subject:"dark energy"

What if Dark Energy is weakening?

2024-05-05 Thread John Clark

*"If confirmed, the hints that dark energy might be weakening would bring
the first substantial change in decades to the generally accepted
theoretical model of the Universe. And if dark energy is not constant, that
would hold implications for theories of how the Universe has evolved and
for what its future might hold."*

*Dark energy is tearing the Universe apart. What if the force is weakening?*
<https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01273-4?utm_source=Live+Audience_campaign=485078fe71-nature-briefing-daily-20240503_medium=email_term=0_b27a691814-485078fe71-50169436>

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
edw

-- 
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/CAJPayv1BTd2SDTb1zkTJk%3D64kg_ArfLv1QKCE_vz7oNECxagGA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

2024-04-15 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 5:53 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

*> "The article
> at 
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/
> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/>
> says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with
> a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also
> several other alternative models that assume the density of dark energy has
> varied over the history of the universe.'I'd heard of "quintessence" (a
> dynamical scalar field throughout space) as an alternative to a
> cosmological constant, does anyone know what the "several other alternative
> models" with variable dark energy might be?"*
>

*The word "Quintessence"covers a lot of ground, it's just a placeholder
name for a hypothetical fifth fundamental force of nature that produces a
field with a negative pressure (stress) and thus, according to Einstein's
General Relativity, would cause the universe to accelerate. If the recent
observations made by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) in
Arizona about the expansion of the universe turn out to be valid (it only
has a 3 sigma and you need a 5 sigma or more to claim a discovery) and the
strength of Dark Energy really does change over time, then it cannot be an
inherent property of space itself as most had thought. So it must be caused
by some form of Quintessence. *

*One very popular type of Quintessence is called, for reasons not entirely
clear to me, "Phantom Dark Energy"; it hypothesizes that Dark Energy is a
field that contains negative kinetic energy.  But there are problems with
this idea, it is very difficult to reconcile negative kinetic energy with
standard Quantum Mechanics. And in the lab nobody has ever found anything
that has negative kinetic energy. And if the DESI observations turn out to
be true then Dark Energy is getting weaker overtime, but Phantom Dark
Energy predicts it should get stronger leading eventually to the Big Rip.*

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  *Extropolis*
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
edp

-- 
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/CAJPayv1mdnd%2BmFbQa6tQp3qYkWAVa4shQZSrEeiDhfEbwej%3DGw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

2024-04-14 Thread Jesse Mazer

The article at
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/dark-energy-might-not-be-constant-after-all/
says: 'One alternative theory proposes that the universe may be filled with
a fluctuating form of dark energy dubbed “quintessence.” There are also
several other alternative models that assume the density of dark energy has
varied over the history of the universe.'

I'd heard of "quintessence" (a dynamical scalar field throughout space) as
an alternative to a cosmological constant, does anyone know what the
"several other alternative models" with variable dark energy might be?

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:24 PM John Clark  wrote:

> Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for
> free without a subscription.
>
> A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong
>
> Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that
> mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the
> universe.
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/science/space/astronomy-universe-dark-energy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.h00.5Kdw.QJDXLL_Dk5fk=em-share
>
> --
> 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/CAJPayv1Hvwk-DQMJwDBZ-B6gQ__kfT0xuGAsNpc%2B6yCYsxJq%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Hvwk-DQMJwDBZ-B6gQ__kfT0xuGAsNpc%2B6yCYsxJq%2Bw%40mail.gmail.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/CAPCWU3KWBXuGohb4nukRgDgSrkFgU3Yq%2BRTMe-JPFvSG2cdW6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

2024-04-05 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:00 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

> "*The next question will be what causes DE to change?"*

That is a very good question but nobody has a very good answer, but at
least now we know that's the correct question to ask. Assuming of course
this result holds up and dark energy has really been getting weaker over
time, if it turns out to be true then the people who discovered this are
almost guaranteed to get a Nobel prize, they would certainly deserve it.
It opens up the possibility that dark energy might eventually drop to zero
or even become negative and the universe could end in a big crunch.

*> "When it was just the cosmological constant there was no change to be
> explained."*

Actually I think it makes a theoretical physicist job a little easier. If
as previously thought, dark energy was an intrinsic part of empty space and you
use quantum mechanics to figure out how large it will be you get a value at
least 10^120 times larger than what is actually observed. If the value was
exactly zero there is hope that when we know more about quantum mechanics
than we do now somebody will figure out how things cancel out and we get
exactly zero, but if the value is ridiculously tiny but not zero then you
have to figure out how to cancel out everything* EXCEPT* for one part in
10^120. How in the world do you do that?! But if dark matter is not an
intrinsic part of empty space then it must be caused by a field, sort of
like the inflation field that caused everything to expand enormously just
10^-36 seconds after the big bang and ended about 10^-33 seconds after
the big bang. But the dark matter field would be MUCH weaker than the
inflation field.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
dmf

--
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/CAJPayv3WYH_Sjt8EZ4xqkgPUCkNwYRMY2kmvDsgHgm76EhSsyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

2024-04-04 Thread Brent Meeker

"If the work of dark energy were constant over time, it would eventually
push all the stars and galaxies so far apart that even atoms would be
torn asunder,..."

That's not true. The estimated strength of dark energy, w=-1, implied
that galaxy clusters and any smaller groups would still be held together
by gravity, to say nothing of EM and nuclear forces.

Still an interesting. The next question will be what causes DE to
change? When it was just the cosmological constant there was no change
to be explained.

Brent

On 4/4/2024 11:23 AM, John Clark wrote:
Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for
free without a subscription.

A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of
that mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of
the universe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/science/space/astronomy-universe-dark-energy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.h00.5Kdw.QJDXLL_Dk5fk=em-share
<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/science/space/astronomy-universe-dark-energy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.h00.5Kdw.QJDXLL_Dk5fk=em-share>

--
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/CAJPayv1Hvwk-DQMJwDBZ-B6gQ__kfT0xuGAsNpc%2B6yCYsxJq%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Hvwk-DQMJwDBZ-B6gQ__kfT0xuGAsNpc%2B6yCYsxJq%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

NYTimes.com: A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

2024-04-04 Thread John Clark

Explore this gift article from The New York Times. You can read it for free
without a subscription.

A Tantalizing ‘Hint’ That Astronomers Got Dark Energy All Wrong

Scientists may have discovered a major flaw in their understanding of that
mysterious cosmic force. That could be good news for the fate of the
universe.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/science/space/astronomy-universe-dark-energy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.h00.5Kdw.QJDXLL_Dk5fk=em-share

-- 
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/CAJPayv1Hvwk-DQMJwDBZ-B6gQ__kfT0xuGAsNpc%2B6yCYsxJq%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 4:03:19 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green  > wrote:
>
>
>>
>> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark 
>> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A 
>> civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a 
>> rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that 
>> of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close 
>> to extremal).The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the 
>> cosmological horizon, and then feed some of it into the black hole in such 
>> a way as to further decrease its temperature (by pushing it closer to 
>> extremality). The sphere could use the rest of the energy for its own 
>> needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep growing over time.*
>>
>
>
> That could work, for a while. As long as you have a temperature difference 
> you can run a heat engine. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at 
> 2.7K so if you used a solar mass Black Hole as a heat sink you could 
> extract some work out of it because it has a temperature of only 0006k. 
> But it wouldn't be much as the efficiency would be very low;  and even 
> that pitiful trickle of work wouldn't last forever because over time the 
> Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation will get colder and, as it starts to 
> evaporate and gets smaller and smaller, the Black Hole will get hotter and 
> hotter until it explodes and disappears. 
>
> John K Clark
>

The CMB is not the Gibbon-Hawking radiation from the cosmological horizon. 
The CMB is what happened when the plasma of the semi-early universe 
coalesced into atom and the radiation was released. This happened about 
380k years into the evolution of the cosmos. The Gibbon-Hawking result of 
radiation due to the cosmological horizon.

To start I consider the elementary case is with the accelerated frame. An 
accelerated observer, g = acceleration, is on a hyperbolic path that 
asymptotes to a split horizon. The two horizons occur at some arbitrarily 
chosen origin. A quantum flutuation as a loop at this origin with a radius 
r has null geodesics connecting it to the accelerated frame. Assume this 
 accelerated observer approaches within r = c^2/g of the origin. Then the 
observer has causal contact with the loop throughout this Rindler wedge. 
The loop parameterized by a time or length d = 2πr = 2πct and in Euclidean 
time, since this is an off shell state and an instanton, the unitary 
operator e^{-iHt/ħ} → e^{-2πħωrħ}. Here the Hamiltonian is assumed to give 
energy ħω. Substitute in r = c^2/g we have a Boltzmann term e^{-2πħωc/g}. 
 An identification of this with e^{-E/kT} leads easily to the temperature

T = ħg/2πkc.

