Driver to drive?

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:22:52 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

There is clearly massive parallel testing and selection going on. I
even design circuits in my sleep, sometimes weeks after I'd
consciously forgotten the situation. "Intellectualizing" the design
process leads one to treat it as an incremental tweak of prior art,
but brains are way past that.

Yes, I've often found the best way to deal with a tricky problem is simply to
forget about it. Randomly, some time later, the answer pops out.

---
A shower works for me.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:41:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Then you agree that my earlier statement:

"There had to have been, however, something which started it all off."

Is correct?

Please don't bring religion into this !

---
I believe the currently accepted theory is that the something that
started it all off was the so-called "Big Bang".

What's religious about that?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:47:03 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

But who's God's God ?

---
From:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081023115128AAGuOXD

Sunshine L sez:

"We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do
so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or
end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc. The Bible says that He has always
existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God"
(Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art
from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and
no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.
To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next, one
minute is after another. We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat
the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on
charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see
nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from
left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the
chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.
Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of
the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even
been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God
created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created
the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no
meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask
where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied
to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in
relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be
absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.
Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept
of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. Since God has no
beginning or end, He has no beginning. This is because He is outside of
time."

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:17:27 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:47:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any old
possibility *they* dream up, is a real possibility.

Tell me John, do you really believe that professional phd
astronomers and professional astrophysicists are so completely
clueless as to not have thought of such a trivial obvious potential
explanation?

---
Well, so far they seem to be in the dark about what's causing the red
shift acceleration, and about 96% of the other shit that's going on in
the universe,

Yes. It is an unknown.

and my hypothesis at least hints at an explanation.

It doest, as it does not agree with the actual details of observations.

---
It most certainly does, since there is no other rational explanation for
the acceleration of the red shift with distance other than an external
gravitational source.

If you know about anything that could be causing it, how about letting
us know about it?
---

Beside, I talked it over with Hal Puthoff a year or so ago, and he
liked it.


Yeah...right....

---
That's very rude.

Why would you say that? Do you think I'm lying?
---

This is the issue
on the physics NGs, the "Einstein was wrong" brigade give no credit
to experts that have studied this stuff for 20+ years. Like, as if
they wouldn't also have similar ideas. Its not credible or
reasonable.

---
Because one disagrees with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's
unreasonable, it just means that one thinks it's implausible.

But as Richard Dawkins points out,. all opinion are *not* equal.

The probability, today, of a novice, uneducated in standard physics, having
anything relevent to say, is 0.0000000000001%. Sorry, but this is just the
way it.

---
Interesting number.

How'd you come up with it, scientifically?

Methinks the green-eyed monster is at work here and would, if he could,
silence all who don't share his views or who present a danger to his
intellectual investments.
---

The field is way too technical, with way too many truly clever people
already looking at the problem 150 years ago, almost no one had a PhD in
physics, and physics didn't too know much.

---
You really shouldn't try to write technical stuff when you're drunk,
Kevin.
---

I don't care much for the theatricals of the "Einstein was wrong
brigade",

but wasn't Eistein part of the "Newton was wrong" brigade in his own
way?


Einstein was a professional physicist, and Newton wasn't "wrong", he's
approximations were approximations.

---
Well, I don't think that he stated they were approximations, but were
found to be later on.

If no one knew better and I proclaimed that the distance to the moon was
200000 miles would I be right?
---

Conservation of momentum is still as true today, as then.

---
And even before. So what?
---

I can state without hesitation, that the idea of a mass shell
enclosing this universe, does not fit the observations.

---
You can state it without hesitation, but unless you can explain how
the _observation_ that the red shift accelerates with distance
doesn't agree with the hypothesis that a huge gravitational
attraction from an external source is the cause of the acceleration,
the statement is baseless.
---

Not at all. If I recall correctly, I already had that same daft idea, and
posted the question to the one of the physics NGs some while back, and got
an answer from a noted expert as to the folly of such a suggestion.

---
So you didn't have the courage of your convictions and you allowed some
"authority" to stop you dead in your tracks?

Sad.
---

Noting that I am not totally ignorant of such matters in general
(http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html).

---
_Sir_ Kevin Aylward???

Boy, are you full of yourself!

Here's a list I got from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Knights_and_Ladies_of_the_Garter

Strangely, your name appears nowhere on it.

Can't you get into trouble for pretending to have been knighted?


