· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 07/29/2010 5:26:22 AM PDT by decimon
Not as I've been reading it for the last ten or fifteen years, but that's a really long story.
There's no maybe about it. In real life 99.something percent of the mass of the universe is in plasma form and the one thing which actually can agglomerate matter on significant scales is the Z-pinch effect of cosmic Birkeland currents which actually are on the kinds of scales you mention, and that in fact is why we find strings of galaxies.
Right (triangle). You made three good points, though. Oh, I could while away the hours...
...but I probably shouldn’t.
I studied under Finklestein at Georgia Tech in th 80's, and my modern physics knowledge extended into General and Special Relativity, having read Calder's Einstein's Universe, and things like The Dancing Wu Li Masters by one of Finlkestein's students Gary Zukav.
Are there any adequate modern day treatises for those of us from other disciplines who did not become professional physicists? Or is it all just confusion?
Best place to start would be that link to the article about Dayton Miller and his experiments I posted above.
This century will be dominated by quantum mechanics.
Though how could the universe be expanding?, which is observationally verifiable from where we...think we´re in it. One might have similarly thought the interior of a black hole to be in a continual state of quantum collapse...that somehow becomes expansion?...
¨Can I buy some pot from you?¨
Or, rather than flushing logic and reason down the multiverse shyte hole... we can take the simpler hypothetical path - that all that mass/energy is eventually, simply, radiated out of the black hole as thermal Hawking Radiation.
There is only one Spock, and he doesn’t have an evile twin with a beard.
Judging by the apparent trend in the winners of the Nobel in Physics, I’ll take a mad stab at it, and say that QM is going to fade out like a bad fart. :’) That’s too bad, because QE came from Richard Feynmann, and he was a lot of fun.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/
This is just an interesting idea that requires a lot of assumption. But, that is the normal way of juggling with equations to see what would happen. More links at his home page: http://mypage.iu.edu/~nipoplaw/physics.html
If the assumptions are reasonable or more or less correct, or wrong, that is another story.
I want to see his equations before I start to buy this stuff.
Not in this universe.
Sure, but the cost of theoretical physics is very small.
“I want to see his equations before I start to buy this stuff.”
Try this http://mypage.iu.edu/~nipoplaw/publications_gravity.html
Thanks AdmSmith.
I’ll buy the idea that there ain’t alternate universes. But no black holes? That’s tough to swallow.I agree. Most theories regarding alternate universes aren't very testable... but the astronomical data regarding black holes (as well as the theory predicting them) is pretty well established, isn't it?
What do you think is the motivation behind the "no black holes" crowd?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.