So temperature is the same as acceleration! This is a quick an dirty 
derivation of Unruh radiation, which I will admit glosses over some points. 
Some work and the identification of the acceleration with a black hole 
gives Bekenstein-Hawking temperature for a black hole.

The Gibbon-Hawking temperature can be found if we let g = c^2/(horizon 
distance) and for the cosmological constant Λ = 10^{-56}m^{-2}  and R = 
sqrt{3/Λ} ~ 10^{28}m then g ~ 10^{-12}m/s^2 The temperature 

T = ħc^2 sqrt{Λ/3}/2πkc ~ 10^{-30}K.

That is an absurdly cold temperature. In order to use that as an energy 
source you would need to have a cold bath that is even colder. That is not 
really possible. Another way to see it is the wavelength of most of this 
radiation is on the order of the cosmological horizon scale. You would need 
a detector on that scale to detect a boson.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Why the cosmological horizon?  The CMB is at 2.7degK, which is waaay 
hotter than any black hole you're likely to find.   So you can just put 
a heat engine between the CMB  and the BH.


Brent

On 4/8/2019 12:29 PM, Mason Green wrote:

Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark energy 
itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.

A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating 
or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that of the 
cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close to 
extremal).

The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the cosmological horizon, and 
then feed some of it into the black hole in such a way as to further decrease 
its temperature (by pushing it closer to extremality). The sphere could use the 
rest of the energy for its own needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep 
growing over time.

-Mason



--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green  wrote:

>
> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark
> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A
> civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a
> rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that
> of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close
> to extremal).The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the
> cosmological horizon, and then feed some of it into the black hole in such
> a way as to further decrease its temperature (by pushing it closer to
> extremality). The sphere could use the rest of the energy for its own
> needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep growing over time.*
>

That could work, for a while. As long as you have a temperature difference
you can run a heat engine. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at
2.7K so if you used a solar mass Black Hole as a heat sink you could
extract some work out of it because it has a temperature of only 0006k.
But it wouldn't be much as the efficiency would be very low;  and even that
pitiful trickle of work wouldn't last forever because over time the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation will get colder and, as it starts to
evaporate and gets smaller and smaller, the Black Hole will get hotter and
hotter until it explodes and disappears.

John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread Mason Green

Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark energy 
itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.

A civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a rotating 
or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that of the 
cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close to 
extremal).

The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the cosmological horizon, and 
then feed some of it into the black hole in such a way as to further decrease 
its temperature (by pushing it closer to extremality). The sphere could use the 
rest of the energy for its own needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep 
growing over time.

-Mason

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve
>> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by
>> opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out
>> what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.
>>
>
> > You can't compute outcome prior to an observation.
>

Even if you can't compute Schrodinger's Cat you can still find out stuff
about it but that is not the case with non-computable functions, and that
makes me suspect they have no part to play in physics. Computation can not tell
you what the fate of Schrodinger's Cat was however observation can, but you
can't figure out what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is and probably not
even the 5th. And even if I told you what it was you'd have no way of
varying that what I told you was true.

 John K Clark

>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 5:03:07 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>  
>
>> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. 
>> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine 
>> equations are then not entirely computable and there can't exist a 
>> Turing machine (in the classical sense a q → ∞ convex set) that computes 
>> quantum outcomes.
>>
>
> I think the connection between Quantum Mechanics and  Godel's uncertainty 
> is pretty tenuous. Neither a Quantum Computer or a conventional computer 
> can compute the 7918th Busy Beaver number, and even though its computable 
> and finite its very unlikely a Quantum Computer could compute the Ackermann 
> function in polynomial time which effectively makes it non-computable for 
> practical purposes.   
>  
>
>> > I then maintain the solution to the quantum measurement problem is 
>> that there can't exist such a solution. It is an unsolvable problem.
>>
>
> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve 
> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by 
> opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out 
> what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.
>
> John K Clark  
>


You can't compute outcome prior to an observation. Quantum interpretations 
are meant to gives some explanation for quantum outcomes, but they all 
contradict each other, but are still consistent with QM. This sound very 
similar to forcing conditions on undecidable propositions.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations.
> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine
> equations are then not entirely computable and there can't exist a Turing
> machine (in the classical sense a q → ∞ convex set) that computes quantum
> outcomes.
>

I think the connection between Quantum Mechanics and  Godel's uncertainty
is pretty tenuous. Neither a Quantum Computer or a conventional computer
can compute the 7918th Busy Beaver number, and even though its computable
and finite its very unlikely a Quantum Computer could compute the Ackermann
function in polynomial time which effectively makes it non-computable for
practical purposes.

> > I then maintain the solution to the quantum measurement problem is that
> there can't exist such a solution. It is an unsolvable problem.
>

There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve
the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by
opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out
what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.

John K Clark

>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread Lawrence Crowell

 context of L^2 with QM ↔ GR the structure of 
spacetime must be “grainy” as well. 

This can be seen in the context of quantum games, which is an interesting 
subject to consider. Entanglement between states two players work with make 
it possible to improve the statistical outcome of certain games. However, 
when it comes to infinity things are uncertain. These websites give an 
overview of quantum games

https://www.quantamagazine.org/in-quantum-games-theres-no-way-to-play-the-odds-20190401/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-universes-ultimate-complexity-revealed-by-simple-quantum-games-20190305/

We then have in this perspective two sets of dualities, one between two L^2 
systems and another between L^1 and L^∞. Hawking’s results indicate the L^2 
systems are finite, or at least QM has a finite Hilbert space and the 
continuum of classical spacetime is an illusion. The pair L^1 and L^∞. Have 
some infinite content, though the classical-like system L^∞ is finite. We 
then have some dichotomies that are strange. 

This is I think connected to the measurement As the dual for a p = 1 
system, where the wave function reduction is a p = 2 → 1 process, has as 
its dual the q → ∞ convex set or hull description. Does this then mean we 
can use this to understand some underlying classical type of structure to 
quantum measurement? We might want to be a bit conservative here. The 
problem is that we have convex sets that we propose are computing quantum 
numbers, and in the case with a p ↔ q duality we have this idea that 
quantum numbers, say as the Gödel number for an integer computed by a 
Diophantine equation or the computed outcome of a deterministic system, as 
having a single axomatic process. Hilbert's 10th problem proposed there 
should be a single algorithmic or axiomatic process for solving Diophantine 
equations Matiyasevich found the final conclusion to a series of lemmas and 
theorems worked by Davis, Putnam and Robinson, called the DMPR theorem. 
This is a form of Gödel's theorem and the conclusion is there is no 
comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations. Quantum numbers 
as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine equations are then 
not entirely computable and there can't exist a Turing machine (in the 
classical sense a q → ∞ convex set) that computes quantum outcomes.

I then maintain the solution to the quantum measurement problem is that 
there can't exist such a solution. It is an unsolvable problem. Quantum 
measurement has some features similar to self-reference in that a quantum 
system is encoded by another system ultimately made of quantum states. It 
also has features similar to the Euclid's 5th axiom problem. One can assume 
the axiom holds and stick with Euclidean flat space, or one can abandon it 
and work with a plethora of geometries. In QM this would be to stay with 
Merman’s shut up and calculate dictum, or to adopt any of the quantum 
interpretations out there, which contradict each other, to augment QM in 
some extended way. This has features remarkably similar to the dichotomy 
between consistency and completeness.problem. 

So t is not possible to determine whether spacetime is continuous or 
discrete. I would say whether continuous or discrete may depend on the sort 
of observation one performs. This is then something that can’t be 
theoretically determined and I suspect if one performs extremely high 
energy measurements spacetime will look discrete or foamy, while if one 
perform IR measurements over great distances all foamy influences vanish 
and spacetime will appear continuous.

LC

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 1:21:13 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  > wrote:
>
> *> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device 
>> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long 
>> as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and 
>> be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton 
>> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from 
>> the energy generated.*
>
>
> I agree. 
>  
>
>> * > As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before 
>> in the literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.*
>>
>
>
> Well... on August 4 2012 I sent this to Fabric Of Reality List: 
>  
> "Could we still extract an infinite amount of energy from the real 
> universe and thus perform an infinite number of calculations? Perhaps.
>
> Suppose you had 2 spools of string connected together by an axle and you 
> extended the 2 strings to cosmological distances 180 degrees apart from 
> each other. As long as the Dark Energy force between the atoms in the 
> string that were trying to fo

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark

In 1972 Bennet  showed that a universal Turing machine could be made both
logically and thermodynamically reversible,[7]
 and
therefore able in principle to perform arbitrarily much computation per
unit of physical energy dissipated, in the limit of zero speed. In 1982 Edward
Fredkin  and Tommaso Toffoli
 proposed the Billiard ball
computer , a
mechanism using classical hard spheres to do reversible computations at
finite speed with zero dissipation, but requiring perfect initial alignment
of the balls' trajectories, and Bennett's review[8]
 compared
these "Brownian" and "ballistic" paradigms for reversible computation.

