Life's objective ( consumption ? ) is the more interesting question.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: NEWS BULLETIN -- Ed Conrad Has Cancer of the Brain .
Next: Quantum Gravity 362.8: Chaos Reconsidered as Opposite to Memory
From: HVAC on 22 Apr 2010 06:41 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4bcfab93$0$5017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > But it got me to think about the atom, and its energies. > I'm sure you're aware of these atomic, or more precisely, > these "nuclear" energies? We know a pretty good deal > about them now, you know. One of the very first things > that "hit" physicists about the atom was the fact that, > when one gets beyond hydrogen, when there are two or > more "protons" in the nucleus of an atom, then there > are two rather magnificently charged particles "glued" > together. So the SNF was born. The "strong nuclear > force", a very powerful, but teensy, weensy bit of force > that could "overcome" the also quite powerful repulsive > force of electronics. > > "Like charges repel, unlike charges attract." The SNF, > while not very far-reaching, with an impact that does > not venture very far outside the nucleus of an atom, is > said to be the most powerful force of Nature. And Mr. > Einstein's statement made me begin to wonder... how > does the SNF sustain itself? How does that majestic > energy of the nucleus of each and every atom of each > and every element, both the SNF and the weak nuclear > force (WNF), how do they keep from dissipating? How > can they continue to do "work", and not somehow be > rejuventated? > > Are we to finally accept that, on the level of an atom's > nucleus, there is "perpetual motion"? perpetual energy? > SOMETHING must be continuously and consistently > "recharging" those nuclear energies. What do you feel > does that? In String Theory, it is the very vibrations of those strings that is the energy at the quantum level. Again, all the energy of the universe existed at it's birth and will exist forever. Your 'flowing space' energy begs the question, where does space get the energy to 'flow'? All you are doing is adding a middleman.
From: HVAC on 21 Apr 2010 06:06 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4bce4a00$0$5024$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > As far as i know, Alabert was the first to say that > matter is not "in space", but instead it is "spatially > extended". He wrote this in his introductory note to > the 15th edition of his _RELATIVITY - The Special and > the General Theory_. And, as you say, this must > mean that our perception of edges between energy > and matter might very well be illusory. > > It also means that he thought that space, or more > precisely "spacetime", is made of the same stuff of > which matter is made. That's a load of bullshit. > Perhaps this is similar to Carl Sagan's expression, > "We are the stuff of stars!" And THAT is just a flat out lie.
From: Painius on 21 Apr 2010 21:51 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message... news:hqminc$5mh$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4bce4a00$0$5024$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> As far as i know, Alabert was the first to say that >> matter is not "in space", but instead it is "spatially >> extended". He wrote this in his introductory note to >> the 15th edition of his _RELATIVITY - The Special and >> the General Theory_. And, as you say, this must >> mean that our perception of edges between energy >> and matter might very well be illusory. >> >> It also means that he thought that space, or more >> precisely "spacetime", is made of the same stuff of >> which matter is made. > > That's a load of bullshit. I thought so too, at first. But it got me to think about the atom, and its energies. I'm sure you're aware of these atomic, or more precisely, these "nuclear" energies? We know a pretty good deal about them now, you know. One of the very first things that "hit" physicists about the atom was the fact that, when one gets beyond hydrogen, when there are two or more "protons" in the nucleus of an atom, then there are two rather magnificently charged particles "glued" together. So the SNF was born. The "strong nuclear force", a very powerful, but teensy, weensy bit of force that could "overcome" the also quite powerful repulsive force of electronics. "Like charges repel, unlike charges attract." The SNF, while not very far-reaching, with an impact that does not venture very far outside the nucleus of an atom, is said to be the most powerful force of Nature. And Mr. Einstein's statement made me begin to wonder... how does the SNF sustain itself? How does that majestic energy of the nucleus of each and every atom of each and every element, both the SNF and the weak nuclear force (WNF), how do they keep from dissipating? How can they continue to do "work", and not somehow be rejuventated? Are we to finally accept that, on the level of an atom's nucleus, there is "perpetual motion"? perpetual energy? SOMETHING must be continuously and consistently "recharging" those nuclear energies. What do you feel does that? Yes, "I don't know" is again an excellent response. It was *my* response for many, many years, until i just happened across this newsgroup and started reading about Gordon Wolter, mostly from the posts of that ol' coot. I read how it was spatial energy that flows into matter to cause gravity. Some of the energy flows *through* an object on the ground, for example, our bodies, and some of the energy flows *into* each and every atom of the object, thereby replenishing those majestic nuclear forces, consistently, continuously and completely. That last part is my own response to the "roach motel" issue that has plagued the concept of flowing space from the outset. An object, such as an entire planet, only receives the amount of spatial energy it requires to sustain each and every atom on and inside that planet. So by the time the spatial energy reaches the center of a planet, it has been all "used up" by all the gazillions of atoms that are part of that planet. This is, by the way, a different response to the roach motel issue than is had by the ol' coot. What natural mechanism controls the amount of spatial energy that flows into a planet? My guess would be the mass of the planet governs how much spatial energy flows into it. Back up on the surface, where the spatial energy is flowing through your body, a little energy stopping at each and every atom in your body, and the vast majority of the energy flowing through your body into the surface of the planet. It is this spatial energy that "glues" your feet to the floor. Step on a weight scale. You are looking at a precise measurement of the effect of this spatial energy putting pressure on your body, a precise measurement of the gravitational force. >> Perhaps this is similar to Carl Sagan's expression, >> "We are the stuff of stars!" > > And THAT is just a flat out lie. Gee, HMAN, that does not sound very much like an "I don't know," to me. <g> Sagan, of course, was speaking on an elementary level, which just means that every element on every planet (including those elements of which we are made) come from the stars. A star had to blow up to produce all those elements, then they condensed again into a new star with planets. One of those planets just happened to fall into the "Goldilocks" area around that star. So the elements on that planet were able to evolve into everything necessary to produce each and every thing you see on Earth... including us. We are most assuredly made of the stuff of stars! happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "We turn not older with years, but newer every day." > Emily Dickinson P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Painius on 24 Apr 2010 22:47 "HVAC" <mr.hvac(a)gmail.com> wrote in message... news:hqp8pi$2mh$1(a)hvac.motzarella.org... > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4bcfab93$0$5017$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> Sagan, of course, was speaking on an elementary level, >> which just means that every element on every planet >> (including those elements of which we are made) come >> from the stars. A star had to blow up to produce all >> those elements, then they condensed again into a new >> star with planets. One of those planets just happened >> to fall into the "Goldilocks" area around that star. So >> the elements on that planet were able to evolve into >> everything necessary to produce each and every thing >> you see on Earth... including us. > > ~~~~~ >> It also means that he thought that space, or more >> precisely "spacetime", is made of the same stuff of >> which matter is made. >> Perhaps this is similar to Carl Sagan's expression, >> "We are the stuff of stars!" > ~~~~~ > > The above statement that you made was a blatant > misreprestation of what Sagan meant by "We are > the stuff of stars". > > Certainly he didn't mean that we are made from the > vacuum of space. That statement merely pointed out the similarity. Sagan said we are the stuff of stars. Einstein said that physical objects are not "in space" but are instead "spatially extended". It was Einstein who believed that we are the stuff of space. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light." > Plato P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: HVAC on 25 Apr 2010 06:55
"Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4bd3ad35$0$4868$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> >> The above statement that you made was a blatant >> misreprestation of what Sagan meant by "We are >> the stuff of stars". >> >> Certainly he didn't mean that we are made from the >> vacuum of space. > > That statement merely pointed out the similarity. Sagan > said we are the stuff of stars. Einstein said that physical > objects are not "in space" but are instead "spatially > extended". It was Einstein who believed that we are the > stuff of space. Pathetic. Your style of arguing has now devolved to prevarication and subterfuge? It only points up the weakness of the argument for the reality of an 'aether'. |