[Philip Benjamin]
Artificial puzzles lead to artificial imaginative solutions. Probabilities
are not necessarily possibilities. These have no physical reality of existence
and not subject to the logical analysis of aseity or origins or meanings of
what is already established as existents by actual observations and
measurements. Freshman science classes SHOULD be given such tasks and be left
to themselves for reaching different conclusions in a TOLERANTLY, co-existing
attitude and atmosphere. Scientists as all other humans have the birthright to
believe and propose any ontological assumptions, but they have no TAO Right or
Divine Right of New Age Right to introduce and corrupt true science with their
private beliefs brought in through the backdoors.
Wave-likeness = Waviness is an artificially created puzzle. That
Corpuscular photons have no mass is another artificial conundrum. Particles may
BEHAVE as waves. Also, a mass at an indeterminate decimal place is still mass,
though negligible for all practical and mathematical purposes. The goddess of
Science is imperfect, incomplete, imprecise and indeterminate. There is no
place for bigotry of any kind in any branch of the academia or the media which
has become the most powerful Fourth Estate—the King Maker of today.
Philip Benjamin
'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected]> Monday,
February 8, 2021 4:05 PM To:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why On 2/8/2021 12:40 PM,
Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent
wrote: On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion of
>> the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space, both convert
>> negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic energy that
>> can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the second case by
>> falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly why that is so.
>> …..
> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, not a
> law of physics.
Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at
all.
>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is that?)
I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what
negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein
could also answer your question.
> to positive energy. AG
And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams.
> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy of the
> universe being exactly zero.
It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also
pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who
invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's
probably true.
Zero-energy
universe<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FZero-energy_universe&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cc1ea78ff76044b3e896708d8cc7d9583%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637484187033623097%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Ne3a5T3sxUxsLHC31SCuv5DFhhq3S1IEZTTtEwA56dQ%3D&reserved=0>
> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total energy of
> what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never referenced dark
> energy or matter in your original message.
That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no
difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal
everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same
way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity
treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get
more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a
property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking
increasingly likely that it does.
> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea that a
> system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,
Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence
and abandoning the scientific method in general.
Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70%
before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states
simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one
of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more
logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously,
or in neither state? AG
You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of vector
spaces. If your state is having a momentum on a heading of 45deg, then it's a
superposition of |North>+|East>. "Superposition" is only relative to some
basis. We right things that way when we have instruments that measure "North"
and "East", but none that measure NE.
I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition of NE
even if we can't measure in that direction?
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB470487A4DED8D78FDE12F925A88E9%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