On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:21 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *To sum up: an infinite physical computation does not require an infinite
> amount of energy*

If you want to perform an infinite number of calculations and you don't
have infinite energy available then you'd better have infinite time
available. In 1972 Bennet showed that a reversible Turing Machine could
make a calculation with an arbitrarily small amount of energy but at the
cost of speed; the less energy used the slower the calculation. And if
we're headed for a Big Rip you will not have infinite time.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Apr 2019, at 01:36, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  <mailto:masonlgr...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> > It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered 
> > by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the 
> > universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be 
> > able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton 
> > decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from 
> > the energy generated.
> 
> I agree. 
>  
> > As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in the 
> > literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.
> 
> 
> Well... on August 4 2012 I sent this to Fabric Of Reality List: 
>  
> "Could we still extract an infinite amount of energy from the real universe 
> and thus perform an infinite number of calculations? Perhaps.
> 
> Suppose you had 2 spools of string connected together by an axle and you 
> extended the 2 strings to cosmological distances 180 degrees apart from each 
> other. As long as the Dark Energy force between the atoms in the string that 
> were trying to force them apart was not stronger than the attractive 
> electromagnetic force holding the atoms of the string together the string 
> would not expand as the universe expanded, so there would be a tension on the 
> strings, so there would be torque on the spool, so the axle would rotate. The 
> axle could be connected to an electric generator and it seems to me you'd get 
> useful work out of it. Of course you'd have to constantly add more 
> mass-energy in the form of more string to keep it operating, but the amount 
> of mass per unit length of string would remain constant, however because the 
> universe is accelerating the amount of energy per unit length of string you'd 
> get out of it would not remain constant but would increase asymptotically to 
> infinity. If the theories about the Big Rip turn out to be true and the 
> acceleration of the universe is itself accelerating then it should be even 
> easier to extract infinite energy out of the universe; it would just be a 
> simple matter of cosmological engineering. What could go wrong? 
> 
> If you have infinite energy then you can perform an infinite number of 
> calculations, so you could have an infinite number of thoughts, so you would 
> have no last thought (the definition of death), so subjectively you would 
> live forever. Of course the objective universe might have a different opinion 
> on the matter and insist that everything including you had come to an end, 
> but that hardly matters, subjectivity is far more important than objectivity; 
> at least I think so.”  

Doing a physical computation does not require energy, except for the external 
read and write. It is enough to never erase any information. As Landauer found: 
only erasing information requires energy, and as Hao Wang already discovered (I 
think around 1950), but also Church (Lambda-I calculus), there are 
Turing-universal model of computation where no information is ever discarded.

With the combinators, this is illustrated by Turing universal base of 
combinators with no “eliminators”, without kestrel of similar. The kestrel K 
eliminates information (Kxy = x), like a projection, it is not reversible. 

K = [x][y] x (= in Church notation : lambda x lambda y . x). But Church forbade 
using lambda for a variable absent in the core, which is the same as forbid 
elimination of information. Note that quantum computation has to be reversible, 
and never eliminate information (except at some final measurement possible). So 
an infinite physical computation requires only a finite amount of energy. The 
universal dovetailing, which generate and execute all computation, can be 
physically implemented so as using only a finite amount of energy.

But this concerns physical computation. Gödel implicitly and Turing, Post, 
Church and many others will show that the tiny partial computable part of the 
arithmetical reality already implement all computations, including all the 
approximation of all physical computations, and with mechanism, the “real 
physical computation” have to emerge from those computation emulated by the 
arithmetical reality.

This already generates a doubt that physical computation exist, and indeed no 
universal machine can subjectively distinguish a physical computations from a 
purely combinatorical one, or from a purely arithmetical one, or any purely 
mathematical one. But they can detect a difference by doing some measurement, 
given that the physical laws are constrained by Mechanism. That would still be 
undistinguishable from a computation + some special Oracle. No such detection 
hav

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread Lawrence Crowell

For two galaxies accelerating away from each other one might in an "in 
principle" manner think of a tether connecting these two galaxies. Some 
sufficiently capable ET then manages to build this tether continually out 
of a magnetic material that passes through coils and the Faraday effect 
kicks in. This is not exactly eternal, for eventually these ETs will run 
out of resources in their galaxy, but it does seem to suggest dark energy 
could be mined. 

There is however no "free lunch" per se here. 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/257476/how-did-the-universe-shift-from-dark-matter-dominated-to-dark-energy-dominate/257542#257542

so you can read this without me having to spend the next hour typing this 
up again.

This all stems from the Hamiltonian constraint NH = 0 which then has a 
kinetic and potential part. The eternal accelerated expansion is then just 
a way that ever more negative gravitational potential energy generates ever 
more kinetic energy.

LC

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 3:23:48 PM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered 
> by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the 
> universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be 
> able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton 
> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from 
> the energy generated. 
>
> So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this. 
> The first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but 
> opposite charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long 
> enough that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark 
> energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. 
> On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away 
> energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that 
> would cause the objects to spiral closer together. If the two effects are 
> perfectly balanced, the orbits would be stable and the system would keep 
> radiating away energy forever—energy extracted from the acceleration in the 
> universe’s expansion. 
>
> The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark 
> energy, the spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This 
> force is stronger when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer 
> distance between the ends. Thus an oscillating spring would experience an 
> oscillating force, and have energy continually added to it, increasing the 
> amplitude of its oscillations. To keep the string from breaking, a 
> mechanism for extracting energy from the spring would have to be added, and 
> if energy is extracted at the same rate it is added the system would be 
> stable. 
>
> As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in the 
> literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them. 
>
> Perhaps we should look for signs of these devices being constructed, in 
> the event highly advanced alien civilizations might be constructing them. 
> Any civilization that constructs such a device would probably qualify as 
> Type IV. With infinite energy it’d be possible to do an endless variety of 
> things: run a universal dovetailer, or resurrect the dead (simply by 
> resurrecting every person who COULD have ever existed, a set that obviously 
> includes every person who DID actually exist), etc. 
>
> -Mason Green

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:43 AM Mason Green  wrote:

* > It looks like the best hope now might be for a breakthrough or paradigm
> shift in cosmology and/or physics. *


This is certainly no breakthrough but suppose you had a rod and some beads
with holes in them, you thread the beads on the rod and then put some glue
or something on the rod to make it slightly sticky. The chemical bonds in
the rod would keep the atoms in it from getting further apart but the beads
would be free to slide along it, but because the rod was sticky the sliding
would generate heat from friction, and you could run a heat engine with
that and get work out of it. As we got closer to the Big Rip the rod would
get shorter because Dark Energy would start to tare it apart, but that's OK
because even though the rod is shorter the acceleration is greater so the
heat production would (perhaps) be constant.

By the way I got the sticky bead idea from Richard Feynman who used it to
show that Gravitational Waves have energy.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mason Green  wrote:

> *> Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it
> seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change
> the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the
> spring strongly anharmonic. However it doesn’t look like it will result in
> amplitude increase (negative damping) like I thought. However the
> orbiting-spheres system still seems to work,*

If an electrical charge is moving in a circular orbit it is accelerating,
but if that orbit is one that Quantum Mechanics allows it with not radiate
any electromagnetic waves regardless of what Maxwell says. If Dark Energy
enlarges the radius of that quantum allowable orbit I don't know what would
happen, nobody does because nobody has made a link between Quantum
Electrodynamics and General Relativity. However my hunch is it still
wouldn't radiate, after all a electrical charge in a large orbit
accelerates less than one in a small orbit.

> * > As far as cosmological-scale black holes are concerned, I’ve got a
> hunch. I suspect (but cannot prove) that above a certain mass/radius, the
> Hawking temperature of a black hole would start to increase again, due to
> dark energy helping give particles a “push” out of the hole.*

If Dark Energy is constant with time my hunch is it would have little or no
effect on a Black Hole, but if the acceleration is itself accelerating
toward infinity and we're headed for a Big Rip then it's only a matter of
time before Dark Energy would rip everything apart even the most tightly
gravitationally bound objects in the universe, Black Holes. And even
without Dark Energy or the Big Rip Black Holes only have a finite lifetime.

 John K Clark
>
>
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread Mason Green

Uh oh, looks like the “giant atom” idea might not work either. I had been under 
the assumption that dark energy would cause two orbiting bodies to spiral 
apart. But on second thought, it seems like what would actually happen is that 
an orbit affected by dark energy would still be stable, it would just have a 
longer period than it would have had in the absence of dark energy. Thus it 
wouldn’t gain gravitational potential energy over time.

