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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

It would indeed be amazing if fusion could occur in some wildly different 
Neptune sized world, and would be pretty if fusion could occur on some vast 
water world. Just the visuals. For politics, the policies either work well or 
poorly? In the US we seem far from an inflection point, so far, this year.  
Things are so far calm. Back to astrophysics. 

 

-Original Message-
From: Henrik Ohrstrom 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 20, 2023 3:07 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

One of the problems with a planet with fusion going on in the core is that if 
you can see that fusion on the outside, is it not a star rather than a 
planet?That said, I do not have RFA so all are opinions from my hiney.
A pulstative fusion in the core of a waterworld is not impossible considering 
how high pressures an imploding bubble can generate and if you somehow start a 
bubble fusion cykel that would be worth considering.But if that bubbling is so 
big that it shines through  the surface, you have a star or an explanet (aka 
Shrapnels) anyhow. 
Also, commie-bastids, that is an unimaginative insult, also as a modern trumist 
republican, you are much more commie than anyone of the rest of the world. Red 
party, check!Dementia riddled leader without connection to reality, Check!Madly 
lying sublieutenants, Check!Centralized economy ideals that screws the public 
really well, Check!could go on a while, nice glasshouse you have there, mind 
your throwing./henrik
Den fre 20 jan. 2023 kl 02:57 skrev spudboy100 via Everything List 
:


Ok, all you commie-bastids! Remember when I pondered whether water worlds big 
enough, deep enough, (water getting denser as mass on-top of it in a 
fantastically deep ocean, could cause fusion??? You lot correctly said NO!  
Ok, here I am back again to, as I am wont to do, to rub things in people's 
faces! 
Golly, wonder why they get so sore?
Here it tis'Newfound alien planet has nuclear fusion going in its core (msn.com)

Opinions?

-- 
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/1998645699.2200647.1674179830674%40mail.yahoo.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/CAF0GBnizQ1E0iH3%2BdkEHFXhKYkE6FgFa6XdxUg818kTYu5Nr4w%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/444068781.565667.1674504004649%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 8:57 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > Ok, all you commie-bastids! Remember when I pondered whether water
> worlds big enough, deep enough, (water getting denser as mass on-top of it
> in a fantastically deep ocean, could cause fusion??? You lot correctly said
> NO!   *
>
> *Ok, here I am back again to, as I am wont to do, to rub things in
> people's faces! *
>
> *Golly, wonder why they get so sore?*
>
> *Here it tis'*
> * Newfound alien planet has nuclear fusion going in its core (msn.com)
> *
>


I previously said:

 *"The smallest true star, that is a star that undergoes proton-proton
fusion in its core, has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter, although
pseudo-stars just 20 times the mass of Jupiter can undergo
deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium fusion for a short time until
their fuel is used up."*

This planet is estimated to be 13 times more massive than Jupiter not 20,
if this new finding holds up then the lower limit for a pseudo star will
need to be modified.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


nbm

-- 
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/CAJPayv29w9BNMf%2B9NnACPHu%3Dv00%2B3ZyUArKZa%3D_0v7BiT2zVsg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[Henrik Ohrstrom]

One of the problems with a planet with fusion going on in the core is that
if you can see that fusion on the outside, is it not a star rather than a
planet?
That said, I do not have RFA so all are opinions from my hiney.

A pulstative fusion in the core of a waterworld is not impossible
considering how high pressures an imploding bubble can generate and if you
somehow start a bubble fusion cykel that would be worth considering.
But if that bubbling is so big that it shines through  the surface, you
have a star or an explanet (aka Shrapnels) anyhow.

Also, commie-bastids, that is an unimaginative insult, also as a modern
trumist republican, you are much more commie than anyone of the rest of the
world.
Red party, check!
Dementia riddled leader without connection to reality, Check!
Madly lying sublieutenants, Check!
Centralized economy ideals that screws the public really well, Check!
could go on a while, nice glasshouse you have there, mind your throwing.
/henrik

Den fre 20 jan. 2023 kl 02:57 skrev spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>:

>
> Ok, all you commie-bastids! Remember when I pondered whether water worlds
> big enough, deep enough, (water getting denser as mass on-top of it in a
> fantastically deep ocean, could cause fusion??? You lot correctly said
> NO!
>
> Ok, here I am back again to, as I am wont to do, to rub things in people's
> faces!
>
> Golly, wonder why they get so sore?
>
> Here it tis'
> Newfound alien planet has nuclear fusion going in its core (msn.com)
> 
>
> Opinions?
>
>
> --
> 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/1998645699.2200647.1674179830674%40mail.yahoo.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/CAF0GBnizQ1E0iH3%2BdkEHFXhKYkE6FgFa6XdxUg818kTYu5Nr4w%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Ok, all you commie-bastids! Remember when I pondered whether water worlds big 
enough, deep enough, (water getting denser as mass on-top of it in a 
fantastically deep ocean, could cause fusion??? You lot correctly said NO!  
Ok, here I am back again to, as I am wont to do, to rub things in people's 
faces! 
Golly, wonder why they get so sore?
Here it tis'Newfound alien planet has nuclear fusion going in its core (msn.com)

Opinions?