Name Life Date

Peter Anthony Inge, Baron Inge b.1935 2001
Antony Arthur Acland b.1930 2001
HM Harald V, King of Norway b.1937 2001
HRH Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy b.1936 2003
Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster b.1951 2003
Frederick Edward Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell b.1938 2003
John Morris, Baron Morris of Aberavon b.1931 2003
John Major b.1943 2005
Tom Bingham, Baron Bingham of Cornhill b.1933 2005
Mary Soames, Lady Soames b.1922 2005
HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York b.1960 2006
HRH Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex b.1964 2006
HRH Prince William of Wales b.1982 2008
Richard Luce, Baron Luce b.1936 2008
Sir Thomas Dunne b.1933 2008

More to the point; from your "SIMPLIFIED SUMMARY", I got:

"2 Gravitational fields are generated by a mass."

If that's true, (and observation does seem to indicate that it is)
then for mass to be accelerating there must be a gravitational field
attracting it.

In the case of distant galaxies, observation of their red shifts
indicates that the galaxies are receding, and that the more distant the
galaxy the higher its velocity of recession.

That, in turn, indicates that those galaxies are accelerating toward
what _must_ be a mass which is generating the gravitational field.

Since we see this acceleration everywhere we look, the mass must be
surrounding us at a distance greater than the galaxies receding the
fastest and, since our universe is mostly empty, that makes our universe
essentially a bubble surrounded by a mass capable of attracting galaxies
to itself.

As has been suggested earlier, something like an infinitely large block
of Swiss cheese with some holes dispersed through it.
---

Its the actual technical details
that matttter, not some ad-hoc well maybe...

---
In the end, yes, but it all starts with an ad-hoc well maybe.

Don't you think that some time elapsed between Einstein's first
inkling that matter and energy were two sides of the same coin and
his formal E = MC˛?

Einstein was not the first to propose such a relation.

---
So what?

All that does is push the first ad-hoc "well, maybe..." farther back in
time.

Also, without that first ad-hoc "well, maybe...", there would be no
actual technical details forthcoming.
---

No point. Already in contradiction to the known facts.

---
Hmmm...
Sounds like something Galileo was forced to listen to.


If you want to re-write everything that is currently consider astrophysics,
sure.

---
What's wrong with that?

It's not like it's never happened before, you know!

JF

 

[JosephKK]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:12:14 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Oct 21, 11:59 pm, JosephKK <quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:21:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com
wrote:

The trick is, your current-transformer will saturate (like, at 50 mA)
so the series resistance on its secondary is no longer in-circuit
when the power is high.  

You do not seem know or understand squat about current transformers.
They are normally linear over 3 to 4 orders of magnitude, and can be
really fast

Note, however, that the simple copper sense resistor also
is linear over 4 orders of magnitude, and is much less expensive.
My intent was to put a low-current sensor (the current transformer,
of an inexpensive size and no great capacity) in series with a
high current sensor so as to make a low-Z current sense
array with two gain ranges.

Two resistors won't do it. A high-current transformer (my 800A
example here weighs about 2 kg) is expensive. A low-current
transformer, which drops out of the circuit when it saturates,
seemed suitable.

It might be made to work if you can also provide the HV isolation that
is typical with a current transformer.

 

[krw]

In article <kj16g45485a01bjqh9g9gqbpjjpfpsmkuj@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:22:52 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

There is clearly massive parallel testing and selection going on. I
even design circuits in my sleep, sometimes weeks after I'd
consciously forgotten the situation. "Intellectualizing" the design
process leads one to treat it as an incremental tweak of prior art,
but brains are way past that.

Yes, I've often found the best way to deal with a tricky problem is simply to
forget about it. Randomly, some time later, the answer pops out.

---
A shower works for me.

So *that's* why DemonicRats never have any good ideas.

--
Keith

 

[mpm]

On Oct 24, 6:53�pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Martin Brown
|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On Oct 21, 7:22 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:05:16 -0700, mpm wrote:

The point is, like everything else Republican the last 8 years, the
FCC also deregulated.
DE-regulated? Are you insane? What's "You must pay your hard-earned money
for this box to see TV any more" other than EXCESSIVE regulation?
It is pure market forces. You want to watch the TV in future you have
to buy the box.
A bit monopolistic I grant you. But if you want to receive the signal
then you have to buy a receiver and decoder.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Absolutely. �Now for how many years have all new receivers been
required to be equipped with DTV receivers? �Compare with historical
life.