It looks like the best hope now might be for a breakthrough or paradigm shift 
in cosmology and/or physics. For instance, if something like Jamie Farnes’ dark 
fluid theory turns out to be true (in which dark energy and dark matter are 
both the same, negative-mass object). Alternatively, it might be possible to 
survive a trip through a rotating black hole into another universe, and when 
that universe’s usable energy is exhausted, just repeat the process ad 
infinitum. (There’s a lot we don’t know about black holes).

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread Mason Green

Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it seems like 
you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change the shape of 
the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the spring strongly 
anharmonic. However it doesn’t look like it will result in amplitude increase 
(negative damping) like I thought.

However the orbiting-spheres system still seems to work, though, and there may 
be other possible devices that function similarly.

As far as cosmological-scale black holes are concerned, I’ve got a hunch. I 
suspect (but cannot prove) that above a certain mass/radius, the Hawking 
temperature of a black hole would start to increase again, due to dark energy 
helping give particles a “push” out of the hole. Not only that, but at least 
some of these particles would be emitted without decreasing the hole’s mass 
(since the dark energy performed the work needed to bring the particle into 
existence). A large enough black hole might radiate away visible light and 
could serve as a “sun” that never goes out. Perhaps by gathering together 
several galaxies’ worth of matter it might be possible to form such a black 
hole? Or perhaps there already is one somewhere in the universe, formed by 
natural causes, in which case all we would have to do is find it.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread Mason Green

> That would indeed be like a giant atom, so we would have to have a quantum 
> theory of gravity to know if that would work, and we don't have such a 
> theory. Quantum theory tells us those orbiting changes could not be in just 
> any old orbit but can only be in discrete quantized orbits, and the energy 
> radiated away would not be continuous but would come out in chunks . 
> Maxwell's equations are only approximately correct.  

That’s true, but I’m not sure how significant quantum effects (or quantum 
gravity effects) would be on such a large scale.


> I don't think that would work, if it did then if you hung a spring vertically 
> from a hook in a gravitational field and gave it a small oscillation the 
> spring's oscillation would get larger and larger until it tore itself apart.  
> But that's not what we observe.

Well, in a gravitational field like Earth’s the force pulling down on the 
spring is constant (it’s the weight of the spring itself and whatever is 
attached to it, which doesn’t vary significantly with height over the distances 
we observe). With a constant rather than an oscillating force, you won’t get 
amplification of oscillations. Dark energy curves space in a different manner 
than the presence of an ordinary mass like a planet, so the situations aren’t 
exactly analogous.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*>So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this.
> The first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but
> opposite charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long
> enough that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark
> energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart.
> On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away
> energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that
> would cause the objects to spiral closer together. If the two effects are
> perfectly balanced, the orbits would be stable and the system would keep
> radiating away energy forever—energy extracted from the acceleration in the
> universe’s expansion.*

That would indeed be like a giant atom, so we would have to have a quantum
theory of gravity to know if that would work, and we don't have such a
theory. Quantum theory tells us those orbiting changes could not be in just
any old orbit but can only be in discrete quantized orbits, and the
energy radiated away would not be continuous but would come out in chunks .
Maxwell's equations are only approximately correct.

> *> The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark
> energy, the spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This
> force is stronger when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer
> distance between the ends. Thus an oscillating spring would experience an
> oscillating force, and have energy continually added to it, increasing the
> amplitude of its oscillations.*
>

I don't think that would work, if it did then if you hung a spring
vertically from a hook in a gravitational field and gave it a small
oscillation the spring's oscillation would get larger and larger until it
tore itself apart.  But that's not what we observe.

John K Clark

>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread Mason Green

I saw a discussion on Physics Forums about an idea similar to yours (involving 
spools of string steadily unrolling due to dark energy. One poster asked what 
would happen once the string ran out, the other person said you could just 
create more length of string with the energy you generated.

There is the issue of what happens when the string becomes too long; the force 
from dark energy would make it snap, even if it were made from carbon 
nanotubes. 

I think what makes my ideas different is that they involve oscillatory motion 
(cycles) rather than linear. I hadn’t seen any ideas like that before.

Another dark energy-related problem I’ve been thinking of a lot is how dark 
energy would affect large (cosmological-sized) black holes. Would the black 
hole become more massive over time (like reverse Hawking radiation) due to dark 
energy pulling it apart? Of course the usual equations relating mass to 
Schwarzschild radius and temperature, etc. would no longer hold.

-Mason

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device
> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long
> as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and
> be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton
> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from
> the energy generated.*

I agree.

> * > As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in
> the literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.*
>

Well... on August 4 2012 I sent this to Fabric Of Reality List:

"Could we still extract an infinite amount of energy from the real universe
and thus perform an infinite number of calculations? Perhaps.

Suppose you had 2 spools of string connected together by an axle and you
extended the 2 strings to cosmological distances 180 degrees apart from
each other. As long as the Dark Energy force between the atoms in the
string that were trying to force them apart was not stronger than the
attractive electromagnetic force holding the atoms of the string together
the string would not expand as the universe expanded, so there would be a
tension on the strings, so there would be torque on the spool, so the axle
would rotate. The axle could be connected to an electric generator and it
seems to me you'd get useful work out of it. Of course you'd have to
constantly add more mass-energy in the form of more string to keep it
operating, but the amount of mass per unit length of string would remain
constant, however because the universe is accelerating the amount of energy
per unit length of string you'd get out of it would not remain constant but
would increase asymptotically to infinity. If the theories about the Big
Rip turn out to be true and the acceleration of the universe is itself
accelerating then it should be even easier to extract infinite energy out
of the universe; it would just be a simple matter of cosmological
engineering. What could go wrong?

If you have infinite energy then you can perform an infinite number of
calculations, so you could have an infinite number of thoughts, so you
would have no last thought (the definition of death), so subjectively you
would live forever. Of course the objective universe might have a different
opinion on the matter and insist that everything including you had come to
an end, but that hardly matters, subjectivity is far more important than
objectivity; at least I think so."

  John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread Mason Green

It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device powered by 
dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long as the universe 
keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and be able to survive 
(or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton decay would not 
present a problem; new protons could always be created from the energy 
generated.

So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this. The 
first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but opposite 
charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long enough that dark 
energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark energy would cause the 
objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart. On the other hand, because 
the objects are charged, they radiate away energy as they orbit, and this 
radiation provides a braking force that would cause the objects to spiral 
closer together. If the two effects are perfectly balanced, the orbits would be 
stable and the system would keep radiating away energy forever—energy extracted 
from the acceleration in the universe’s expansion.

The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark energy, the 
spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This force is stronger 
when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer distance between the ends. 
Thus an oscillating spring would experience an oscillating force, and have 
energy continually added to it, increasing the amplitude of its oscillations. 
To keep the string from breaking, a mechanism for extracting energy from the 
spring would have to be added, and if energy is extracted at the same rate it 
is added the system would be stable.

As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in the 
literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.

Perhaps we should look for signs of these devices being constructed, in the 
event highly advanced alien civilizations might be constructing them. Any 
civilization that constructs such a device would probably qualify as Type IV. 
With infinite energy it’d be possible to do an endless variety of things: run a 
universal dovetailer, or resurrect the dead (simply by resurrecting every 
person who COULD have ever existed, a set that obviously includes every person 
who DID actually exist), etc.

-Mason Green

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-15 Thread meekerdb


On 4/15/2015 2:00 AM, LizR wrote:
Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated differently in the 
early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy isn't as powerful as thought, 
but it's still there. I'm not sure what the flatness measurement indicates, in terms of 
global deceleration-vs-acceleration. Is this like the way we used to think of a flat 
universe (one that is exactly balanced between expansion and collapse) or has flatness 
been redefined? I wouldn't expect a universe with a cosmological constant to be flat, 
but hyperbolic. (Or is that idea a bit exaggerated?)


It can be spatially flat but expand as ~sinh(t).

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-15 Thread LizR

Assuming there isn't a future discovery that supernovae operated
differently in the early universe, then yes these results mean dark energy
isn't as powerful as thought, but it's still there. I'm not sure what the
flatness measurement indicates, in terms of global
deceleration-vs-acceleration. Is this like the way we used to think of a
flat universe (one that is exactly balanced between expansion and collapse)
or has flatness been redefined? I wouldn't expect a universe with a
cosmological constant to be flat, but hyperbolic. (Or is that idea a bit
exaggerated?)

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-14 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Yes, but the WMAP nobelists in 1997 claimed that it proved an increased 
acceleration. My head is flat so based on that...