-- 
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/1998645699.2200647.1674179830674%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

I suspect and have no way of demonstrating that it all ends in a great 
poof-out. Getting all science-fictional here, I posit that the universe created 
one living world to produce life and that life eventually produces machinery 
that would modify the entropy forecast, eventually. It's a guess, and one that 
I sometimes care about, but being preoccupied with my own existence, often not. 
On science, I'd say if the astronomers believe that know what is occurring past 
the Hubble Bubble, I would ask them, by observation or even by computational 
modeling, prove it.  

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Jan 3, 2023 6:49 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

Well, the size reflects the very low entropy of the earliest universe.
LC

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:37 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

The trick of the universe is not entropy, but size. What exists beyond the 
Hubble Volume? More galaxies, dust, empty vacuum, degenerate matter surrounding 
black holes, a super gravity-wave, paper clips It is certainly not well 
explained by cosmologists. No wonder guys like Linde & Guth and Vilenkin, 
simply push for eternal inflation? 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..


On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:


> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded 
> evidence of the laws of physics changing.

Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago it was 
much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. And it 
turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It is 
possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things appear 
to be the same in the earliest unvierse.
LC -- 
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.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/7ba047a5-c37e-4e02-b0da-d68af309a500n%40googlegroups.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/1140008885.3912909.1672777523089%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

Well, the size reflects the very low entropy of the earliest universe.

LC

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:20:37 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> The trick of the universe is not entropy, but size. What exists beyond the 
> Hubble Volume? More galaxies, dust, empty vacuum, degenerate matter 
> surrounding black holes, a super gravity-wave, paper clips It is 
> certainly not well explained by cosmologists. No wonder guys like Linde & 
> Guth and Vilenkin, simply push for eternal inflation? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:19 pm
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
>
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.*
>
>
> Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago 
> it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. 
> And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
>
>
> It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It 
> is possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things 
> appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.
>
> LC 
> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
>  
> .
>

-- 
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/7ba047a5-c37e-4e02-b0da-d68af309a500n%40googlegroups.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The trick of the universe is not entropy, but size. What exists beyond the 
Hubble Volume? More galaxies, dust, empty vacuum, degenerate matter surrounding 
black holes, a super gravity-wave, paper clips It is certainly not well 
explained by cosmologists. No wonder guys like Linde & Guth and Vilenkin, 
simply push for eternal inflation? 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..



On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:


> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded 
> evidence of the laws of physics changing.

Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago it was 
much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. And it 
turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It is 
possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things appear 
to be the same in the earliest unvierse.
LC -- 
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/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.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/1761047013.3535121.1672647631770%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Ok. It will take a serious budget to falsify Smolin & Alexander's premise. I 
find it intriguing that space itself might be a responsive system. What's 
interesting is that it responds to astronomers and physicists, and for the rest 
of us, not so much? How does it detect your papers on ARXIV/Cornell, or 
Physical Review D? Does it just copy the thoughts of people doing cosmology and 
somehow changes the information flowing down through telescope lenses & high 
energy proton impacts? 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Jan 1, 2023 8:22 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:57:12 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I have 
looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make it factual 
then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdf
Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from 
Microsoft to do all this. 
I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one big 
universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, make 
sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful things in 
the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the physics 
papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?



Smolin has ideas of a sort of Darwinism in the laws of physics. His ideas are 
taken seriously by a minority. This is possible. but on the other hand it 
requires serious evidence to show it.
When I and other physicists submit papers for publication they are reviewed by 
other physicists. I have reviewed papers by other researchers. 
LC 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic Universe.The 
Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience
Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what can 
be detected.
For this peasant? A great working theory.



>From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded 
>evidence of the laws of physics changing.
LC 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

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

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is 
objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to 
that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula 
to show that a symmetry was 

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

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/1/2023 5:19 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:



On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:

/> From what I know of observations and measurements there has
been no recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing./


Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of
years ago it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it
will be much lower. And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is
not constant.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis



It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. 
It is possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other 
things appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.


LC


I thought the gauge coupling constants were expected to run with energy 
and to converge in the 1e14 to 1e17 Gev range.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6624.pdf

Of course we can't see to that early a state of the universe.

Brent

--
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/ae09fd67-f3c4-6489-4a1b-41370e344c0c%40gmail.com.

