Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [11 Posts]
Author Message
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

Nature's Fundamental Laws.

The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may be
at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of
certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible
glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past.

"'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,' says
astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are famous
numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they
are.'"

"Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no
real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its
called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities."

In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres
illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing
down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within
spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is the
constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical
constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its
existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity makes
it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature).

Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets,
the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before
disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the
absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that
is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer. The
observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He
identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then
relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere.

The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being
received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of light
must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the so-called
beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated that "time"
itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it does now.
[Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to sustain their
finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their politically correct
Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and holding more than
thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much for today's
cosmologist ever shrinking in mind.

The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed
of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed of
light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward the
Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the Big Bang
Horizon.

If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one meter
out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than one
meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until your
original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon, then walk
back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where you stand
are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one meter out from
each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter apart? Or do they,
the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer to each other, ever
shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing in "distance-time"
from each other, finally to literally disappear into just one final line of
circle well short of the last outermost lines of the circles you drew, the
farther out you look? The precisely spaced (timed) lines you drew and
laboriously measured to be so precise, would not look to be precise at all
from you stand.

They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings
[toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric
micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer
most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing in
accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter apart,
on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the very last
space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you stand looking
out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single frame of view (point
of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer, not multi-frame in any
way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, cannot
get that through their thick skulls to their pea brains?

That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The
horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang infinity
("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon ("c"). It is
there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated from us. Yet
simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that particular
horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe). Being always in
its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it will be universally,
immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As absolute as absolute
can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost viewpoint out into a
permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of the speed of light and
can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it is.

GLB
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

 Quote: "Relativity" is not "reality."

Relativity is a theory that works very well. Physical theories that
work well --- all of them, not just relativity --- are about "reality"
depending on how one defines "reality." One thing is sure though:
physics is not supposed to be metaphysics.
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws wrote in message news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | G. L. Bradford wrote: | | > "Relativity" is not "reality." | | Relativity is a theory that works very well. Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar. Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent and totally unconnected with Natural events. Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker. You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your mouth for the lying troll that you are. Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:u9Qtg.315737\$8W1.89463@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
 Quote: surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | G. L. Bradford wrote: | | > "Relativity" is not "reality." | | Relativity is a theory that works very well. Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar. Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent and totally unconnected with Natural events. Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker. You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your mouth for the lying troll that you are.

Charming, as always.

Dirk Vdm
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

In article <uvQtg.536924\$ci6.12886149@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: "Sorcerer" wrote in message news:u9Qtg.315737\$8W1.89463@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk... surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... | | G. L. Bradford wrote: | | > "Relativity" is not "reality." | | Relativity is a theory that works very well. Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar. Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent and totally unconnected with Natural events. Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker. You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your mouth for the lying troll that you are. Charming, as always. Dirk Vdm

With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
"ignorant idiot"

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
PD
science forum Guru

Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
 Quote: With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked "ignorant idiot"

Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age:
"If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging."
Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is
out of sight.

PD
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

 Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws "PD" wrote in message news:1152906841.114411.305760@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com... | | Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: | > With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked | > "ignorant idiot" | > | | Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age: | "If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging." | Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is | out of sight. | | PD Fuddlefuck is a duck like you, but his feathers are all stubby and brown. This is beyond both of you: http://tinyurl.com/rv9z4 so have this instead. There once was an ugly duckling With feathers all stubby and brown And the other birds said in so many words Get out of town Get out, get out, get out of town And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack In a flurry of eiderdown http://www.angelfire.com/film/dannykaye/UglyDuckling.htm Androcles
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

 Quote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked "ignorant idiot" Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age: "If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging." Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is out of sight. PD

He's either searching for oil, or trying to disprove the Hoolow Earth
theory ;-)

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more pseduos¹ you throw in
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bill Habr
science forum beginner

Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

Posted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

1) Murphy's Keck Observatory results have not been repeated.

2) Even if they are repeatable it would not necessarily disprove general
relativity (it might mean that the theory is incomplete).

news:bsSdnUvzX9oDByrZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
 Quote: The headline on the Space.com news release reads, Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws. The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may be at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past. "'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,' says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.'" "Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities." In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is the constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity makes it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature). Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets, the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer. The observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere. The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of light must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the so-called beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated that "time" itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it does now. [Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to sustain their finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their politically correct Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and holding more than thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much for today's cosmologist ever shrinking in mind. The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed of light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward the Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the Big Bang Horizon. If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one meter out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than one meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until your original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon, then walk back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where you stand are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one meter out from each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter apart? Or do they, the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer to each other, ever shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing in "distance-time" from each other, finally to literally disappear into just one final line of circle well short of the last outermost lines of the circles you drew, the farther out you look? The precisely spaced (timed) lines you drew and laboriously measured to be so precise, would not look to be precise at all from you stand. They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings [toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing in accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter apart, on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the very last space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you stand looking out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single frame of view (point of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer, not multi-frame in any way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, cannot get that through their thick skulls to their pea brains? That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang infinity ("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon ("c"). It is there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated from us. Yet simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that particular horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe). Being always in its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it will be universally, immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As absolute as absolute can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost viewpoint out into a permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of the speed of light and can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it is. GLB
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

news:bsSdnUvzX9oDByrZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
 Quote: The headline on the Space.com news release reads, Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws. The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may be at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past. "'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,' says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.'" "Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities." In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is the constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity makes it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature). Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets, the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer. The observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere. The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of light must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the so-called beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated that "time" itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it does now. [Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to sustain their finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their politically correct Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and holding more than thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much for today's cosmologist ever shrinking in mind. The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed of light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward the Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the Big Bang Horizon. If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one meter out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than one meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until your original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon, then walk back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where you stand are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one meter out from each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter apart? Or do they, the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer to each other, ever shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing in "distance-time" from each other, finally to literally disappear into just one final line of circle well short of the last outermost lines of the circles you drew, the farther out you look? The precisely spaced (timed) lines you drew and laboriously measured to be so precise, would not look to be precise at all from you stand. They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings [toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing in accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter apart, on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the very last space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you stand looking out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single frame of view (point of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer, not multi-frame in any way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, cannot get that through their thick skulls to their pea brains? That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang infinity ("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon ("c"). It is there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated from us. Yet simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that particular horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe). Being always in its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it will be universally, immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As absolute as absolute can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost viewpoint out into a permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of the speed of light and can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it is. GLB

"'Relativity' is not 'reality'." Did I write that?! It would not exist if
had no reality to it. There would be no word for it. No concept of it. Argh,
how embarrassing.

GLB
tendon
science forum beginner

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws

PD wrote:
 Quote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked "ignorant idiot" Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age: "If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging." Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is out of sight.

stop crying, you have nice legs too

 Quote: PD

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [11 Posts]
 The time now is Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:12 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Question about Life. socratus Probability 0 Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:01 pm Probability Question dumont Probability 0 Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:38 pm Question about exponention WingDragon@gmail.com Math 2 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 am question on solartron 1260 carrie_yao@hotmail.com Electrochem 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:11 am A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Undergraduate 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 pm