-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought


 
I have been given the impression that the universe is flat - I assume this 
means in the sense of having no (or at least too small to measure) overall 
curvature. Hence, if there is no acceleration, whether it's open or closed is, 
as it were, an open question! 
 
  
  
On 14 April 2015 at 10:42, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:   
   
Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation?
 
 
  
  
   
-Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm
 Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought
 

  
  
   

  
 ...or maybe nonexistent, even???   

   
   

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought

   
  
  

   
-- 
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
   

  
 -- 
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  
  
 
  
 --  
 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 post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-14 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

I have been given the impression that the universe is flat - I assume
this means in the sense of having no (or at least too small to measure)
overall curvature. Hence, if there is no acceleration, whether it's open or
closed is, as it were, an open question!

Nobody is saying that the universe isn't accelerating, if these new results
hold up it just means that it isn't accelerating quite as fast as
previously thought.

John K Clark

On 14 April 2015 at 10:42, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation?

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm
Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

...or maybe nonexistent, even???

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought
--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-14 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015  spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Yes, but the WMAP nobelists in 1997 claimed that it proved an increased
 acceleration.


In 2003 Adam Riess presented observational evidence that although the
universe is 13.8 billion years old for most of that time it was actually
decelerating, it only started to accelerate 5 billion years ago. This makes
sense because long ago the matter density of the universe was greater than
now so matter's gravity would tend to slow the expansion, and Dark Energy
which works in the opposite direction with a sort of anti-gravity effect
comes from space itself, and long ago there was less space than now.

The technical term for a change in acceleration is a jerk; in 2003 The
New York Times ran a headline COSMIC JERK DISCOVERED, underneath that was a
large picture of Adam Riess. His colleagues have never let him forget it.

  John K Clark

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-13 Thread LizR

...or maybe nonexistent, even???

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-13 Thread LizR

On 14 April 2015 at 10:42, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation?

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm
Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

...or maybe nonexistent, even???

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought

2015-04-13 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Or not powerful enough to keep the universe expanding unto dissipation?



-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Apr 13, 2015 6:40 pm
Subject: It's possible dark energy isn't as powerful as we thought


 
...or maybe nonexistent, even???  
   
  
  
   
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-universe-might-be-expanding-a-lot-slower-than-we-thought
   
  
 
  
 --  
 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 post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound 
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the 
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same 
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid 
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why 
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier 
 reply I got (not from you)

 OK I see what you were saying. I don't know the answer but I think Bruno 
then Bruce provided a plausible explanation for this. 

Just going on the fact the data is from a single source and goes back to 
June and has not seen a large amount of panic, would suggest the finding is 
tenuous at present. 

Where I was coming from, in posting it, was to lay down a marker as it 
were, that this is one to watch. 

You're point was fair...I was somewhere at the time :O) 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread LizR

OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
to be relatively negligible?


On 1 December 2014 at 14:38, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier
 reply I got (not from you)

 OK I see what you were saying. I don't know the answer but I think Bruno
 then Bruce provided a plausible explanation for this.

 Just going on the fact the data is from a single source and goes back to
 June and has not seen a large amount of panic, would suggest the finding is
 tenuous at present.

 Where I was coming from, in posting it, was to lay down a marker as it
 were, that this is one to watch.

 You're point was fair...I was somewhere at the time :O)

 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
 to be relatively negligible?


Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in terms of your 
actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  course. How can a 
piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with 
a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same 
data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are 100% in 
the logic IMHO. 

I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
madness.

But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else provide 
a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 

If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 

Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
his own personality or personal biases. 

his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
worthwhile. 

look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 

GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 



But then again, who is. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
 to be relatively negligible?


 Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in 
 terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  
 course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter 
 interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, 
 if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You 
 are 100% in the logic IMHO. 

 I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
 That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
 Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
 madness.

 But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else 
 provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 

 If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
 his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 

 Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
 tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
 brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
 an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
 his own personality or personal biases. 

 his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
 distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
 follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
 training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
 worthwhile. 

 look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

 In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
 lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
 frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
 away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 

 GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
 Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
 universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
 Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
 look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 



 But then again, who is. 



that 'but then again, who is' was supposed to go under the point Motl is 
not independent of his own temperament and biases.  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:07 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
 to be relatively negligible?


 Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in
 terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
 course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
 interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe,
 if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You
 are 100% in the logic IMHO.

 I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle.
 That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result.
 Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner
 madness.

 But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else
 provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me.

 If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on
 his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there.

 Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to
 tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a
 brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also
 an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of
 his own personality or personal biases.

 his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media
 distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't
 follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and
 training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it
 worthwhile.

 look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

 In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a
 lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the
 frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy
 away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer).

 GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them.
 Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the
 universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me.
 Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might
 look at even if you can't find the one in question re here.



 But then again, who is.

 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could 
 become correlated.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf


I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see 
them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations 
may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't, 
have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow. 

Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows 
each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape 
because some involve correlations of distant objects) 

So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these 
different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of 
each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained 
together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently 
derives the two local explanations. 

Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky. 

At some point objects like the historic cosmological view need to be 
included. And the big bang. And then more widely things like stable 
enduring structure and biological life. 

The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all 
together. 
  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
 become correlated.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf


 I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
 them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations
 may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't,
 have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow.

 Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows
 each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape
 because some involve correlations of distant objects)

 So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these
 different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of
 each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained
 together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently
 derives the two local explanations.

 Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky.

 At some point objects like the historic cosmological view need to be
 included. And the big bang. And then more widely things like stable
 enduring structure and biological life.

 The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all
 together.


 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
 But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
 So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
 Richard


I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of 
correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:  
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the 
data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it 
isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations. 

obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for 
that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably 
exceed mine.



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.

However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on
the same basis.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
 But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
 So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
 Richard


 I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of
 correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:
 http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

 I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the
 data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it
 isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations.

 obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for
 that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably
 exceed mine.



  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna 
 and I are talking about.
 It is a form of cosmic entanglement.


how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific 
idea or a catch-all explanation?  


 However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes 
 must be intelligent to be monogamous


I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going 
on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned 
at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to 
include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they 
talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get 
inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory 
explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory 
before it comes up empirically? 
 

 And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on 
 the same basis.


same response as above

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

Zibby,

They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.

Zappy

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:56 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
 and I are talking about.
 It is a form of cosmic entanglement.


 how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
 idea or a catch-all explanation?


 However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
 must be intelligent to be monogamous


 I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going
 on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned
 at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to
 include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they
 talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get
 inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory
 explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory
 before it comes up empirically?


 And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work
 on the same basis.


 same response as above

 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Zibby,

 They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put 
 their careers at risk.
 It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in 
 print.
 What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
 David Deutsch is the exception.

 Zappy


which one of us does that make the butch kangaroo?  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread zibbsey



On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing 
 mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.


It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously 
reasonable  accepted

I wasn't avoiding comment on this. It's just that I think it's a 
possibility you may have lost the thread of what has been said. Easy to 
happen over a day and night. 

The recap is: 

-  data indicating the polar opposite of the expectation arising from 
incumbent knowledge

- early on you saw this was the implication rappeared to understand what 
issues were brought into play by that. 

- There's not a lot more that's in the logic, and first time next to say. 

- You are right first time round, the incumbent theory says diminishing 
dark matter reflects expansion of the universe. Or a galaxy. 

- But that has already been said now, explicitly or very directly by the 
implication of saying the same thing from the other direction, that the new 
data is saying dark matter diminishing reflects a contraction of the 
universe. Or a Galaxy. 

It's the polar opposite so saying one is saying the other. And it is for 
that reason I hesitate to reply because I don't know what new thing you 
wish to say. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread LizR

The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems
like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though
for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that
should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this
whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping
people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply I got (not
from you)

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread Bruce Kellett


LizR wrote:
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound 
systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the 
universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the 
same rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's 
an acid test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, 
which is why I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than 
the earlier reply I got (not from you)


It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all 
context your point becomes obscured.


Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies 
and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as 
stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them 
to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of 
the system. This is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the 
theory in question?


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread Richard Ruquist

I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of
us.
And if the latter, how would we know.?
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 LizR wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier
 reply I got (not from you)


 It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all
 context your point becomes obscured.

 Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and
 clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and
 solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand,
 unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This
 is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question?

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread Bruce Kellett


Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping 
the space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each 
of us.
And if the latter, how would we know.? 
Richard


Space is expanding uniformly. But the rate is slow when measured over 
small distances, so the force pulling two nearby points apart is very 
small -- easily overcome by the gravitational attraction between large 
nearby bodies, such as the stars that make galaxies and clusters of 
galaxies. These hold their size and do not expand with the geral 
expansion. It is only more distant, non-bound galaxies that move apart.