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:57:12 PM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I 
> have looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make 
> it factual then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others. 
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdf
>
> Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from 
> Microsoft to do all this. 
>
> I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one 
> big universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, 
> make sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful 
> things in the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the 
> physics papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?
>
>
>
Smolin has ideas of a sort of Darwinism in the laws of physics. His ideas 
are taken seriously by a minority. This is possible. but on the other hand 
it requires serious evidence to show it.

When I and other physicists submit papers for publication they are reviewed 
by other physicists. I have reviewed papers by other researchers. 

LC
 

>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 12:07 pm
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic 
> Universe. 
> The Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience 
> <https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/07/09/the_laws_of_the_universe_are_changing_841586.html>
>
> Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what 
> can be detected.
>
> For this peasant? A great working theory.
>
>
> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.
>
> LC
>  
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics 
> is objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration 
> to that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
> formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
> and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 
> physics consider

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:03:59 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
>> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.*
>>
>
> Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago 
> it was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. 
> And it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

It has not been ascertained whether the Hubble parameter is changing. It is 
possible though. However, the fine structure constant and other things 
appear to be the same in the earliest unvierse.

LC 

-- 
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/9c1d97d3-97a1-4c83-b690-fc6793fd8ff1n%40googlegroups.com.

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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:07 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no
> recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.*
>

Today the temperature of empty space is 2.7ºk, but billions of years ago it
was much higher, and  billions of years from now it will be much lower. And
it turns out that Hubble's "constant" is not constant.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

7bb

-- 
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/CAJPayv1FU67mHgZNurwgC6MxhJs7ZeQyMdVXaO9Mzabt9vmWcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Yep, I get ya. However this is Smolin and he could be way wrong, but I have 
looked for and seen no retractions, alterations, etc. Does this make it factual 
then? No, it's on the team that did the work to convince others.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdf
Could it be wrong? Yeah sure. Is it serious? Well, they took cash from 
Microsoft to do all this. 
I like it, but then I like steady state, and like the multiverse, and one big 
universe, and have no preference. I just work here, change the lights, make 
sure the toilets flush, etc. I do cherry-pick interesting & hopeful things in 
the news and science especially. On the other hand, you write the physics 
papers LC, you get to choose what's valid?



-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic Universe.The 
Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience
Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what can 
be detected.
For this peasant? A great working theory.



>From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no recorded 
>evidence of the laws of physics changing.
LC 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

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

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is 
objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to 
that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula 
to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry and that 
this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of physics 
considered as such is something associated with covariant and invariant 
properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some set of 
transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, something that 
is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational waves = 
N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly determines 
the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing vectors, such that 
Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature C_{abcd}K^bK^d = 
λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that have zero eigenvalue 
C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and type II and D have 
nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and *C_{abcd}, for * the 
Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ 
λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors define symmetries and thus conservation 
laws. A timelike Killi

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:13:41 AM UTC-6 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic 
> Universe. 
> The Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience 
> <https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/07/09/the_laws_of_the_universe_are_changing_841586.html>
>
> Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what 
> can be detected.
>
> For this peasant? A great working theory.
>
>
>From what I know of observations and measurements there has been no 
recorded evidence of the laws of physics changing.

LC
 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so 
> following the physics I ask..
>
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics 
> is objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration 
> to that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
> formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
> and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 
> physics considered as such is something associated with covariant and 
> invariant properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some 
> set of transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, 
> something that is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical 
> reality?
>
> The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
> waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
> determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
> vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
> C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
> have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
> type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
> *C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
> *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
> define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
> defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
> conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
> defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
> Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
> Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
> √(g_{tt})∂_t so tha

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Hence, the plausibility of the causality of Smolin's Autodidactic Universe.The 
Laws of the Universe Are Changing | RealClearScience
Slum-dunk? No, there is only more research to be funded to search for what can 
be detected.
For this peasant? A great working theory.


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Dec 30, 2022 10:04 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

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

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is 
objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to 
that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula 
to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry and that 
this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of physics 
considered as such is something associated with covariant and invariant 
properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some set of 
transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, something that 
is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational waves = 
N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly determines 
the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing vectors, such that 
Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature C_{abcd}K^bK^d = 
λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that have zero eigenvalue 
C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and type II and D have 
nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and *C_{abcd}, for * the 
Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ 
λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors define symmetries and thus conservation 
laws. A timelike Killing vector defines conservation of energy, a spacelike 
Killing vector defines conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one 
derived from such defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 
1 + 3 + 6 = 10 Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one 
think of the Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
√(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, 
which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM approach to general 
relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation HΨ[g] = 0. General 
relativity does not automatically define conservation laws. Conservation laws 
only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. This often occurs where there 
is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic condition of flatness or some other 
spacetime with constant curvature at a distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of the 
anti-de Sitter sp

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 11:41:36 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

> 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
>

This begins to look a bit similar to the debate over whether mathematics is 
objectively real or something invented.  Emmy Noether gave consideration to 
that boundary term we usually discard when deriving the Euler-Lagrange 
formula to show that a symmetry was involved with this term. This symmetry 
and that this boundary term is zero meant a conservation law. A law of 
physics considered as such is something associated with covariant and 
invariant properties of space, spacetime or an abstract space under some 
set of transformations. Is this principle, a law of laws should we say, 
something that is discovered or is some objective aspect of a mathematical 
reality?