Precious few years. I have seen smaller TVs in stores as recently as
2005 that did not have a digital tuner. Some larger ones read
"DTV-ready" on the info sheet but upon asking I was told that you'd have
to buy a module once those are ready. When they would be ready or what
they'd cost was unknown to the sales person. Great, huh?

I would not be surprised one bit if the modules for some sets never
materialized. But IMHO the worst is that obviously the proper amount of
multipath field testing seems not to have happened. My wife says there's
two good Westerns on Ch-29 Saturday. Chances of the DTV signal falling
apart are roughly 50:50, depending on cloud movement. So I am not
getting too excited just yet, maybe we'll be playing pool.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not to rag on fast food, but whenever I heard the term "50-50" now, I
think of something a good frined of mine said recently:

It's a 50% chance you'll order will be right, and 50% that it will
still be hot.
(He's a senior executive over at Checkers...)

IIRC, sets over a certain size were required to be DTV-ready by x-
date.
That would likely not have included sets already in inventory by x-
date, which has the effect of tolling out the actual compliance date.
Smaller sets were unaffected by this regulation.

I doubt "DTV ready" could be applied to a set for which some future
module would provide compliance with the directive (for larger sets),
but for smaller sets this could certainly have been the case. I think
by larger, the FCC meant 42", but I would have review that. The
directives were via Public Notice, so it's a simple matter to look
them up a fcc.gov

Having deep ties to the broadcast industry, I can state with some
authority that it is a GOOD THING the FCC is finally sticking by a
deadline. Otherwise, the transition would never take place. It took
nearly 2 decades just to get the NTSC-color transition done. --and
that was a compatible format change!!

In some ways, it "should" be eaiser today. Even though there are more
actual TV sets today, the majority of viewers get their signals via
satellite or cable. In most cases, only the Over-the-Air folks will
affected directly by the converter-box requirement.

-mpm

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:17:44 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:43:33 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Rich the Philosophizer wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has
Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion.
Religions are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they
want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she
really that dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

Graham

Sarah is cool. We're not afraid of smart, funny, competent women here.

John

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is seriously
frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of the US. She is a
women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

People have always thought slickness, charisma, and oratory were signs
of leadership skill, and generally been wrong.

John

 

[Eeyore]

MooseFET wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

She is a theocrat + Dick Cheney with breasts. She believes that the
VP has actual powers beyond breaking ties in the senate. She has
motivated that part of the republican base that wishes to centralize
all power in Washington DC and into the hands of a few elite.

This sounds more like what my brother-in-law was saying and with McCain's health
in question she could be President.

Graham

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 24, 5:43 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Rich the Philosophizer wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day it happened Rich Grise wrote

You're denying Free Will. "quantum randomness" is a term used by
"sciencists" to rationalize away the fact that everything has Free Will.

I am not so sure about 'free will'.
I think that idea is more of a religion.

No, in fact, it's almost diametrically opposite to religion. Religions
are invested in denial of Free Will - that's why they want to rule you.

My brother-in-law just gave me a briefing on Sarah Palin. Is she really that
dreadful ? It made my blood run cold.

She is a theocrat + Dick Cheney with breasts. She believes that the
VP has actual powers beyond breaking ties in the senate. She has
motivated that part of the republican base that wishes to centralize
all power in Washington DC and into the hands of a few elite.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:49:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

The issue is that randomness doesn't save one from absence of free will.

---
Well, let's see...

If we live in a deterministic universe, then even what seems to be
random (the microwave background radiation, for example) isn't and, from
the beginning of time until now, the series of events which have led up
to my typing this have all been something I had absolutely no control
over and everything that happens in the future will also be inescapably
preordained.

However, you seem to be saying that even though randomness exists, which
flies in the face of determinism, free will cannot exist under either
condition.

You then go on with an argument about quantum entanglement, which you
say proves your point.

I fail to see why it does, since we can _choose_ to entangle electrons
or not, as we please.

They'll be inextricably linked subsequently and will obey some
interesting rules, but I don't see where any determinism is involved
since there's no path either electron _must_ file down, only what
happens _if_ certain conditions come to pass.

Bottom line is, if you admit to the existence of, say, random noise or
any other random phenomenon, that sounds the death knell for
determinism.
---

You appear to be saying that if grass is green, then all that is green is grass.

