ject that is still
being hotly debated in the general scientific community.
But make no mistake, I am not a scientist. I am only a thinker, one who seeks proof
of being misguided. Logic is my only tool. Others here are much more educated in
these matters than I am, and all here are tolera
better. Much better.
Ron McFarland
PS Nothing prevented me from posting something more serious. I just couldn't find
the energy.
? [John Mikes]
But, John! You dodge my questions, it seems, with yet more questions.
I think you're saying the universe is -- because that's the way it is,
end of story. Nobody argues that! We just argue that we're not so sure
that's the end of the story, and we want to know how it came to be
this way, and what its fate is to be. Yes, I can logically define what
causes energy to do work, what energy is, what mass is, and so on
within the scope of this topic (actually, I've already done so!) But
it is your definitions right now that are holding me at curiously
captive attention!
Ron McFarland
hen "universe" also
> disappears in the Plenitude.
What causes the dissipation of stress-seeds? I do not yet
understand why you disagree, as those questions are not
resolved to my benefit.
Ron McFarland
===
"The idea is that you could understand the world, all of
nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When
assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole" (John
Holland)
===
o fully
explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary
of our universe in order to explain our universe.
Ron McFarland
t;
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
> Ron McFarland writes:
>>If a gravity carrier has any mass whatsoever then by what mechanism
>>could it possibly and in such abundance escape from a black hole
>>event horizon and make itself
On 2 Nov 2003 at 14:16, Ron McFarland wrote:
> Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
>
> Recent headlines indicate that there is empirical evidence now that
> our known universe is about 13 billion years old, it is essentially
> flat, and that space/time continues to
xpressed relative to the *inverse* of e=mc^2?
Ron McFarland
could only be relative to itself and nothing else.
My arguments are circular and that is what gives them consistency.
Break the chain of logic then the premise is found to be faulty. So
far, I think my arguments have held up pretty good to disassembly
attempts. They are not really my own ar
ding at an astonishing rate. It seems to
me that it would be a little naive to think that any one explanation
is total (not even my own offered up here for disassembly). All we
really know is what we can repeatably measure, we do not yet know
what we measure nor that which we have no means to mea
space/time.
Overall, dark matter is very highly uniform in its distribution
throughout the universe. But there are exceptions, the most obvious
being where there are black holes and anywhere else there is
matter/energy, so the concentrations vary at local scales. Higher
local concentrations of matter/energy simply mean there is higher
local "tension" involved.
Ron McFarland
not
the same mechanism of decay being caused by inflation. There is no
uncertainty when it comes to inflation, because decay by that method
is not dependant on QM and it is instead dependant to how much space
volume has inflated within a region occupied by the constructs of a
particle and how the increasing distance between those constructs is
eventually expressed in the only way matter can do so - in units
specified by Planck's constant.
Ron McFarland
insert choice here]. But inflation is still occuring
regardless, and at some finite point in time it gets expressed in
Planck terms.
Ron McFarland
given a distant yet finite time, in each case there
will be, rather suddenly, enough volume involved. But it won't happen
everywhere at the same time.
Ron McFarland
ny point and if it can not be adjusted to agree with the
empirical then it is faulty logic. :)
Your turn, sir. I really do look forward to your responses! It would
be nice if others would comment on all we've both said, too.
Ron McFarland
affect that is being labeled dark
matter (DM). It's an attraction by the meta-universe, its attempt to
reclaim its zero energy balance. It is no different than dark energy,
they are one and the same and they only appear to be different
depending upon your relative viewpoint. They are bo
those
virtual particles are returned to the meta universe; those methods
being via black holes and/or the expansion of a universe at an ever
increasing rate (they are both really one and the same thing from the
viewpoint of the meta universe). What we, bound in our universe,
perceive as energy is but an illusion from the viewpoint of the MU.
Ron McFarland
be broken then the breakage is not part
of the law and it follows that the law is not a law nor even a valid
postulate - because it has been disproven by empirical evidence.
> Will get to the other part later...
>
> -Joao
:)
Ron McFarland
Thank you list for the welcome. I look forward to many congenial
debates!
On 2 Nov 2003 at 22:05, Joao Leao wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 5:16 PM, Ron McFarland wrote:
>
> > Greetings list members. This is my joining post.
> >
> > Recent headlines indicate that there i
a fundamental level.
I would be most pleased to here read comments from the list members.
Ron McFarland
20 matches
Mail list logo