The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
*C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
*C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
√(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = 
iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM 
approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation 
HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation 
laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. 
This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic 
condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a 
distance.

Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of 
the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has 
constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this 
has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string 
theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a 
negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole 
physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the 

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

The difference here is the astronomers and physicists aren't just doing 
rationality, they are using equipment to observe and measure. So, I tend to 
lean heavily upon what they observe and measure Apologetics, is what people do 
when the toss around ideas and have no budget to do observations and measuring 
and testing.

The data obtained will not change no matter if the scientist is a 
marxist-pagan, ,or a believing Christian. That is, if both are honest in 
relating the facts of their work? 
That's all on them. .

-Original Message-
From: Philip Benjamin 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wed, Dec 28, 2022 10:46 am
Subject: RE: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

#yiv2859377902 filtered {}#yiv2859377902 filtered {}#yiv2859377902 
p.yiv2859377902MsoNormal, #yiv2859377902 li.yiv2859377902MsoNormal, 
#yiv2859377902 div.yiv2859377902MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2859377902 a:link, 
#yiv2859377902 span.yiv2859377902MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2859377902 
span.yiv2859377902EmailStyle21 
{font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv2859377902 
.yiv2859377902MsoChpDefault {font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv2859377902 filtered 
{}#yiv2859377902 div.yiv2859377902WordSection1 {}[Philip Benjamin]   No 
laws no physics. laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no scince, no 
business, no government, no language—no nothing!! Yes, even nothing has laws!!! 
Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of physics and chemistry 
govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is real, then it also MUST be 
governed by LAWS—immutable LAWS. Laws cannot precede analytical intelligence. 
Intelligence, which is an integral part of Personhood. Only a Person can be a 
Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING is not Personhood. This is also he 
issue of aseity. What is more rational—dead matter giving (trans-speciating) 
LIFE, or is itETERNAL LIFE producing dead matter and life forms? 
WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist pagans are gropingin incognito territory, of 
outer darkness!!     Philip Benjamin Non-Conformist   From: 
everything-list@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of 
Jason Resch
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..   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 . -- 
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/SJ0PR14MB5264FBDD154E7F811B9D90FAA8F29%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.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 discus

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

[John Clark]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 11:29 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

 *Energy is conserved because we want the laws of physics to be the same at
> different times, *


But the universe looks fundamentally different at different times because
Dark Energy is accelerating things, so energy is not conserved at the
cosmological scale. It's still true that if things are in thermal
equilibrium then the amount of energy entering a region of space is equal
to the amount of energy leaving it, however that region of space is getting
larger so the energy in that region is getting larger because Dark Energy
is a mysterious property of empty space that is not well understood.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

8hh


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv0uCneAL8wtmDQ0ERJDALv9C5yZrpwpjEe0z0ZgBUvKhg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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..

[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
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking> and Thomas Hertog
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hertog> in “/Populating the
landscape: A top-down approach
<https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123527>/” (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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies>in “/The
flexi-laws of physics

<https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426101-300-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

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

[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..

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

[Samiya Illias]

The Deen & he who belies it 
https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-deen-he-who-belies-it.html 


> On 28-Dec-2022, at 8:46 PM, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> 
> [Philip Benjamin]
>   No laws no physics. laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no 
> scince, no business, no government, no language—no nothing!! Yes, even 
> nothing has laws!!! Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of 
> physics and chemistry govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is 
> real, then it also MUST be governed by LAWS—immutable LAWS. Laws cannot 
> precede analytical intelligence. Intelligence, which is an integral part of 
> Personhood. Only a Person can be a Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING 
> is not Personhood. This is also he issue of aseity. What is more 
> rational—dead matter giving (trans-speciating) LIFE, or is it ETERNAL LIFE 
> producing dead matter and life forms? WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist 
> pagans are groping in incognito territory, of outer darkness!!
> Philip Benjamin
> Non-Conformist
>   From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>  On Behalf Of Jason Resch
> Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
> the physics I ask..
>  
> 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
> .
> -- 
> 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/SJ0PR14MB5264FBDD154E7F811B9D90FAA8F29%40SJ0PR14MB5264.namprd14.prod.outlook.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/6335A82E-FBC1-46D1-BFAA-D71EEDF947CB%40gmail.com.

