date:20221228

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:34 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
>> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend
>> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization
>> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation
>> law.
>>
>
> That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the
> Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example,
> the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate
> any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and
> charge conjugation.
>
> So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be
>> invariant under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved
>> because we want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.
>>
>
> It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is
> invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those
> symmetries into our laws.
>
>
> Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in
> abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance.  Of course the invariance depends
> on the "point of view" in a sense.  Things didn't look at all space
> translation invariant to Aristotle.  Galileo said ignore that your ship is
> moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.  So we
> discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as what to
> measure.
>

The real point is that the laws are discovered, not imposed. The fact that
continuous symmetries correspond to conservation laws was discovered only
very much later. Most of the history of physics is about discovering what
works -- what the laws might be. POVI was thought of only very late in the
game, and is not a fundamental insight.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS7uHeH9BkzWHj_V_nL7j27qEdqpG%3D-274eDm1kgw_Ewg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker

On 12/28/2022 9:01 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker
wrote:

Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late
friend Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance. This was his
generalization of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every
symmetry implied a conservation law.

That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the
Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For
example, the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do
not generate any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries
like parity and charge conjugation.

So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be
invariant under translation of a different location. Energy is
conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at
different times, etc.

It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is
invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those
symmetries into our laws.

Vic called in POVI because he wanted to extend it to transformations in
abstract spaces, e.g. gauge invariance. Of course the invariance
depends on the "point of view" in a sense. Things didn't look at all
space translation invariant to Aristotle. Galileo said ignore that your
ship is moving along the shore, just look at the dynamics in the cabin.
So we discovered these symmetries by learning what ignore as well as
what to measure.

Brent

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQNExzaxHEfwZnVeeB7Yi-ORUHSTsZZFrns%2B8VYmvCm_g%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e4122198-477a-f5cb-f4da-88aa6c09f509%40gmail.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend
> Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his generalization
> of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry implied a conservation
> law.
>

That is not strictly true. It is only continuous symmetries of the
Lagrangian that imply conservation laws -- not all symmetries. For example,
the symmetries of a square under rotation and reflection do not generate
any conservation laws. Neither do discrete symmetries like parity and
charge conjugation.

So momentum is conserved because we want any law of physics to be invariant
> under translation of a different location.  Energy is conserved because we
> want the laws of physics to be the same at different times, etc.
>

It is not what we want, it is what we find. We find that nature is
invariant under these continuous transformations, so we build those
symmetries into our laws.

Bruce

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQNExzaxHEfwZnVeeB7Yi-ORUHSTsZZFrns%2B8VYmvCm_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker

The point is that protons aren't even fundamental particles.  Unlike 
electric charge, mass, which is gravitational charge doen't have any 
corresponding fundamental particle.  The only candidate for a 
fundamental mass is the the Planck mass.  But if you compare the 
gravitational attraction of two charged Planck masses to their 
electromagnetic attraction you find that the gravitational attraction is 
137 times greater.

Brent

On 12/28/2022 8:23 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

Or because electromagnetic charge is so great.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:19 PM Brent Meeker  
wrote:

Or because protons are so light.

Brent

On 12/27/2022 2:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the
> electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational
> attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54
protons
> gathered together in one place before the gravitational
attraction can
> overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as
as big
> and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.
>
> See:
>

https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Gravity_and_the_Lives_and_Deaths_of_Stars
> For the calculation and references.
>
> Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e9f322c-f120-e5ab-1b38-f0b21d4b406a%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhtcQ8UC5Juv1W3_gwJRacf0tgVqgHJ4x-zv3NkPtvcjQ%40mail.gmail.com 
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c41695a5-ed80-e12d-d474-9f3f282adca4%40gmail.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker

Of course one reason there are "laws of physics" is what my late friend 
Vic Stenger called Point Of View Invariance.  This was his 
generalization of Emmy Noether's theorem that showed every symmetry 
implied a conservation law.  So momentum is conserved because we want 
any law of physics to be invariant under translation of a different 
location.  Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be 
the same at different times, etc.


Brent

On 12/27/2022 9:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM  wrote:

A well-covered essay you have there, Jason.


Thank you!

This almost goes to the essays by a few physicists which asks,
"Are there any laws?"
I would say yes, or perhaps evolving laws in an evolving cosmos?
But I am not the astronomer or physicist.


https://bgr.com/science/the-laws-of-physics-dont-actually-exist-according-to-this-physicist/



I am quite partial to some of the ideas that the laws, as we see them, 
have much to do with the kind of observers we happen to be. I have 
collected numerous quotes from physicists who have thought along these 
lines here:


https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Why_Laws
and here:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Observation_as_Fundamental

Here are a couple examples:

"The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly
different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and
effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially
traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the
present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus
depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that
the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some
sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all
possible initial states."

