Posted on 10/26/2004 7:36:36 PM PDT by ckilmer
You've never had a "bad-hair day?"
But neither have "The Man in the High Castle" nor "Our Friends from Frolix 8" nor "Solar Lottery" nor "A Maze of Death" nor "Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said" among others (unless I missed these.)
Not my quote, but it's true in the sense that things at a give time and place cannot affect things outside their own light cone.
Does that include quantum entanglement?
If there is something in this article fresher than about 20 years, I don't see it.
When I shoveled out the driveway again this morning, the snow seemed to fly through the usual eleven dimensions and did not do this spontaneously but by direct action of my will.
The expanded Kaluza-Klein geometry seems to cover the situation.
No metaphysics is necessary.
Metaphysics is not necessary but contingent.
Hard to say. Only you know where you are in your reading of philosophy and physics. All these ideas are quite clear once you have progressed beyond a certain level.
The effect doesn't literally precede the cause in the reference frame in which they occur. But if a distant observer is farther away from the cause than from the effect, he may see the effect first.
Seems to me that science needs physical causality to be presumed for most theories to make sense. Nevertheless, it is not demonstrated for warped space/time and non-locality does point to violations of physical causality. Personally, I believe that extra temporal dimensions are the best explanation for non-locality, Schrodinger's cat, etc.
"All these ideas are quite clear once you have progressed beyond a certain level."
That "certain level" presumably is knowing how these theorists define infinity, entropy, and increase, since their ideas are, from the standpoint of semantics, not clear at all. They are contradictory, rather. b.
Don't worry they will. Seems like I heard another one has been mined for eminent release. Dick's amphetimine fueled imagination has pumped cash into Hollywood for decades.
Thank you for the book titles. I appreciate learning what others are reading, particularly in subjects to which they have given a lot of thought.
I read the original article very early this morning then left the house. Returning, I drove past the tennis club and watched the newly-hired pro giving a lesson. He lofted a tennis ball; it's upward flight stopped when the energy that had propelled it upward dissipated.
The ball seemed to stop in mid-air---the ball=entropy
Then it descended to the point where the pro hit it propelling it down the court. court=infinity
Imagined the ball expanding in size until it filled my field of vision, (increase in entropy) continuing down a court that had lost all measurable boundaries (infinity.)
If entropy "increases" it is no longer entropic, that is, the action of increasing presupposes an expenditure of energy.
Perhaps I am missing something because of their confusion in meaning in describing the phenomena they think they may have discovered.
Have to head out. Thanks again. b.
I think if John Kerry gets elected, we will know this.
He has a plan. I don't know what it is but he does have a plan. "Stronger Universe, Respected in the Universe." He might have it in his website. "Have you driven Kerry lately?"
It is Bush's fault that we don't know this.
Bush's tax cuts to the rich has caused our scientific community to not to know this.
what the astrophysicists are saying these days is that the rate of expansion of the universe is acclerating and not decelerating--which means that some unknown force in the universe is at work--that is, besides the four known forces gravity, electro magnatism, the strong force, and the weak force.
But in this case "force" may not be the correct description of the expansion since we have seen that space itself is maleable in the bent of space that fells the planets into orbit around the sun on the macro level (and the stars around a galactic black hole etc)and on the subatomic level stuff fark quarks in and out of existance like snow on a tv.
honk if you love Jesus
It doesn't as anyone who's ever taken a cost accounting course in night school knows full well. Time can stall and pool around your ankles while you wait for the dreadful boredom to cease.
The inflationary stage of the universe immediately following the Big Bang was driven by gravity. The mass of the universe was near zero and the force of gravity was negative rather than positive as it is now, so inflation happened quickly. We see about 10-30 of the whole universe, the rest being beyond the light horizon. The universe is expanding again, and it is gravity providing the force, a negative force. Gravity is positive locally, and was positive right after inflation, but expansion started up again a few billion years ago, so the large general effect of gravity has become negative again.
Gravity is not explained in detail by Newton's inverse square law, but 11 dimensional string theory may do the trick.
This is only really true if you make certain assumptions about the properties of the system in the abstract. For algorithmically finite systems (like our universe apparently currently is), what you say is generally true and hence why "cause-effect" makes an extremely good heuristic for everything one might normally consider. But there is no particular reason it has to be true under all systems and circumstances. Of course, trying to conceptualize the other theoretical scenarios will generally make your brain core dump...
that can be the name of your new band!
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.