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

[Philip Benjamin]

everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> 
Subject: RE: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

[Philip Benjamin]
  No laws no physics. No laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no 
scince, no business, no government, no language-no nothing!! Yes, even nothing 
has laws!!! Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of physics and 
chemistry govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is real, then it also 
MUST be governed by LAWS-immutable LAWS. Laws cannot precede analytical 
intelligence. Intelligence is an integral part of Personhood. Only a Person can 
be a Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING is not Personhood. This is also 
the issue of aseity. What is more rational-dead matter giving 
(trans-speciating) LIFE, or is it ETERNAL LIFE producing dead matter and life 
forms? WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist pagans are groping in incognito 
territory, of outer darkness!!
Philip Benjamin
Non-Conformist
  From: 
everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On 
Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> 
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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbgr.com%2Fscience%2Fthe-laws-of-physics-dont-actually-exist-according-to-this-physicist%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=hZGbDTchFqtnH5CZ%2Bzq5ebieBwU9ILMCZ9VYYLfL%2BB8%3D=0>



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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23Why_Laws=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=5cQlryQAbcNoIvi5%2FfpK7JVvZHX2uL3Vi9CSwuBFRoE%3D=0>
and here:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Observation_as_Fundamental<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23Observation_as_Fundamental=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=dVvKnnnJSBJxtNP6o7OXfEw98d4RYlVnSNJbY1NPR9Q%3D=0>

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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStephen_Hawking=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=XQwJK%2B0MlObcr3oE%2Bj0z7KMpq8O9sFN%2Bpk65Y8q9w2o%3D=0>
 and Thomas 
Hertog<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThomas_Hertog=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=4hfmBjlFHtLughtGr6pArgmMOrZzp0wAIHbW3WPOCv8%3D=0>
 in "Populating the landscape: A top-down 
approach<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?

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

[Philip Benjamin]

[Philip Benjamin]
  No laws no physics. laws, no chemistry, no biology, no logic, no scince, 
no business, no government, no language-no nothing!! Yes, even nothing has 
laws!!! Matter and energy are all governed by laws. Laws of physics and 
chemistry govern the properties of matter. If Dark-Matter is real, then it also 
MUST be governed by LAWS-immutable LAWS. Laws cannot precede analytical 
intelligence. Intelligence, which is an integral part of Personhood. Only a 
Person can be a Lawgiver. An amorphous glob of SOMETHING is not Personhood. 
This is also he issue of aseity. What is more rational-dead matter giving 
(trans-speciating) LIFE, or is it ETERNAL LIFE producing dead matter and life 
forms? WAMP-the-Ingrate and other Marxist pagans are groping in incognito 
territory, of outer darkness!!
Philip Benjamin
Non-Conformist
  From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 On Behalf Of Jason Resch
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2022 11:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:52 PM mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> 
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/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbgr.com%2Fscience%2Fthe-laws-of-physics-dont-actually-exist-according-to-this-physicist%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=hZGbDTchFqtnH5CZ%2Bzq5ebieBwU9ILMCZ9VYYLfL%2BB8%3D=0>



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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23Why_Laws=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=5cQlryQAbcNoIvi5%2FfpK7JVvZHX2uL3Vi9CSwuBFRoE%3D=0>
and here:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Observation_as_Fundamental<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Falwaysasking.com%2Fwhy-does-anything-exist%2F%23Observation_as_Fundamental=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=dVvKnnnJSBJxtNP6o7OXfEw98d4RYlVnSNJbY1NPR9Q%3D=0>

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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStephen_Hawking=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=XQwJK%2B0MlObcr3oE%2Bj0z7KMpq8O9sFN%2Bpk65Y8q9w2o%3D=0>
 and Thomas 
Hertog<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThomas_Hertog=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=4hfmBjlFHtLughtGr6pArgmMOrZzp0wAIHbW3WPOCv8%3D=0>
 in "Populating the landscape: A top-down 
approach<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.aps.org%2Fprd%2Fpdf%2F10.1103%2FPhysRevD.73.123527=05%7C01%7C%7Cee9307afe7fc44de879c08dae894085f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638078019750913187%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=farDYRoKU1E3En2L1tjdxVpr6TpPdhH0wR4m36v0cUY%3D=0>"
 

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

[Jason Resch]

