|
|
| Author |
Message |
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:
Re: There is no greater God than entropy.
|
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jun_30_cBAg@Cotse.NET...
| Quote: | Hi G_L_Bradford, What makes you think astronomers
don't know the difference between the angular size
( i.e. the portion of the sky ) and the actual size ?
Not even 4 year olds make that mistake.
Are you saying their caculations are wrong ? Where is their error ?
Why hasn't anyone caught it yet ?
Why would the Milky Way look " more youthful "
to someone traveling away from it ?
You wrote:
We are good at dualities. Dual characterizations. Dual technologies.
All information is comparative, relative... how could it be otherwise ?
I suspect that you're afraid of heights, afraid to zoom out.
Zoom out a bit, and you can see evolution... you're related to apes.
Zoom out a bit more and you see that you're like a lit match,
where consumption ( entropy, dissipation ) creates/destroys all that is.
There is no greater God than entropy.
|
Jeff, do you realize what it is you are advancing toward when you ask a
question like, "Why would the Milky Way look 'more youthful' to someone
traveling away from it?" Rather than tell you, I'll ask you this, as with
Albert Einstein, mind's eye that is, as you depart from the Milky Way going
away from it, and reach a distance of two billion light years from it, just
what age of Milky Way do you think you see in looking back at it? Four
billion light years? Eight billion light years? Twelve billion light years?
Finally, approximately (rounded off) fourteen billion light years?
If within the next year we discovered and invented the means to travel the
distance to a star ten light years distant from the Earth and Earth's Sun in
a period of time of ten days, and you took that voyage June 20, 2010, only
to turn around immediately and return in ten more days to find that you had
only been gone for a total of twenty days, what year (versus year 2010 on
Earth) for the Earth's Sun do you think you would have [observed] from the
vicinity of that star ten light years away? If you think it would be any
other year than year 2000 for Earth and Earth's Sun, tell me why. Also, if
you think it would take any SHORTER time than ten years and ten days
observed (year 2000 to year 2010 (about July 10th, year 2010)) to return to
Earth (regardless of your ship's time telling you it was a ten day voyage),
also tell me why you would think that. A travel time of ten years and ten
days, observed, for a distance traveled of ten light years nets an average
travel velocity below the speed of light, I do believe.
And it would have the same on the outward leg. Why? Because that
hypothethical destination star is ten light years in distance from the Earth
and Earth's Sun. You can project the time of travel to any length
whatsoever, that ten light years between still has to be covered regardless.
The traveler will start out, observed, ten years behind the times -- the
time at the destination star, regardless, and will observe himself, by
observing the environment of the observable galaxy and the observable
universe, to cover that observed ten years between (when starting out) in
ADDITION to whatever period of time is his travel time. Even if he just
stepped through some hypothetical stargate and it took him only two seconds
of time to reach the vicinity of a star a distance of ten light years from
Earth and Earth's Sun, he must observe, via looking back at our Sun, that it
took him ten years and two seconds to step through that stargate (that
space-time gate), for an average velocity in crossing ten light years worth
of distance that is less than the speed of light.
Say it takes a traveler a hundred years to make that voyage.
Observationally, he still leaves upon his voyage ten years behind in time to
the real time of his destination star and must make up that time behind the
real time of his destination during his voyage to arrive in the vicinity of
the star in [its] time, not the time for it he observed for it from Earth
ten light years away. During his hundred years of time traveling between
Earth and it, a hundred years of real time will pass for it, at it. Time
also that he must observe himself to cover, in addition to the ten years he
was already behind before he even started out. In one-hundred years of
travel time he must observe for his destination a passage of time of
one-hundred and ten years. Would that mean that time slowed for him during a
length of voyage of one-hundred years. No, not since he started out a light
image ten years behind his destination's real time to begin with. Real time
to real time for his destination was a hundred years. Real time to real
time, or rather ship's time passed, for him was a hundred years. Relative
time, though, where he must account for that ten light [years] additional to
real time, one-hundred and ten years. And one-hundred and ten years for the
return voyage too, for a relative time voyage of two-hundred and twenty
years, relatively speaking that is. But for some reason when he checks the
time on Earth, he finds he was gone two-hundred years rather than
two-hundred and twenty years.
