Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - 03:43 AM Jan5 2008 I think the root of modern physics can be based on Newton, Einstein and Wolff, and a necessary reaction to their implications should cause a search for an accurate definition of what matter is in order to know what it isn’t. "Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein’s equation entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake. In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either "matter" or "fields." The distinction between "matter" and "fields" in modern physics is itself rather subtle in no small part because of the equivalence of mass and energy. Nevertheless, we can assert that whatever sense of "conversion" seems compelling between mass and energy, it will have to be a "conversion" between mass and energy, and not between matter and energy. Finally, our observation obtains even in so-called "annihilation" reactions where the entire mass of the incoming particles seems to "disappear" (see, for example, Baierlein (p. 323, 2007). Of course, the older terminology of "matter" and "anti-matter" does not really help our philosophical understanding of mass-energy equivalence and is perhaps partly to blame for misconceptions surrounding E = mc2." Re: Cyclical Universe based on Big Rip Scenario - 01-04-2008, 10:57 PM MikeNoonan With strings the idea is to build them and so shape becomes very important. Now the mathematics can be complex but a quick idea is the original strings were vibrations an so energy is a good candidate. If it is a zero dimension a dot it is a pulse at a point, one is a line like a violin string, two dimensions is flat like a table top which gives the membrane. Using letters allows shape and also magetism and allows the different string ideas to be identified. Now a table top can be square or round and nature does seem to like circles. Three dimensions is like our real world length depth and height. To go higher means some strange shapes but in a very simplified form four dimensions in structure is a cone like an ice cream cone. The circle at the top is two dimensions and the cone is a wormhole to the point of the cone. That separates the circle and the dot, the dot being one dimension and the separation being the forth dimension. That is a vortex or twistor and is currently still being worked on by Sir Roger Penrose. It has some interesting possibilities that include movement through time. Another four dimension is the tesseract and the Wikipedia here HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TESERAC Thas a really good set of diagrams. The possibilities for shape grow for each dimension. Five dimension space was being considered up to 1905 when Einstein amazed the world with his theories. I have not gone into five dimensions. I did look at six. Six is surprisingly easy if you think of it like the human body. It is like taking the human shape as your outer layer and going down through say the circulatory system arteries, veins and capillaries down to the red blood cell. Like going from a big roundish shape down through a whole set of connected wormholes down to a small roundish shape (probably any shape would do). In six dimensions each inner cell is as connected or separate to the outer shape as each other inner cell can be but can be as simple to view as a human body. Six is the dimension of structure used to make programs to design pipes or say in the case of imaging the body through various scanners a way to map blood vessels, nerve pathways and one member on this site proposed a brain scanner again neural pathways. Six dimensions is how quantum is worked to the level of real particles like atoms at the top right down to the really small and hard to see stuff. So six quantum dimensions and then our three normal dimensions length, depth and height then add time as one more dimension to get ten overall. Then just to make it all a bit more interesting our world is called the eleventh dimension but it is a name only to say this is earth that is being talked about. If I have messed you up in shapes already then I apologize because even with good graphics it is very hard to picture in words. Then using mathematics and super computers there are designs that may be beyond the ability to show visually. And that is just structure ... once you start adding a time line for one way flow or two time-like lines it gets very complex. That is from our world down inwards. The five dimension idea that Einstein replaced was a large outer space idea but we didn’t get to that one. That is fairly regular physics. With higher dimensions it is a matter of trying to describe extra shapes at a smaller and smaller scale. I believe Professor Stephen Hawking got up to around 27 dimensions of ever smaller bends twists folds and loops. I do not even try to visualise to anywhere near that level of complexity. Mike http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME Quote: Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com I’m not sure that string theory is going anywhere because it is background dependent-the background of their own appropriate choice. A string can also form a loop, Their only constraint is that they sweep out equal areas in equal time, or something like that, but I’m not sure why. There’s currently no way to prove string theory. Also, there are 2**500 possible string theories.No kidding ... give me the first 100 paraphrased thanks for the info I love it Rufe Mike wrote; That is a huge number. I think if the whole universe was make of string theory papers there wouldn’t be a whole lot of room for the rest of us, cheers In the article I linked to in the previous post has gravity at right angles to the energy of the string. That would have the effect of making right angles very important to the look and shape of string theory as well. Thank you austintorn@aol.com I like to use stories to paint an idea. Since string theory uses gravity at a right angle it may be easier to picture as a sail. On a boat on a calm day the boat just sits in the water. Give it a breeze and there is more air on one side of the sail than the other. So the sail pushes the boat through the water. The push is at right angles to the sail. Now to look at the same picture using gravity density. Where there is no breeze there is equal pressure on the sail. The pressure like air pressure can be as strong as you like there is no movement. Call it the strong nuclear force. Here is the gravity flow idea, if one force say the weak nuclear force acted on one side and the electromagnetic on the other then the sail would move the boat if the forces were not exactly balanced. Gravity acts at the level of the atoms. So gravity we measure at the level of the atoms of the sail are ... weak nuclear force minus electromagnetic force. The strong nuclear force is 10,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force combine to make the electroweak interaction and actually fuse together at 1,000,000,000,000,000 degrees K. It means they were only together around the time of the big bang. Now if the whole flow of gravity that we can feel and see and measure is only the very slight difference between them ... that would mean gravity at the level of the atom would seem to be incredibly weak. That is the idea anyway. It would take a mathematician to calculate the numbers. That is why I thought if I asked the question and someone could calculate the answer and take credit for that answer then I have saved myself years of study and received the answer I wanted so much more quickly. That is important to me because if I am wrong then I could have put those years into other better ideas. Best wishes all for the new year, cheers Michael |

~These Links are a Direct connection to all Institute Documents~ About the Institute Constitution Ecumenity What is Non-Theory? What is Anti-Theory? Curriculum Practical Non-Theory Vote Efficiency of Machines Distribution and Production Commercial Exchange Oxymoron’s and Other Papers What about Kyoto? Rant about Garbage Global Handbook Mainstream Science Remember Hippies? Free Thinking Optimism Add Your Effort David Suzuki Site |

~These Feature Galleries are all RealRufus Kidsafe Areas~ The Gang The Institute Written Articles Froggy & Cats Eye Puzzlez Web Design and The Old Page Ruby’s Creative Arts Ruby’s Garden Ceramics Decorator~Designs~Vessels Studio Kayaks & Trimaran Norm’s Custom Shop Digital Photo Gallery Garage-Studio Bicycles Lotus Motorcycles Zdravko Z28 Email is to webmaster nsoar@tbaytel.net |

©