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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking> and Thomas
Hertog <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hertog> in “*Populating the
landscape: A top-down approach
<https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123527>*” (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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies> in “*The
flexi-laws of physics
<https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426101-300-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 <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2065539588.1723683.1671994326767%40mail.yahoo.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2065539588.1723683.1671994326767%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:15:01 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 12/27/2022 12:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
>>> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
>>> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
>>> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
>>> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
>>> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
>>> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
>>> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
>>> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
>>> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>>>
>>> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>>>
>>> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
>>> Planck masses each with unit charge
>>>
>>> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>>>
>>> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, 
>>> the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>>>
>>> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
>>> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
>>> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
>>> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
>>> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
>>> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
>>> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
>>> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
>>> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
>>> massless.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>> This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. 
>> BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless 
>> coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The 
>> Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a 
>> small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a 
>> possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant 
>> is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 
>> 1.x10^{-16}.
>>
>> LC
>>  
>>
>
> erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.
>
> LC
>
>
> But the proton mass, m_p, isn't fundamental.  A proton isn't even a 
> fundamental particle.  That's why Vic thought the Planck mass was the only 
> sensible candidate.  And if a particles gets mass from the Higgs field, 
> comparing it's mass to the Higg's mass is more the measure of the weak 
> coupling between the Higgs field and the particle.
>
> Brent
>

M_p is the Planck mass.

LC
 

>
>  
>
>>
>>> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*

>>>
>>> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity 
>>> is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 
>>> protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis 
>>> that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar 
>>> with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of 
>>> nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they 
>>> generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to 
>>> the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 
>>> dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the 
>>> reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the 
>>> other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes 
>>> apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but 
>>> there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 
>>>
>>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>> 
>>> hfl
>>>
>>>
 -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything 

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

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_StarsFor
 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 discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2065539588.1723683.1671994326767%40mail.yahoo.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%2BBCJUhoJah%3Dzqp68VCob4HhbzfykMdPMyqJM%3DjMtJaYozoa4Q%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/1608225010.2634632.1672181555020%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/27/2022 12:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6
meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a
different way of looking at this.  Most people say gravity is
the weakest force because they compare the gravitational force
between two elementary charged particles, e.g. two electrons,
two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM force
between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the
order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric
charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of
gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit
of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at least not
any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The
Planck mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:

m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM
force of two Planck masses each with unit charge

\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And
behold, the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the
fine-structure constant.

Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the
question? Well, first in quantum field theory the particles
are all massless. Few get a little mass from interaction with
the Higgs field which has (for no particular reason) a
non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle masses
come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very
little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the
smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length
equals its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards.
It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of looking at it
gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost
massless.

Brent


This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck
masses. BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a
unitless coupling constant such as the QED fine structure
constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field gives particles their masses,
where fundamental fermions have a small mass given by the
zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible
definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant
is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so
α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC


erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

LC


But the proton mass, m_p, isn't fundamental.  A proton isn't even a 
fundamental particle.  That's why Vic thought the Planck mass was the 
only sensible candidate.  And if a particles gets mass from the Higgs 
field, comparing it's mass to the Higg's mass is more the measure of the 
weak coupling between the Higgs field and the particle.


Brent



On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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./


That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is
why gravity is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force
can keep 100 or even 2 protons in one place. The only
explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there are other
spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with,
string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the
forces of nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3
dimensions so they generally follow the law that says they
decrease with distance according to the well known 1/r^2
rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so
it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the
reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday
life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly
so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra microscopic
scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of
experimental evidence to support it.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis

hfl


-- 
You 

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 2:03:44 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
>> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
>> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
>> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
>> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
>> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
>> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
>> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
>> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
>> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>>
>> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>>
>> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
>> Planck masses each with unit charge
>>
>> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>>
>> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the 
>> gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>>
>> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
>> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
>> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
>> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
>> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
>> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
>> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
>> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
>> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
>> massless.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
> This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. 
> BTW, my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless 
> coupling constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The 
> Higgs field gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a 
> small mass given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a 
> possible definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant 
> is α_G = (m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 
> 1.x10^{-16}.
>
> LC
>  
>

erratum: the last number is α_G = 1.x10^{-34}.

LC
 

>
>> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>>>
>>
>> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity 
>> is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 
>> protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis 
>> that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar 
>> with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of 
>> nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they 
>> generally follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to 
>> the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 
>> dimensions so it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the 
>> reason we don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the 
>> other 6 dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes 
>> apparent only at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but 
>> there's not a scrap of experimental evidence to support it. 
>>
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> hfl
>>
>>
>>> -- 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%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 