On the day the traveler reaches the star ten light years out, after his
hundred year voyage, he looks and observes Earth's Sun to be ten light years
away in distance. By that observation it did not take him a hundred years to
reach his destination. It took him only ninety years. Time slowed for the
Earth and Earth's Sun in his rear view mirror during his voyage. If he could
enhance the light enough just arrived from Sol and vicinity, the information
just received at the speed of light would tell him his twin brother on Earth
was now ten years younger than he. Plus, he would observe the time on the
clock on his brother's wall to be ten years behind his own clock in
time....ten light years away. His brother would appear from that distance to
be "more youthful" now than he. Had the traveler taken ten days, or two
seconds, to make the trip, he might remember the scene because he might see
himself in it....as he was at that time ten years prior to leaving upon his
voyage to a destination ten light years away from Sol.
A voyage of twelve billion light years in distance from the Milky Way, no
matter the time it would take, two seconds or twenty billion years, or
two-hundred billion years, has to take into account another factor less than
two billion light years further on to always be observed from everywhere,
from every single point of every single universe. The constant of the Big
Bang Horizon. The traveler would see it to be less than two-billion light
years further on than where he places the Milky Way from where and when he
is now. No matter what he should be seeing, he is seeing the Milky Way, if
he can see it at all, exactly as it was in its most youthful stage,
essentially timelessly so, though not [exactly] as timeless as the Horizon
now a very short cosmic distance in cosmic time behind it. The Horizon that
is the beginning and end all, constant. Endless beginning and beginningless
end, the constant horizon in the distance. The distant Horizon ultimate for
position. The distant Horizon ultimate for velocity. The constant of the
distant Big Bang Horizon knows nothing of the existance of entropy and could
care less (The constant of the distant speed of light horizon knows nothing
of the existance of entropy and could care less).
At the constant of Big Bang Horizon there might be no existance of
gravity. Less than one silly millimeter this side of it though, the constant
of the existance of unimaginable gravity. Would every foreground point of
every universe extant in an infinite Universe be swathed in that background
gravity? Yes it would, as essentially an opposed anti-gravity gravity field
or force to its own field or force of gravity. Accelerative, foreground to
background, constant. Accelerative, foreground frame or point to background
constant of the observed -- from every foreground point -- nearest vicinity
of the Big Bang Horizon. Accelerative, every single local universe to remote
infinite Universe of all of an infinity of locals, thus mutual checkmate,
mutual stalemate, constant. Accelerative, every relative position, every
relative velocity, to the common constant of the speed of light horizon.
Accelerative, time here to timelessness (zero time) there, inertial frame
here to inertialess frame there, finite (entropic) here to infinite
(energetic) there. Accelerative, from something here to everything
whatsoever (therefore nothing whatsoever) there.
Imagine the so-called "arrow of time of the universe." Take a real hard
look at it and think hard into it as the entity it is supposed to be,
pointing as it does straight to you, at you, and through you to the future
of the universe. Got it. Now hold it there and take a walk behind it to look
at what it looks like from that end....to end. It disappears,
instantaneously. The Universe and every universe of it disappears,
instantaneously. Space and time disappear, instantaneously. Light
disappears, instantaneously. All existance, all forces, all constants, all
positions, all velocities, all points, all atoms, all the subatomic, all
mass, all energy, all of existance whatsoever, disappears,
instantaneously....simultaneously. Everything, including nothing, disappears
instantaneously. All DRIVE disappears instantaneously.
All historians who have ever thought deeply upon the matter of history,
thus time, such as noted historian Will Durant among many, many others, have
noted the fact that history always repeats itself in large aspect, in the
bigger picture, though never in smaller, far more complex, detail. Anyone
who studies it for very long, throughout its length, will develop senses of
"de-ja vu" after decades of study within a long length of history of many
varying eras and places. It's not "de-ja vu" so much as it is a growing
sense of basic physics applying to all situations. Differing physics
applying to different trends; i.e., different paths taken and all paths
taken. But always the same physics applying to the same path taken, the same
nature, no matter the details, no matter attempts to muddy the waters, no
matter the attempts to say that this path is a brand spanking new path
never, ever, taken before to a brand new place the world, the universe, has
never been before. But once upon that so-called new path, the deeply
studied, thinking, historian will know exactly where it leads to if followed
all the way to conclusion. Just as the past does, the present and future
turn upon exactly the same overall, bigger picture, physics, escapelessly.
There is no such thing as nakedly singular "arrow of time" continuance of
evolution forward to somewhere, some when, nature has never been before or
is not now handling somewhere else, some when else, timelessly parallel
sequentially. There is nothing new in the Universe to the Universe. And,
there is nothing old in the Universe to the Universe. All time curves to
zero...rather to one. Not to the beginning to physics. Not to the end of
physics. But to the constancy of physics. Therefore, concomitantly, to the
constancy of the Universe.
