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 tolerated and respected.
Welcome to the list about the Theory of Everything, George. :)
Ron McFarland
be better. Much better.
Ron McFarland
PS Nothing prevented me from posting something more serious. I just couldn't find
the energy.
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! grin
Ron McFarland
the boundary
of our universe in order to explain our universe.
Ron McFarland
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)
===
of gravitons generating another
virtual exchange of gravitons.
Fred
Interesting conjecture! I alludeto it, below...
And also heard...
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier
Ron McFarland
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 be inflationary (we
to the *inverse* of e=mc^2?
Ron McFarland
to disassembly
attempts. They are not really my own arguments, individually; but
maybe just the way I've assembled the arguments is a little unique.
Ron McFarland
==
On 14 Nov 2003 at 10:52, George Levy wrote:
Ron,
I am not a physicist, just a dabbling engineer philosopher, however,
the idea of dark
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 measure.
Ron
. 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
point in time it gets expressed in
Planck terms.
Ron McFarland
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
on all we've both said, too.
Ron McFarland
suddenly, enough volume involved. But it won't happen
everywhere at the same time.
Ron McFarland
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 both just different
expressions of the ever increasing rate of inflation of the universe.
Ron McFarland
of our basic
assumptions. If a law can 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
would be most pleased to here read comments from the list members.
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 is empirical evidence now
that
our
19 matches
Mail list logo