Bruce





On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett 
bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:


LizR wrote:

The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to
bound systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar
manner to the universe though for a different reason (so almost
certainly not at the same rate). And that should be visible as
we look back in time. So it's an acid test for this whole theory
... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why I was hoping
people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier reply
I got (not from you)


It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete
all context your point becomes obscured.

Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states?
Galaxies and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound
states as stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should
expect them to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating
energy out of the system. This is not happening at any noticeable
rate, so what's the theory in question?

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread LizR

On 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
 space of say our galaxy intact.
 Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each
 of us.
 And if the latter, how would we know.?

 The expansion of the universe doesn't include bound systems, like atoms or
galaxies. If it was purely a scale expansion that applied to everything in
existence we couldn't of course know about it (probably...depending on the
exact details of how it worked...)

GR posits that space-time is a continuum, which means that any part of it
is able to expand indefinitely, so it isn't adding more space at any
particular point. It's probably gives a more accurate picture to assume
space is infinite (or at least finite but unbounded) and that the objects
in it - above a certain scale - are moving apart at a uniform rate, i.e.
that the separation velocity increases uniformly with distance apart.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-27 Thread zibbsey



On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:


 On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed 
 galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational 
 evidence to support this.


 Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one 
 time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. 


 I repeated it because the other poster ignored what I'd said the first 
 time AND made snarky comments showing he'd missed the point I was making, 
 hence I felt it was worthwhile repeating it.

 Anyway, the point still holds. Dark matter is responsible for much of the 
 structure of the universe, and if it's being turned into energy and 
 radiated away then its gravitational attraction goes with it. Hence 
 galaxies, held together by dark matter (as I Zwicky discovered in 1933 by 
 studying their rotation curves) should be expanding IF dark matter is being 
 annihilated, because the visible structure is rotating at the same speed 
 around a centre containing a decreasing amount of mass.

 So, if I've understood this theory correctly, galaxies should be getting 
 bigger. Can someone either explain how I've missed the point of the 
 theory OR tell me if there is evidence of galaxies growing larger due to 
 this effect? If not then I can happily forget this theory because it 
 predicts some startling observational evidence that doesn't exist. 



prediction: this won't be going awayit'll ramp up independent 
corroboration. The idea of denying the reality (if that's what it proves to 
be) based on observations about dark matter needing to evaporate with 
exploding galaxies, has comedic flair, but I fear may also be prophetic. 
It's easier than denying the collapse in the two slit :O)




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-27 Thread LizR

Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing
mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-27 Thread Bruce Kellett


LizR wrote:
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are 
losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.


The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter 
annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any 
appreciable effect on galactic dimensions or rotation profiles.


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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-26 Thread zibbsey



On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed 
 galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational 
 evidence to support this.


Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one 
time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form. 

Based on the current worldview, the idea of dark energy gobbling dark 
matter, causing expansion to slow down.is nonsensical. Can't be 
adjustedcan't be made into sense. 
 
Not without getting into significant levels of fussy details. Which cannot 
be done without large discoveries first that shed dramatic light on what 
dark matter and energy actually are. 

Not sensibly anyway (i.e. whatever fussy detailed explanation they create, 
there will be exponentially many other different and disagreeable 
explanations that are logically identical in terms of size and robustness 
of the necessary guesses, for each next level of detail necessary to go 
down, in order to fussy up the job. 

so it's a really huge issue. If it isn't correct, that'll show in the 
developments and no more will be said. But if this finding stubbornly 
sticks around, and then starts showing up in other independent ways. That 
then becomes the line too far.too far to patch the cosmological model 
up with more dark stuff. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-26 Thread LizR

On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
 galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
 evidence to support this.


 Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only valid one
 time. What you reason above restates the same point in a different form.


I repeated it because the other poster ignored what I'd said the first time
AND made snarky comments showing he'd missed the point I was making, hence
I felt it was worthwhile repeating it.

Anyway, the point still holds. Dark matter is responsible for much of the
structure of the universe, and if it's being turned into energy and
radiated away then its gravitational attraction goes with it. Hence
galaxies, held together by dark matter (as I Zwicky discovered in 1933 by
studying their rotation curves) should be expanding IF dark matter is being
annihilated, because the visible structure is rotating at the same speed
around a centre containing a decreasing amount of mass.

So, if I've understood this theory correctly, galaxies should be getting
bigger. Can someone either explain how I've missed the point of the
theory OR tell me if there is evidence of galaxies growing larger due to
this effect? If not then I can happily forget this theory because it
predicts some startling observational evidence that doesn't exist.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-25 Thread Richard Ruquist

The article was about the bad fit.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
 article is about.

 I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
 mention of expanding galaxies.


 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-25 Thread LizR

And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.

On 25 November 2014 at 23:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 The article was about the bad fit.



-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread zibbsey

http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html

my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest. 


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist

Isn't this news a few months old?

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html

 my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest.


  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread zibbsey



On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Isn't this news a few months old?


dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread LizR

Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
there evidence of this sort of change?

On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Isn't this news a few months old?


 dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups

 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist

The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
 expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
 scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
 there evidence of this sort of change?

 On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Isn't this news a few months old?


 dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups

 --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread LizR

On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
 article is about.

 I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
mention of expanding galaxies.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed thoughts on dark energy and matter

2013-08-17 Thread Roger Clough

Some seemingly obvious and visually confirmed 
thoughts on dark energy and matter

1) Dark matter is potentially energy via E= mc^2.
Dark energy is already energy.
Regular matter is also potentially energy via E = mc^2

2) So everything is energy or potentially energy. 

3) It is known that the energy is expansive in some
places, presumably via Einstein's universal gravitational
constant, but doesn't react with photons, so it remains dark.
 
4) Similarly at other places or levels it is compressive 
and reacts with photons.

5) At some times during the creation of the universe,
the energy was compressive, at others expansive.
Perhaps this might be due to temperatures, the
expansive part associated, as it it is with gases,
with lower temperatures.

6) In accord with this, lower temperatures would radiate 
less energy and therefore appear to be darker.

7) Expansive gravitation is also observed in galaxies, which
are likely at lower temperatures between suns.
This is confirmed from the fact that galaxies appear to be 
controlled in their spiralling rotations by expansive energy, 
since the gravitational forces seem to be independent of 
distance from the center ofd gravity of the galaxies. 

8) At first thought, like gases, they should be drawn
toward each other and mix or cancel, except that:

a) these are limited in their ability cancel each other out over
distance due to the speed limit of light. 

b) depending on the amount of expansion or compression,
mixture becomes problematic as spacetime differs.
However, this may only be problematic for those
regions interacting with photons, which, being particular,
obey the traffic rules of spacetime/gravity. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ?

2013-08-16 Thread Roger Clough

What are monads ? Can they help us to understand the dark energy universe ?

I don't know about you, but I have trouble seeing how it all works 
from just particle physics. Monads or substances or concepts are   
a possible starting point of viewing the universe in the large instead
of as elementary particles. And the beautiful thing about them is
that Leibniz rejected basing his philosophy on atoms, so that it
applies to energy fields such as dark energy as well. 

To do so we must enter the world of metaphysics in order to understand events  
more complex or larger than single events,. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universals#Problem_of_universals 

The noun universal contrasts with individual, while the adjective 
universal  
contrasts with particular. Paradigmatically, universals are abstract (e.g. 
humanity),  
whereas particulars are concrete (e.g. the person of Socrates).  

Perhaps the chief obstacle to understanding Leibniz is his invention and use of 
the monad, 
as defined in his Monadology. The reason is that L wanted to base his 
metaphysics on 
what could be well defined as individual or unitary concepts, atoms of 
thought.  
This implies a whole without parts, both physically and conceptually. That 
means that the  
monads are all alive. Since they are alive they are constantly changing. 

Atoms are excluded, one reason (my reason) being that, according to Heisenberg, 
the  
definition of a particle must be uncertain. 

Monads are these unitary or partless bodies or concepts, which cannot be 
subdivided  
into parts without destroying their identity or meaning, thus killling them. 
The mind of an  
individual is a monad, brain is a monad, and body is a monad, self within mind 
within  
brain within body. 

A monad can thus contain myriad monads, both by splitting at a given level 
but also containing monads at lower levels. 

It may be that we divide a monad such as humanity into parts which are people 
monads. 

It may be that the Self contains a conscious monad and an unconscious one. 

There are three classes of monad, those called 'spirits (which we would call 
souls). 
which are monads with intellect, secondly Souls or animals and plants that are 
sensitive to the environment and can feel pain, and lowest of all, bare, naked 
 
monads, such as rocks, which are sleepy, dull, and unfeeling.  

