation in the speed of the
remainder, of course. So even though it is the same thing,
it's not parallel enough to be clear. The reason I can't come
up with a simpler analogy is that in the angular momentum
experiment, nothing gets discarded, it just gets moved into
a place where the same amount of mass doesn't move as
far at the same angular speed, so it has to spin at a different
rate to preserve the same mass-times-velocity.. There's no
way to do the same thing without discarding something for
an object moving linearly.

Of course, the above does immediately bring up the
"ether" with respect to acceleration of which I spake,
because the only sense in which you're spinning and there's
thereby any angular momentum at all is with respect to your
surroundings. You're not spinning with respect only to
yourself, nor because of any appreciable direct contact
with your surroundings that's putting a force on you to make
you spin faster or slower as you change your position.






.