---
Not at all. What seems to be happening is that you either think that's
what I said or you're deliberately misconstruing my meaning for your own
ends.
---

Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object, an "I" to
make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of free will is non
predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not* imply that it must be
random. Free will is the ability to chose for oneself. If the choice is
random, than there is no choice. This is trivially obvious.

---
You misunderstand.

The _choice_ isn't random, what is chosen can be. [picked from a random
set]

Here:

First, the existence of determinism precludes the existence of free
will, (and randomness) so if random noise exists determinism can't.

Second, If determinism can't exist then free will can.

Third, If free will exists then we can exercise it by making choices,
which we do, from any number of things, events, etc.

For instance: "I think I'll turn right", "I'll have potatoes instead
of turnips", "I'll stop typing now instead of continuing." etc.

JF

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 24, 11:10 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:
[...]

The accelerating red shift with distance and the inverse square law
hints at something unbelievably massive toward which the distant
red-shifted galaxies are hurtling.

There are several other theories that also explain it. Among them are
some that I like to bring up from time to time.

(1) The Cosmic Body Odor theory
The rest of the universe really is running away from us and yes it is
personal.

(2) The Invisible Magic Unicorns theory
It is all caused by invisible magic unicorns. There will never be an
explanation of where the magic unicorns came from.

The physicists I have spoken to about it tend to prefer (1) over (2).

On the more serious side, we assume that gravity follows a simple
inverse square law mostly because it fits the data so well at small
values of "r". If that is just the first term in a much longer
series, the curve could be fit.

A wall of some sort perhaps?  But in every direction?  A bubble of some
sort?  

Why not?  

A wall wouldn't make the right curve. The acceleration from a wall
would grow too rapidly at the extreme distances and too slowly short
of that. You could sort of fit the curve by making the wall extremely
massive and extremely far away but never accurately.

Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense Universe which has
always been there and in which are exerted forces which from time to
time cause a cavitation-like event to occur which creates a bubble into
which outgasses material from the Universe and forms our little bubble
universe, which wasn't there before, all at once.

I assume this is some force other than gravity. The field of gravity
from masses in two directions cancels producing no effect at the mid
point between them. This would not "cause the outgassing".

In quantum physics something the size of the universe could come into
existence all on its own for no reason. The odds are extremely low
but we would only exist to ask the question in the one place where it
happened so to us the odds would be 100%.

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

Or the invisible magic unicorns.

JF

 

[MooseFET]

On Oct 24, 5:27 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

JosephKK wrote:
When you do something new and original it gets named after you. Wilson
current mirror, Gilbert cell multiplier, etc.,  They are getting rarer
now.

The Sziklai pair is one of my faves. I only just discovered it had a name to
it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sziklai_pair

I've often wondered what a triple of that configuration might perform like.
Speed problems possibly ?

I have used the triple version. The first transistor was a 2N4402,
the second a TIP-35 and the third was an array of TIP-36s. The
TIP-35/6 are so much slower than the 2N4402 that the speed of it
doesn't come into it.

 

[Eeyore]

MooseFET wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
JosephKK wrote:
When you do something new and original it gets named after you. Wilson
current mirror, Gilbert cell multiplier, etc., They are getting rarer
now.

The Sziklai pair is one of my faves. I only just discovered it had a name to
it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sziklai_pair

I've often wondered what a triple of that configuration might perform like.
Speed problems possibly ?

I have used the triple version. The first transistor was a 2N4402,
the second a TIP-35 and the third was an array of TIP-36s. The
TIP-35/6 are so much slower than the 2N4402 that the speed of it
doesn't come into it.

Well a 4402 is somewhat faster ! I'm no fan of TIPs for their sloth.

What was your opinion of the performance ? And indeed what was the application ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

MooseFET wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:10 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
[...]
The accelerating red shift with distance and the inverse square law
hints at something unbelievably massive toward which the distant
red-shifted galaxies are hurtling.

There are several other theories that also explain it. Among them are
some that I like to bring up from time to time.

(1) The Cosmic Body Odor theory
The rest of the universe really is running away from us and yes it is
personal.

(2) The Invisible Magic Unicorns theory
It is all caused by invisible magic unicorns. There will never be an
explanation of where the magic unicorns came from.

