On Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 8:32:56 AM UTC-7 medinuclear wrote:
> *[Philip Benjamin] * > > Artificial puzzles lead to artificial imaginative solutions. > Probabilities are not necessarily possibilities. > Only a probability of zero is impossible. AG > 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] *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]> 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/9644acf2-f37c-440a-8b1d-730df6e215aen%40googlegroups.com.