We cannot identify things in this way if instead we use atomic theory or 
materialism,  
which as we shall see, gives L's metaphysics enormous power beyond that of 
materialism. 
Bertrand Russell and perhaps many of you will find monads to be, to use R's 
woirds, 
a fairy tail, but as long as you are careful, and follow logic rather than 
folk ideas, 
you will gain enormous power to understand the world.  

Leibniz, besides his providing us with monads, also essentially gives us a kit 
of metaphysical tools (rather than encyclopedic treatises) that we ourselves  
can use to explore the world. 



Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
See my Leibniz site at 
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough 




Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] 
See my Leibniz site at 
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

2010-02-26 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Charles charlesrobertgood...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:

  But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed
 something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring
 in the brain when a person is sitting back and doing nothing at all.

 The best way to come up with an idea or solve a problem is often to
 sleep on it, or to at least to take a break, maybe go for a walk and
 let your mind idle. I used to find that cigarette breaks were very
 useful in my work as a software developer before I gave up smoking
 (now I have to enforce breaks), and in my attempts at writing a novel
 I often find that the way forward - resolving a scene, say - often
 comes to me if I happen to wake up in the middle of the night.

 Charles


There was a study on this a few years ago, which proves there is something
to the phenomenon:

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/sleep_on_it_debunked_unconscious_thought_no_better_than_thinking_through_tough_problems

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8732

I think it is a little sensationalist, however, for new scientist to take
the fact that there is some base level of neural activity and assume that it
unlocks the key to Alzheimer's or consciousness, however.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: [Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

2010-02-25 Thread Charles

On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:

 But recent analysis produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed 
 something quite remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring 
 in the brain when a person is sitting back and doing nothing at all.

The best way to come up with an idea or solve a problem is often to
sleep on it, or to at least to take a break, maybe go for a walk and
let your mind idle. I used to find that cigarette breaks were very
useful in my work as a software developer before I gave up smoking
(now I have to enforce breaks), and in my attempts at writing a novel
I often find that the way forward - resolving a scene, say - often
comes to me if I happen to wake up in the middle of the night.

Charles

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

[Fwd: The Brain's Dark Energy Scien amer]

2010-02-22 Thread Brent Meeker

As long thought, consciousness is only a small part of what the brain
does - maybe even only a small part of "thinking".

Brent

Original Message

The
Brain's Dark Energy ( Preview )
Brain
regions active when our minds wander may hold a key to understanding
neurological disorders and even consciousness itself
Key
Concepts

Neuroscientists have long thought that the brain’s circuits are
turned off when a person is at rest.
Imaging experiments, however, have shown that there is a
persistent level of background activity.
This default mode, as it is called, may be critical in planning
future actions.
Miswiring of brain regions involved in the default mode may lead
to disorders ranging from Alzheimer’s to schizophrenia.

Imagine
you are almost dozing in a lounge chair outside, with a magazine on
your lap. Suddenly, a fly lands on your arm. You grab the magazine and
swat at the insect. What was going on in your brain after the fly
landed? And what was going on just before? Many neuroscientists have
long assumed that much of the neural activity inside your head when at
rest matches your subdued, somnolent mood. In this view, the activity
in the resting brain represents nothing more than random noise, akin to
the snowy pattern on the television screen when a station is not
broadcasting. Then, when the fly alights on your forearm, the brain
focuses on the conscious task of squashing the bug. But recent analysis
produced by neuroimaging technologies has revealed something quite
remarkable: a great deal of meaningful activity is occurring in the
brain when a person is sitting back and doing nothing at all.

It
turns out that when your mind is at rest—when you are daydreaming
quietly in a chair, say, asleep in a bed or anesthetized for
surgery—dispersed brain areas are chattering away to one another. And
the energy consumed by this ever active messaging, known as the brain’s
default mode, is about 20 times that used by the brain when it
responds consciously to a pesky fly or another outside stimulus.
Indeed, most things we do consciously, be it sitting down to eat dinner
or making a speech, mark a departure from the baseline activity of the
brain default mode.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-brains-dark-energy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: dark energy

2008-01-21 Thread John Mikes


Hi, Hal:

... I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
of dynamics 
Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed
to be motivated by its activity?

This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is
bound to a process in time (maybe I misunderstand it).  You also
mention several times duration - a definitely time-related concept.
Do you consider time, - that hard-to-identify term, the coordinate
WE use in THIS universe (together with space) to get a hold on
occurrences which otherwise would overstep our mental (?)
capabilities - as fundamental at the  Nothing - Something - Everything
discussion? If so, what is the origo? Is it in nothing or in
everything? How does it proceed from zero to nonzero?
*
... duration of a particular Nothing...
Does nothing carry qualia like 'duration'? Indirectly maybe, if you
compare identified 'somethings' to be cocurrent with 'nothing' and
then those 'somethings' WHEN you find no 'nothing connected.
It still would not mark the duration of 'nothing', only the duration
of its detection. I am weary of considering 'nothing' as a physical
system. By ANY attribute it becomes a something. Sorry, I may be
one-sided and ignorant, but I am stubborn.
*
Why must {anything} be answered {as an} [unavoidable
 necessity],...?
Our questions stem from our ignorance. With more mental power we
probably would know all the answers and have no questions.
I try to visualize (again the wrong view) mental scales and fear the
comparisons between concepts on different scales of ideation. (Cf:
quantized scale transition in chaos-thinking). We cannot overstep our
restricted level of [human] mental power just as Abbott's Mr 2D could
not think 3D.
*
I see your 'Something' point, not differentiated (all the way) to
Everything, when it becomes impredicative and unspecifiable.
I try to use the same concept locally in the R. Rosen type
'complexity',  applied (mostly) to 'our world' (this universe).
Regards
John



On Jan 20, 2008 3:40 PM, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi John and George:

 In my post:

 I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
 the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
 necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.


 I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics.

 I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.

 The initial meaningful question concerns the duration of a
 particular Nothing.

 This question is inevitable and must be answered [unavoidable
 necessity], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete
 so it becomes a Something to gain information.

 A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is
 defined by its current boundary with the Everything.

 The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of
 the current boundary?  If a Something can not answer this question it
 must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything].  This is a
 new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient
 general answer to this question and so the process repeats
 [progressively resolve this incompleteness].

 I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the
 Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.

 Hal Ruhl

 At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:

 George and Hal:
 Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
 avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
 All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a
 wider sense.
 WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
 machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
 otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
 which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
 its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
 thinking.
 So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
 Something stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that 
 is).
 And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
 ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
 stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
 of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
 brainfunction.
 Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration
 
 John



 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-20 Thread John Mikes


George and Hal:
Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a wider sense.
WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
thinking.
So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
Something stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is).
And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
brainfunction.
Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration

John

On Jan 19, 2008 8:13 PM, George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Hal

  Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of
 motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally alien or
 the English language is broken.



  George

  Hal Ruhl wrote:
 Hi George:

  I see no feeling of anything in a Something.   There is only an absence
 of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that are asked and
 must is be answered.

  Hal Ruhl

  At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

 Hal,
  Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of the
 members. In other words the members feel motivated by incompleteness. They
 do have the feeling of being incomplete that motivates their behavior.  Is
 this correct?
  George

  Hal Ruhl wrote:


  Hi George:

 I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
 the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
 necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

 Hal Ruhl

 At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:





  Hal Ruhl wrote:





  This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the
 forces
 [meaningful questions] applied to it.



  What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

 George














  


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-20 Thread Hal Ruhl


Hi John and George:

In my post:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.


I used motivator in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics.

I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.

The initial meaningful question concerns the duration of a 
particular Nothing.

This question is inevitable and must be answered [unavoidable 
necessity], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete 
so it becomes a Something to gain information.

A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is 
defined by its current boundary with the Everything.

The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of 
the current boundary?  If a Something can not answer this question it 
must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything].  This is a 
new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient 
general answer to this question and so the process repeats 
[progressively resolve this incompleteness].

I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the 
Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.

Hal Ruhl

At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:

George and Hal:
Why does a question emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I
avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from?
All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a 
wider sense.
WE (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking
machines')  still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do
otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function)
which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes
its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its
thinking.
So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking.
Something stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is).
And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other
ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it
stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension
of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive
brainfunction.
Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration

John


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-19 Thread George Levy

Hal

Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of 
motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally 
alien or the English language is broken.

George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

 Hi George:

 I see no feeling of anything in a Something.   There is only an 
 absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that 
 are asked and must is be answered. 

 Hal Ruhl

 At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

 Hal,
 Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator 
 of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by 
 incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that 
 motivates their behavior.  Is this correct?
 George

 Hal Ruhl wrote:


Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than 
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable 
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

 
  


Hal Ruhl wrote:

   



This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the
forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.
 