We observe energy, ergo youth, to dominate the background space-times of
the observable universe, at once observing entropy, ergo age, to dominate
the foreground space-times. Stephen Hawking once observed, tongue in cheek I
suppose, that all we needed to do to get into the energy and youth of the
observable universe was simply to travel the universe away from anywhere to
somewhere else. "To travel it" being the prime part of portence and
importance. To get out into its horizons, to travel them, would be to remain
sustainably within its energy and youth. Not your's or mine of course, but
life in its. Hawking implied, rightly, that there is only one direction
anyone should even want to go in the universe, toward that Big Bang Horizon,
which means simply out, spreading out into the Universe. For life, as life,
no concentration on -- or concentration in -- any single place, space and/or
time. Entropic. Therefore bad. Even evil. Inexorable increase in the tyranny
of chaos, the tyranny of anarchy, the tyranny of entropy, tyranny period
(thus pestilence, war, famine, death; Big Crunch / Big Rip; period), iron
clad guaranteed. All of the most brilliant historians of history could
realize the problem panaramically, but only one that I know of -- almost
accidentally in passing -- proferred the then known, but since all but
forgotten (possibly intentionally so), solution to the problem. That was
Edward Gibbon in his first volume, second chapter of The History Of The
Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, written during an earlier stage of
frontier as "New World," right at the time of the American Revolution.
Hawking first in his own way, followed soon by Gerard K. O'Neill in his own
way, followed in turn by Michio Kaku in his own way, took the problem all
the way up into the biggest picture of all pictures, and, at the same time
with it, has seen with acute clarity the only really possible solution to
the problem. The historically proven, ever continuing, solution to a
neverending problem.
GLB |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeff…Relf
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:23 am Post subject:
( Pressure = -Density * c^2 ) means mass-energy spontaneously dissipates.
|
|
|
Hi G_L_Bradford, Re: Your concluding comments on time/history,
I put it this way:
Accumulation/Dissipation, consumption, gravity/entropy, past/future
are all pseudo-directional because... like a dice toss is pseudorandom,
known to be perfectly causal, even when no one knows the exact outcome,
...randomness is ever pseudorandom.
The Entropy_Scape is pseudo-directional, spatial, immutable, and parochial.
No place ever lacked entropy; hence there are five spatial dimensions:
Entropy_Time_Space: accumulation/dissipation, past/future, etc.
Re: Your beginning comments on the apparent age of the Milky Way
when you are 2 giga light-years away from it,
The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
for the same reason the speed of sound in an atmosphere is constant.
But a vacuum has no wind, only photons can travel that fast,
and nothing, no information, can travel faster.
Therefor all your visual information about the Milky Way must be at least
2 giga years old. Nowhere does that imply that traveling makes it younger.
Nothing can travel faster than a photon because
it'd take infinite acceleration ( infinite directed energy )
to accelerate something with a non-zero rest mass.
Further, such energies/accelerations would instantly incinerate you !
Eu-singularities can't exist for the same reason;
they couldn't possibly radiate infinite energy at their event horizons.
Eu-vacuums also can't exist for that same reason;
it'd take infinite directed energy to create a perfect vacuum.
Forget infinite density at a pseudo-singularity,
Planck density alone implies _Huge_ negavite pressure, _Rapid_ cooling,
according to w, the equation of state, Pressure = -Density * c^2 .
w always equals -1 according to the concordance model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM.
The negative pressure ( the cooling ) abates as density declines.
( Pressure = -Density * c^2 ) means mass-energy spontaneously dissipates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T Wake
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1978
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject:
Re: ( Pressure = -Density * c^2 ) means mass-energy spontaneously dissipates.
|
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_1_yd0E@Cotse.NET...
| Quote: | The Entropy_Scape is pseudo-directional, spatial, immutable, and
parochial.
No place ever lacked entropy; hence there are five spatial dimensions:
|
Seriously Jeff, do you even have the slightest idea what a "spatial"
dimension even is?
(Gibberish snipped) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yt56erd
science forum Guru
Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 313
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:03 am Post subject:
Re: Kadiatcha_Girrl... What happened to your bots ?
|
|
|
Jeff...Relf wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Crank_Seeker ( Kadiatcha_Girrl ), What happened to your bots ?
|
who the f*** is kadiatcha_girrl dickweed?
you are really fucked in the head arent you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:12 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Mobile Phone | Credit Cards | Bankruptcy | Credit Cards | Debt Consolidation
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