-- Stephen Hawking
 and Thomas Hertog
 in “/Populating the
landscape: A top-down approach
/” (2006)


"It is an attempt to explain the Goldilocks factor by appealing to
cosmic self-consistency: the bio-friendly universe explains life
even as life explains the bio-friendly universe. […] Cosmic
bio-friendliness is therefore the result of a sort of quantum
post-selection effect extended to the very laws of physics
themselves."

-- Paul Davies in “/The
flexi-laws of physics

/”
(2007)


Jason

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM  wrote:

A well-covered essay you have there, Jason.

This almost goes to the essays by a few physicists which asks,
"Are there any laws?"
I would say yes, or perhaps evolving laws in an evolving cosmos?
But I am not the astronomer or physicist.


https://bgr.com/science/the-laws-of-physics-dont-actually-exist-according-to-this-physicist/





-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Dec 27, 2022 5:59 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds
so following the physics I ask..

There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the
electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational
attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54
protons gathered together in one place before the gravitational
attraction can overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other
words, stars as as big and long-lived as they are because gravity
is so weak.

See:

https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Gravity_and_the_Lives_and_Deaths_of_Stars
For the calculation and references.

Jason

On Sun, Dec 25, 2022, 1:52 PM spudboy100 via Everything List
 wrote:


https://scitechdaily.com/nasa-discovers-pair-of-super-earths-with-1000-mile-deep-oceans/


Would the mass of 1000 miles (1333 kilometers) with the mass
of liquid water induce nuclear fusion at the bottom of those
oceans??

Water, mass, gravity, crushing force? Like perhaps not
deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion, but proton-proton fusion??

Would a space probe doing an orbit on such deep ocean view
white plasma glowing upwards? Would the damn things look more
like just another gas giant? Nothing spectacular, nothing
remarkable? Would closeness to its primary (star) have any
influence?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Jason Resch

Or because electromagnetic charge is so great.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 10:19 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> Or because protons are so light.
>
> Brent
>
> On 12/27/2022 2:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
> > There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the
> > electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational
> > attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons
> > gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can
> > overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big
> > and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.
> >
> > See:
> >
> https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Gravity_and_the_Lives_and_Deaths_of_Stars
> > For the calculation and references.
> >
> > Jason
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e9f322c-f120-e5ab-1b38-f0b21d4b406a%40gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhtcQ8UC5Juv1W3_gwJRacf0tgVqgHJ4x-zv3NkPtvcjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following the physics I ask..

2022-12-28 Thread Brent Meeker


Or because protons are so light.

Brent

On 12/27/2022 2:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
There's an interesting relationship between the strength of the 
electrostatic repulsion between two protons, and the gravitational 
attraction of protons. It works out such that it takes ~10^54 protons 
gathered together in one place before the gravitational attraction can 
overwhelm the electrostatic repulsion. In other words, stars as as big 
and long-lived as they are because gravity is so weak.


See:
https://alwaysasking.com/is-the-universe-fine-tuned/#Gravity_and_the_Lives_and_Deaths_of_Stars
For the calculation and references.

Jason


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5e9f322c-f120-e5ab-1b38-f0b21d4b406a%40gmail.com.

RE: A paranormal prediction for the next year

2022-12-28 Thread Philip Benjamin

[Philip Benjamin]
Not only WAMP-the-Ingrate, the WHITE HOUSE, governments, businesses, many 
churches, synagogues, religious centers etc. are deep into occultism ( even in 
the past,  Russian Rasputin, Tzar Nicholas, Hitler, British Royals etc.)  
References below. Trickeries of the real entities of darkness!
References. The Occult Connections of Hillary Clinton
https://www.richardcassaro.com/prince-charles-publicly-reveals-the-secret-doctrine-of-the-occult/
 2016.In September 2006, Prince Charles publicly revealed what can arguably 
be called "the Secret Doctrine of the Occult" in a 16-minute long, 
specially-videotaped address to the Sacred Web Conference at the University of 
Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
https://redice.tv/news/the-british-occult-secret-service
Queen Elizabeth I & Francis Walsingham
 https://redice.tv/news/the-british-occult-secret-service
Five Creepy Royal Family Facts  April 14, 2017 By: A.L.Cuin
10 Royals Who Dabbled in the Occult  by Lorna Wallace
https://theparanormalsite.com/the-occult-connections-of-hillary-clinton/
  The Occult Connections of Hillary Clinton
https://www.truthandaction.org/hillary-clinton-referred-satanic-occult-high-priestess/
   Hillary Clinton Referred to as Satanic, Occult High Priestess

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 12:34 PM
To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Subject: A paranormal prediction for the next year

One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. 
One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again.

.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SJ0PR14MB5264945D7C8CA040DE456E96A8F29%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

A paranormal prediction for the next year

2022-12-28 Thread John Clark

One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one
word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again.