The physicists I have spoken to about it tend to prefer (1) over (2).

On the more serious side, we assume that gravity follows a simple
inverse square law mostly because it fits the data so well at small
values of "r". If that is just the first term in a much longer
series, the curve could be fit.

A wall of some sort perhaps? But in every direction? A bubble of some
sort?

Why not?

A wall wouldn't make the right curve. The acceleration from a wall
would grow too rapidly at the extreme distances and too slowly short
of that. You could sort of fit the curve by making the wall extremely
massive and extremely far away but never accurately.

Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense Universe which has
always been there and in which are exerted forces which from time to
time cause a cavitation-like event to occur which creates a bubble into
which outgasses material from the Universe and forms our little bubble
universe, which wasn't there before, all at once.

I assume this is some force other than gravity. The field of gravity
from masses in two directions cancels producing no effect at the mid
point between them. This would not "cause the outgassing".

In quantum physics something the size of the universe could come into
existence all on its own for no reason. The odds are extremely low
but we would only exist to ask the question in the one place where it
happened so to us the odds would be 100%.

Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

Or the invisible magic unicorns.

You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monster !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:19:32 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

On Oct 24, 11:10 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com
wrote:
[...]
The accelerating red shift with distance and the inverse square law
hints at something unbelievably massive toward which the distant
red-shifted galaxies are hurtling.

There are several other theories that also explain it. Among them are
some that I like to bring up from time to time.

(1) The Cosmic Body Odor theory
The rest of the universe really is running away from us and yes it is
personal.

(2) The Invisible Magic Unicorns theory
It is all caused by invisible magic unicorns. There will never be an
explanation of where the magic unicorns came from.

The physicists I have spoken to about it tend to prefer (1) over (2).

On the more serious side, we assume that gravity follows a simple
inverse square law mostly because it fits the data so well at small
values of "r". If that is just the first term in a much longer
series, the curve could be fit.


A wall of some sort perhaps?  But in every direction?  A bubble of some
sort?  

Why not?  

A wall wouldn't make the right curve. The acceleration from a wall
would grow too rapidly at the extreme distances and too slowly short
of that. You could sort of fit the curve by making the wall extremely
massive and extremely far away but never accurately.



Imagine an infinitely or nearly infinitely dense Universe which has
always been there and in which are exerted forces which from time to
time cause a cavitation-like event to occur which creates a bubble into
which outgasses material from the Universe and forms our little bubble
universe, which wasn't there before, all at once.

I assume this is some force other than gravity. The field of gravity
from masses in two directions cancels producing no effect at the mid
point between them.

---
That's true, and assuming the bubble hypothesis is true I'd expect it
not to be spherical and thus to have a line meandering through it where
the gravitational forces would cancel in 3D.
---

This would not "cause the outgassing".

---
I was thinking more along the lines of a bubble cavitating out of a
fluid and trapping vapor in the cavity.
---

In quantum physics something the size of the universe could come into
existence all on its own for no reason. The odds are extremely low
but we would only exist to ask the question in the one place where it
happened so to us the odds would be 100%.


Also, since we don't know what rules govern the Universe, who's to say
it isn't heaven?

Or God?

Or the invisible magic unicorns.

---
Indeed!

JF

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:17:27 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:47:07 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"


Unfortunately, non specialist star gazers have this idea that any
old possibility *they* dream up, is a real possibility.

Tell me John, do you really believe that professional phd
astronomers and professional astrophysicists are so completely
clueless as to not have thought of such a trivial obvious potential
explanation?

Why did you not answer the above? What makes *you* *more* quailified to
dream up some comic book explanation that is more valid?

---
Well, so far they seem to be in the dark about what's causing the
red shift acceleration, and about 96% of the other shit that's
going on in the universe,

Yes. It is an unknown.

and my hypothesis at least hints at an explanation.

It doest, as it does not agree with the actual details of
observations.

---
It most certainly does,

It most certainly does not.

since there is no other rational explanation
for the acceleration of the red shift with distance other than an
external gravitational source.

No. Other masses cannot explain the acceleration.You need to give credit
where credit is due, like, what university did you get you phd in
astrophysics at?

All you have here is a vague idea, of well, err..mass attracts things, so
there must be mass attracting our universe to make the universe mass move
faster. It don't work like this. You need to show that this idea actual
accounts for the facts in detail.