  


What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George


   




 
  




 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-18 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi George:

I see no feeling of anything in a Something.   There is only an 
absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that 
are asked and must is be answered.

Hal Ruhl

At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote:
Hal,
Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator 
of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by 
incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that 
motivates their behavior.  Is this correct?
George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:



Hal Ruhl wrote:



This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.



What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George











--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-17 Thread Hal Ruhl


Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than 
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable 
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

Hal Ruhl wrote:

 
  This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
  [meaningful questions] applied to it.


What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-17 Thread George Levy

Hal,
Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of 
the members. In other words the members feel motivated by 
incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that 
motivates their behavior.  Is this correct?
George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

Hi George:

I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than 
the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable 
necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness.

Hal Ruhl

At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote:

  

Hal Ruhl wrote:



This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.
  

What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George







  



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread Hal Ruhl


Hi George:

I use the term quest because a Something if incomplete will have to 
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions that get 
asked but it can not answer.  The motivator is partly external - an 
answer [mostly more than one is available] is out there in the 
unexplored Everything and partly internal - the particular question 
must be answered.  There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on 
the part of the Something.  To use your last thoughts below the quest 
is an [Everything, Something, Nothing] system induced need for a 
ongoing influx of information into the particular Something from the 
Everything [the boundary of the particular Something with the 
Everything alters to include more of the Everything.  The Something 
encompasses an ever increasing portion of the Everything but it must do so.

In this case I currently see no higher level of driver for any sub 
component of the Something including what one might call an 
observer.  I may need to reconsider when I get to that point in 
Russell's book but my time restraints force me to take considerable 
time doing so.

Hal Ruhl

At 02:21 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:

Hi Hal,
This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second
sentence in your post. The phrase Something is on a quest carries a
lot of baggage, in particular that Something has intention,  purpose
and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced
by a fundamental spirit or soul that you have assigned to the
Something, or that the intention is emergent from a complex
consciousness simulation possibly involving Quantum Mechanics. If
you assume a spirit or soul you are making a quasi religious assumption.
Is this what you want? How do we explain spirit or soul? If you are
assuming a complex consciousness simulation, there is a whole layer that
needs to be explained which no one has yet fully explained yet.
Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as energy
minimization to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular
direction. In chemistry, for example, Le Chatelier Principle is used.

George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

 I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current
 view of Dark Energy
 
 In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the
 Everything.
 
 Based on this, the following points can be made:
 
 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something
 would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary
 with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.
 
 2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has]
 the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the 
 quest can be.
 
 3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the
 quest progresses.
 
 4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite
 information packing density in its space then an accelerating
 increase in the size of that space should be observed since both
 the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything
 increases as the quest progresses.
 
   Hal Ruhl
 
 
 
 
 
 




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread George Levy

Hal,

I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say:

Something if incomplete will have to 
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions

which implies volition and therefore spirit;
and on the other hand you say:

There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on 
the part of the Something.  

which denies spirit,
and on the third hand:

the quest is an ... system induced need for a 
ongoing influx of information   

in which the term need goes back to supporting a spirit-based system.

George

Hal Ruhl wrote:

Hi George:

I use the term quest because a Something if incomplete will have to 
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions that get 
asked but it can not answer.  The motivator is partly external - an 
answer [mostly more than one is available] is out there in the 
unexplored Everything and partly internal - the particular question 
must be answered.  There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on 
the part of the Something.  To use your last thoughts below the quest 
is an [Everything, Something, Nothing] system induced need for a 
ongoing influx of information into the particular Something from the 
Everything [the boundary of the particular Something with the 
Everything alters to include more of the Everything.  The Something 
encompasses an ever increasing portion of the Everything but it must do so.

In this case I currently see no higher level of driver for any sub 
component of the Something including what one might call an 
observer.  I may need to reconsider when I get to that point in 
Russell's book but my time restraints force me to take considerable 
time doing so.

Hal Ruhl

At 02:21 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:

  

Hi Hal,
This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second
sentence in your post. The phrase Something is on a quest carries a
lot of baggage, in particular that Something has intention,  purpose
and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced
by a fundamental spirit or soul that you have assigned to the
Something, or that the intention is emergent from a complex
consciousness simulation possibly involving Quantum Mechanics. If
you assume a spirit or soul you are making a quasi religious assumption.
Is this what you want? How do we explain spirit or soul? If you are
assuming a complex consciousness simulation, there is a whole layer that
needs to be explained which no one has yet fully explained yet.
Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as energy
minimization to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular
direction. In chemistry, for example, Le Chatelier Principle is used.

George

Hal Ruhl wrote:



I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current
view of Dark Energy

In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the
Everything.

Based on this, the following points can be made:

1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something
would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary
with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.

2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has]
the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the 
  

quest can be.


3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the
quest progresses.

4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite
information packing density in its space then an accelerating
increase in the size of that space should be observed since both
the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything
increases as the quest progresses.

 Hal Ruhl


  


  







  



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi George:

At 09:59 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote:
Hal,

I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say:


Something if incomplete will have to

increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions

This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces 
[meaningful questions] applied to it.


which implies volition and therefore spirit;
and on the other hand you say:



There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on

the part of the Something.
which denies spirit,


yes

and on the third hand:

the quest is an ... system induced need for a

ongoing influx of information
in which the term need goes back to supporting a spirit-based system.

Again the need is as a mass responding to the forces applied.

Hal Ruhl 
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: dark energy

2008-01-16 Thread George Levy


Hal Ruhl wrote:


 This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces 
 [meaningful questions] applied to it.


What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?

George

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

dark energy

2008-01-15 Thread Hal Ruhl


I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current 
view of Dark Energy

In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the 
Everything.

Based on this, the following points can be made:

1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something 
would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary 
with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume.

2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has] 
the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the quest can be.

3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the 
quest progresses.

4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite 
information packing density in its space then an accelerating 
increase in the size of that space should be observed since both 
the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything 
increases as the quest progresses.

  Hal Ruhl


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Projections to the boarder of the universe, an explanation for dark energy?

2006-03-08 Thread andy gh


According to the holographic principle, there is complete 
equivalence between a set of physical laws on an 
n-dimensional space and another set of physical laws on 
a boundary of this space. Based on simple everything
considerations, I conjecture that in our universe there is
indeed a kind of holographic principle at work, however the
equivalence is not complete. The two sets of physical laws
are actually describing two different domains of the same
universe. Both domains, the n-dimensional space and the
boarder space, actually do exist. On the boarder space there
may be a superposition of two kinds of physical states. One
kind corresponds to the states in the n-dimensional space
and one kind of states does not. Instead of the complete
two-way equivalence, there is a one-way inference. Every
piece of information in the n-dimensional space is almost
instantly projected to the boundary or boundaries of that
space (projective inference). Physical objects and even
phase space objects are projected into the same direction(s). 

Let me call this kind of projections teleportation
projections. The inverse teleportation, back into the original
space, is presumably an operation of greater complexity. 
Therefore, it should be expected to play a minor role in the
physical evolution of the universe. Inverse teleportation
projection should be extremely unlikely.

Nevertheless, the proof of the existence of such
transformations may be quite helpful when exploring physical
theories. See the articles Information in the Holographic
Universe, by Jacob D. Bekenstein; Scientific American,
August 2003, and The Illusion of Gravity, by Juan
Maldacena; Scientific American, November 2005, for less
hypothetical facts about the holographic principle.

Think twice before doing a quick trip to Millitime the highly
popular restaurant at the spatial end of the universe!
Teleportation projection is a one-way teleportation! There is
no direct way back. The measure of objects that have 
been projected to the boundary, will however diffuse back into
the n-dimensional space, occupying and passing through
areas close to the boundary. Can you see (the energy of) the
shadows on the wall of the ancient universe?

Do the projective inference and the conditions at the 
boarder provide an unexpected explanation for the dark 
energy as well as for the belief in accelerated expansion 
of the universe? Is energy conserved or does it grow at the 
end of the universe??

The title of this list / group reads a mailing list for
discussion of the idea that all possible universes exists.
I admit that I have infinite difficulties to imagine that
every possible universe exists. Hope you do not mind that
I nevertheless post here. Above conclusions can presumably
be justified from an everything algorithm (or everything
axiom) without using any true infinities.

Bruno, sorry, I still have not really answered your questions. 
Should read more of your publications first. Should I have 
written, I am a superposition of persons living in spaces 
of various dimensions -- a superposition of the 
n-dimensional me and its shadows?

Cheers and greetings, also to Millitime guests!
andy


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

83 matches

Mail list logo