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 1:04:36 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
> looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because they 
> compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged particles, 
> e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, to the EM 
> force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on the order of 
> 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric charge, there are no 
> particles with a natural unit of gravitational charge, i.e. mass. But there 
> is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not one that any particle has (at 
> least not any particle we could produce). It’s the Planck mass. The Planck 
> mass is derived just from the fundamental constants:
>
> m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg
>
> So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
> Planck masses each with unit charge
>
> \frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137
>
> where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, the 
> gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.
>
> Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
> Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few get 
> a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for no 
> particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the particle 
> masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have very little 
> gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the smallest possible 
> black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals its diameter. And it is 
> huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a bacterium. So in this way of 
> looking at it gravity is strong, but the fundamental particles are almost 
> massless.
>
> Brent
>
>
This is a ratio of forces with gravity and EM, but with Planck masses. BTW, 
my numbers come out to 1.23x10^3. Gravitation lacks a unitless coupling 
constant such as the QED fine structure constant α ~ 1/137. The Higgs field 
gives particles their masses, where fundamental fermions have a small mass 
given by the zitterbewegung induced by the Higgs field. So a possible 
definition of a dimensionless gravitational coupling constant is α_G = 
(m_H/m_p)^2. The Higgs mass is around 125GeV/c^2 and so α_G = 1.x10^{-16}.

LC
 

>
> On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>>
>
> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is 
> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons 
> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there 
> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string 
> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature 
> EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally 
> follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well 
> known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so 
> it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we 
> don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 
> dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only 
> at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap 
> of experimental evidence to support it. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> hfl
>
>
>> -- 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%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/599ebb50-0c4a-4e50-ad23-7f69422798c7n%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Brent Meeker]

My late friend Vic Stenger pointed out that there's a different way of 
looking at this.  Most people say gravity is the weakest force because 
they compare the gravitational force between two elementary charged 
particles, e.g. two electrons, two protons, or an electron and a proton, 
to the EM force between them and gravity is weaker by a large factor on 
the order of 1e-36. But while there is a natural unit of electric 
charge, there are no particles with a natural unit of gravitational 
charge, i.e. mass. But there is a natural unit of mass; it’s just not 
one that any particle has (at least not any particle we could produce). 
It’s the Planck mass. The Planck mass is derived just from the 
fundamental constants:


m_P = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar c}{G}} = 2.18e-18 Kg

So we should calculate the ratio of the gravitational to EM force of two 
Planck masses each with unit charge


\frac{F_G}{F_{EM}} = G m_P^2/Ke^2 = 137

where K is Coulomb’s constant and G is Newton’s constant. And behold, 
the gravity is stronger by the inverse of the fine-structure constant.


Why this great discrepancy in the two ways of looking at the question? 
Well, first in quantum field theory the particles are all massless. Few 
get a little mass from interaction with the Higgs field which has (for 
no particular reason) a non-zero vacuum energy. All the rest of the 
particle masses come from the binding energy of fields. So they have 
very little gravitational mass. The Planck mass is the mass of the 
smallest possible black hole, one whose de Broglie wave length equals 
its diameter. And it is huge by particle standards. It’s the mass of a 
bacterium. So in this way of looking at it gravity is strong, but the 
fundamental particles are almost massless.


Brent

On 12/27/2022 3:46 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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./


That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why 
gravity is so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or 
even 2 protons in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the 
hypothesis that there are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that 
we're familiar with, string theory claims there are at least 9, but 
that all the forces of nature EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 
3 dimensions so they generally follow the law that says they decrease 
with distance according to the well known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is 
free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so it decreases with distance 
according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we don't see gravity behave 
this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled 
up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra 
microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of 
experimental evidence to support it.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


hfl


--
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/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%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/abc0213d-4b04-9231-5d50-b4c63d2db8ff%40gmail.com.

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

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 5:47:32 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>>
>
> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is 
> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons 
> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there 
> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string 
> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature 
> EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally 
> follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well 
> known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so 
> it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we 
> don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 
> dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only 
> at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap 
> of experimental evidence to support it. 
>
>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>

It really is not so much that gravitation is so weak, but that elementary 
particles have such small masses. The coupling constant for gravitation is 
GM^2, or better a dimensionless form is (m_{pl}/m_higgs})^2. The Higgs 
field is a quartic field, and if it were much more massive the phi^4 
interaction would require it be near the Planck mass. The GM^2 version 
scales with mass, which for elementary particles is very small, but for 
black holes is huge.

LC

-- 
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/ed227cdc-edfd-441d-933d-40ee917a1839n%40googlegroups.com.

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

[Telmo Menezes]

Am Di, 27. Dez 2022, um 15:11, schrieb Jason Resch:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:47 AM John Clark  wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>> 
>> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is 
>> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons 
>> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there 
>> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string 
>> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature EXCEPT 
>> for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally follow the 
>> law that says they decrease with distance according to the well known 1/r^2 
>> rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so it decreases 
>> with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we don't see gravity 
>> behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6 dimensions are curled 
>> up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only at the ultra microscopic 
>> scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap of experimental evidence 
>> to support it. 
> 
> 
> That's interesting I hadn't heard that detailed of an explanation before.
> 
> There are also anthropic arguments for very weak gravity:
> 
> If gravity were 10 times stronger than it is, stars like our sun would live 
> for 1 billion years, not 10 billion.
> 
> Yey it took multiple billions of years to evolve multicellular life.