If there is a distribution of mass outside, pulling the mass of our
universe, it will have (approximately) say, 1/R gravitational potential
acting on our universe (or someother depening on the distribution). Our
galaxies are all at different distances from this net external potential,
hence the relative effect that this external potential should on each galaxy
can be quantified. The specific, different, accelerations experienced by,
and measured for, our galaxies can not be accounted for by any assumption
that there is any distribution of mass outside our universe. Its that
simple.

Now, what you are doing here is stepping out of your area of any expertise
that you may have, i.e. electronics. If you can convince me that you
understand the math and theory I have here,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, then it may be possible to
explain to you the calculations. However, I know as fact that you don't. If
you did, you would already know the correct answer to this issue, that is,
external mass cannot be the source of the acceleration, when you plug in the
*actual numbers*.

Look, physicists use general purposes simulation programs. It is simple for
them to plug in mass distributions, and compare with observations. Trust me
dude, its already been done. Exotic matter is the thing invented when all
the other alternative explanations failed. The idea that a non specialist
like you, with all due respect, can have an idea in physics that contradicts
the experts, and has value, is essentially, zero. Maybe 200 years ago, but
today, the subject is way to sophisticated now for any non specialist to
have any relevance.

If you know about anything that could be causing it, how about letting
us know about it?
---

I don't know what is causing it, other than it aint external matter, because
that is ruled out by observations, as noted above.

Beside, I talked it over with Hal Puthoff a year or so ago, and he
liked it.


Yeah...right....

---
That's very rude.

Why would you say that? Do you think I'm lying?

You missed my point. I now see that you think I was dubting that you talked
with Hal Puthoff. My comment was that I care a %^&* about Hal Puthoff crank
brained err. so called theories. That is, "yeah... right,... Hal is a person
that is like.. credible in physics?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff - "Puthoff joined the Church
of Scientology in the late 1960s"

"In a study of the alleged psychic abilities of Uri Geller, Ingo Swann, Pat
Price, Joseph McMoneagle and others. Both Puthoff and Russell Targ became
convinced Geller and Swann had genuine psychic powers.[1] More conventional
explanations for the alleged abilities have also been advanced."

The list is endless. Puthoff is a fruit case.

---

This is the issue
on the physics NGs, the "Einstein was wrong" brigade give no credit
to experts that have studied this stuff for 20+ years. Like, as if
they wouldn't also have similar ideas. Its not credible or
reasonable.

---
Because one disagrees with a hypothesis doesn't mean it's
unreasonable, it just means that one thinks it's implausible.

But as Richard Dawkins points out,. all opinion are *not* equal.

The probability, today, of a novice, uneducated in standard physics,
having anything relevent to say, is 0.0000000000001%. Sorry, but
this is just the way it.

---
Interesting number.

How'd you come up with it, scientifically?

Oooops sorry, I missed a 0.

Not at all. If I recall correctly, I already had that same daft
idea, and posted the question to the one of the physics NGs some
while back, and got an answer from a noted expert as to the folly of
such a suggestion.

---
So you didn't have the courage of your convictions and you allowed
some "authority" to stop you dead in your tracks?

No. I understand just what is actually involved. I understand why physics is
the way it is. Amateurs, usually don't. all they get is the thin edge of
wedge as to why.

Sad.

Yes, it is sad when people really don't know when they are out of their
depth, and I mean this generally, not specifically applied to you.

The reality is, is that it is a fact, that some people are simply not
qualified to make opinions on certain matters.

"2 Gravitational fields are generated by a mass."

If that's true, (and observation does seem to indicate that it is)
then for mass to be accelerating there must be a gravitational field
attracting it.

There can be an entity that has effectivly, negative mass-energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass#Negative_mass

In the case of distant galaxies, observation of their red shifts
indicates that the galaxies are receding, and that the more distant
the galaxy the higher its velocity of recession.

The exact numbers are very important. Not just "they are accelerating".

That, in turn, indicates that those galaxies are accelerating toward
what _must_ be a mass which is generating the gravitational field.

No. See above. Calculations (simulations) show that the specific
accelerations actually observed are not consistent with any hypothetical
external mass. If it were so, these physicists doing the simulations would
have put this forward this as the explanation. Dah... This is truly obvious.
Why would they not do so? Do you believe that they are that daft or
deceitful?

Since we see this acceleration everywhere we look, the mass must be
surrounding us at a distance greater than the galaxies receding the
fastest and, since our universe is mostly empty, that makes our
universe essentially a bubble surrounded by a mass capable of
attracting galaxies to itself.

Please present your detailed calculation showing that such a distribution of
mass can actually produce the actual accelerations measured.

You need to give credit to the 10,000s of way better qualified experts than
you, that disagree with you. They do so for a qualified reason.


Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

Kevin Aylward
www.kevinaylward.co.uk


What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:49:13 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:


The issue is that randomness doesn't save one from absence of free
will.

---
Well, let's see...

If we live in a deterministic universe, then even what seems to be
random (the microwave background radiation, for example) isn't and,
from the beginning of time until now, the series of events which have
led up to my typing this have all been something I had absolutely no
control over and everything that happens in the future will also be
inescapably preordained.

However, you seem to be saying that even though randomness exists,
which flies in the face of determinism, free will cannot exist under
either condition.

Not seems to be saying. Am saying!!!. I have stated this till I am blue in
the face..like its a dead parrot....

You then go on with an argument about quantum entanglement, which you
say proves your point.

You missed the point. If the spin of an inner most electron is measured,
than the other one of the pair *must* have the opposite spin. QM thus, can
give strictly deterministic results.

I fail to see why it does, since we can _choose_ to entangle electrons
or not, as we please.

Given an initial state of a subsystem exits, and is measured, it may or may
not deterministic as to what the next state will be.

Bottom line is, if you admit to the existence of, say, random noise or
any other random phenomenon, that sounds the death knell for
determinism.
---

Yes and no. The whole system is non deterministic, i.e not predictable,
however, some subset of that system may allow for a prediction of *part* of
the outcome of the whole system.

Free will, essentially by definition, is the ability of an object,
an "I" to make a decision that "I" wants. The fact that an aspect of
free will is non predictability i.e. not determinism, does *not*
imply that it must be random. Free will is the ability to chose for
oneself. If the choice is random, than there is no choice. This is
trivially obvious.

---
You misunderstand.

The _choice_ isn't random, what is chosen can be. [picked from a
random set]

If the _choice_ isn't random, it is deterministic, hence it can not be due
to free will.

Here:

First, the existence of determinism precludes the existence of free
will,

Yes.

(and randomness) so if random noise exists determinism can't.

In the big global sense, yes. However, as noted some subsets can be strictly
deterministic in a random environment.

Second, If determinism can't exist then free will can.

Can, but might not. Free will might or might not exist, is the strict logic
conclusion.

Absence of determinism is necessary, but *not* sufficient for free will to
exist.

Third, If free will exists then we can exercise it by making choices,
which we do, from any number of things, events, etc.

For instance: "I think I'll turn right", "I'll have potatoes instead
of turnips", "I'll stop typing now instead of continuing." etc.

JF

Logical deduction from known laws of physics precludes free will, and
apparently, the latest experiments noted in this thread, support this view.

We are a machine. Its that simple. There are no goblins, gods or pixies. Our
consciousness is an illusion in the sense that it can not do anything. It is
simple an observer of the laws of physics. This is also so trivially,
obvious, with hi-insight.

Kevin Aylward

www.kevinaylward.co.uk

 

[Eeyore]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Oh Dear... Sarah palin is a complete and utter numpty. It is
seriously frightening to even consider that she could be the boss of
the US. She is a women that likes to shop, expensively, that's about
it.

I am absolutely stunned by your view here John . Is this a wind up?

What does "numpty" mean? She was a successful mayor and governor.
She's not a lawyer. She's bright, funny, and practical.

Joe Biden is a blowhard and a lunatic who can't keep his thoughts or
mouth under control. He makes up things that never happened and steals
shamelessly. His affect is hair plugs and botox. Like Obama, he's a
fake, an illusion. Sarah is real, the kind of person I'm guessing you
could trust. The US will trust Obama or Biden at its great peril.

Oh dear, me, *anyone* with strong pro religious views such as hers is unfit
to manage a dog show.

I'll go further than that.

Any religious fundamentalist should be banned from holding public office along
with anyone with an IQ < 140. To hold public office all candidates must show
they have *contributed* to society in a postive way that required the unpaid
use of their time.

Also political parties should be banned. All they do is attract similar types
of scum.

Ideally, govt should be run by proven engineers. We HAVE to make things work.

Graham