Interesting stuff Jason and John. I tend to go with anthropic explanations by 
default (because I cannot think of anything else). So much of our physical laws 
seem so precisely fine tuned for life that I struggle to come up with any other 
explanation. I seem to remember that Brent has a different view on this?

Telmo

> Jason
> 
> 
>> 
>>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> hfl
>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%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/CA%2BBCJUgoesGmGwmOY6p6K%3DKsFirXR%3Da6AOYsYzy%2BzZJ70aSc%2BA%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/bcb5b562-74bc-420b-97d5-105d9a5d6077%40app.fastmail.com.

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

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022, 6:47 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>>
>
> That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is
> so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons
> in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there
> are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string
> theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature
> EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally
> follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well
> known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so
> it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we
> don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6
> dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only
> at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap
> of experimental evidence to support it.
>


That's interesting I hadn't heard that detailed of an explanation before.

There are also anthropic arguments for very weak gravity:

If gravity were 10 times stronger than it is, stars like our sun would live
for 1 billion years, not 10 billion.

Yey it took multiple billions of years to evolve multicellular life.

Jason



>  John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> hfl
>
>
>> --
> 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/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%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/CA%2BBCJUgoesGmGwmOY6p6K%3DKsFirXR%3Da6AOYsYzy%2BzZJ70aSc%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 5:59 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.*
>

That's true, and one of the biggest mysteries in physics is why gravity is
so weak, after all the strong nuclear force can keep 100 or even 2 protons
in one place. The only explanation I've heard is the hypothesis that there
are other spatial dimensions besides the 3 that we're familiar with, string
theory claims there are at least 9, but that all the forces of nature
EXCEPT for gravity are confined to just 3 dimensions so they generally
follow the law that says they decrease with distance according to the well
known 1/r^2 rule, but gravity is free to radiate into all 9 dimensions so
it decreases with distance according to a 1/r^8 rule; and the reason we
don't see gravity behave this way in our everyday life is it the other 6
dimensions are curled up very tightly so the effect becomes apparent only
at the ultra microscopic scale. It's a nice theory but there's not a scrap
of experimental evidence to support it.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

hfl


>

-- 
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/CAJPayv2jR%2BUcPiSviVfghHmpzN7NN_yNURGiBKNcQvjYaD7y7g%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[Jason Resch]

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 <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2065539588.1723683.1671994326767%40mail.yahoo.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%2BBCJUhoJah%3Dzqp68VCob4HhbzfykMdPMyqJM%3DjMtJaYozoa4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Very nice, JC. Thanks. Pressure makes diamonds and thus fusion at high enough 
pressures. Therefore back to the drawing board for this one! The only science 
fictional takeaway would be if the water worlds had photosynthetic life at the 
surface and down below were incredible, dense life who need little or no light. 
I ain't holding for deep diving breath on that one. 



-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2022 8:57 am
Subject: Re: Physics? Ok Astronomers view 2 distant Water Worlds so following 
the physics I ask..

On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 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 
 1000 miles is not nearly deep enough for fusion, it would have to be about 
half a million miles deep for that and then it would not be a planet it would 
be a star. 



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



The smallest true star, that is a star that undergoes proton-proton fusion in 
its core, has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter, although pseudo-stars just 20 
times the mass of Jupiter can undergo deuterium-deuterium or deuterium-tritium 
fusion for a short time until their fuel is used up. Jupiter's mass is 319 
times the mass of the Earth and the Sun has about 1050 times the mass of 
Jupiter.
 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
moj




-- 
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/CAJPayv1P-ZgWiAEuS_8r29_F%2BoB5iDKM3Z%2BrYNe%3Dmns%3D%2B2FRiA%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/1599283570.1782321.1672083166992%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

[John Clark]

On Sun, Dec 25, 2022 at 1:52 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 *
>

1000 miles is not nearly deep enough for fusion, it would have to be about
half a million miles deep for that and then it would not be a planet it
would be a star.


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


The smallest true star, that is a star that undergoes proton-proton fusion
in its core, has about 80 times the mass of Jupiter, although pseudo-stars
just 20 times the mass of Jupiter can undergo deuterium-deuterium or
deuterium-tritium fusion for a short time until their fuel is used up.
Jupiter's mass is 319 times the mass of the Earth and the Sun has about 1050
times the mass of Jupiter.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

moj



>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1P-ZgWiAEuS_8r29_F%2BoB5iDKM3Z%2BrYNe%3Dmns%3D%2B2FRiA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

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 discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2065539588.1723683.1671994326767%40mail.yahoo.com.