Handy andy

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is vague beyond belief (and off topic). "Maybe this thing I don't understand could be the mechanism". Well no. If so, the people who do understand quantum field theory would have noticed. You are suggesting a violation of energy conservation, something which has never been observed.

 

See the first post on this thread, it may help you understand, and the question by interested further down. Did the bigbang not violate conservation of energy

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no known mechanism for this.

There is no evidence for this. And no known mechanism for a black hole to explode. (As your reference appears to be a video, I have no idea what it is about.)

There is no "detectable" mechanism for this. But if quantum material or virtual particles exists in the lab at absolute zero, they exist in space also, and could be a mechanism.

Perhaps Vibrating strings in space, or quantum foam filling all of space, etc . No need to answer, I know you think space is empty nothingness  All things could be Entangled to a certain extent, and space is a thing.  unless its empty nothingness.

On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:04 PM, interested said:

I understand according to some the Big Bang is possibly as a result of a Black hole exploding at some critical mass level rather than from a singularity. https://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743 this is just one of many links I found, it kind of explains why black holes are thought to exist at the centre of galaxies. But it still leaves the question where did the original mass in the Black hole come from. Mass has been observed being ejected from black holes at almost light speed, along with gamma rays.

Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?

On ‎20‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:09 PM, Strange said:

I don't think there are any theories based on black holes exploding.

That doesn't say anything about black holes exploding nor, as far as I can see about black holes at the centre of galaxies.

From the mass of the star that collapsed to form the black hole. (And, in that highly speculative, purely theoretical paper, they would be 4D stars.)

Mass is ejected from the accretion disk around black holes, not from the black hole itself.

None of this seems to have any connection with the topic of the thread.

It seems to be pure speculation by Itoero.

Since interested doesn't appear to be interested anymore, I googled this for you ref black holes as a source of a big bang.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=big+bang+blackhole+exploding&view=detail&mid=832DFAAE9B7299C6BF38832DFAAE9B7299C6BF38&FORM=VIRE

The black hole concept of a big bang does not explain where the original matter in the black hole or multiple black holes and big bangs came from.

Interested asked "Has mass stable particles ever been created in the lab by breaking quantum entanglement, or is that purely theoretical?"

I think it has been answered in that it is purely theoretical, but the question still stands, could mass be created in space independent of a big bang. 

Multiple single particles appearing in space over an eternity could be the source of the material that accumulated in black holes and exploded in a big bang.

On 21/08/2017 at 7:17 AM, Thorham said:

I have this hash function:

hash = ((2860486313 * (3367900313 * x XOR 4093082899 * y)) RIGHTSHIFT 32) & 255

Anyone know if this will produce repeating sequences when the inputs are whole positive numbers starting at 0 and going up to 2^32?

An example would be x and y starting at 0. X is incremented by 1 until x becomes 2^32, at this point x is reset to 0 and y is increased by 1. This is repeated until y is 2^32.

 

 

Your question doesnt make much sense. You are using a mixture of boolean and mathematical operators, with different representations of boolean operators.

the AND 255 at the end will cancel the bits above 255 in the rest of the function. Also if you are doing a 32 bit right shift without wrapping around, you are clearing the registers and you will wind up with an output of zero. if you are wrapping the bits around from bit 0 to bit 31, what is the point of the shift. 

Is there a reason for your question. Have you been smoking hash. question mark

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Of course, a small number of people do that. But the vast majority don't. And some people argue for slavery or killing others for non-religious reasons. So I'm not sure why you keep banging on about this. It is a problem of human nature, rather than religion per se.

You would have to ask them. But presumably because they believe it is important. And why not.R

Science and religion would need a complete rewrite to reconcile them. People are sent to prison in some countries for speaking out against religious atrocities, or not believing some nonsense. All religions are constructed from many contradictory stories, and as such for a world religion would need a rewrite. Most religious folks are aware of the many contradictions in their religions, and so just select the bits they believe in that suits there purposes. Example love your neighbour versus reject anyone that does not believe your nonsense. 

How can anything be reconciled without some flexibility. Many people who are religious claim that religion gives them their morals, without which they would be drug users, or kill people etc, The Barcelona bomb is a fine example of religious morals from Islam, the 13th century crusades or more recent IRA terrorism are more examples of Christian religious morality. Religion is a tool used by leaders to control people or guide people like cattle through wide gateposts. The tool is religiously misused to turn easily lead people against each other. If a moslem decides to become an Atheist they can be sent to prison or even killed.

How would people rewrite religion to offer proper moral guidance to people that seem to require leadership, and who decides what those morals would be? Most sentient people don't need religion, but religion has served a role in some societies for creating diverse cultures, it has also been used to destroy other cultures. How would a rewrite of world religions avoid destroying cultural diversity in the sense of the arts.  

1 hour ago, tragruk said:

Few people know that. But the idea of reincarnation is millennial. In ancient India (more or less, about 20,000 years ago), when India, before the Jews and ancient Egypt, was already forming societies into classes, Indian scholars spoke of reincarnation (karma). In ancient Egypt the initiates spoke of reincarnation. The ancient Greeks knew reincarnation because of the Egyptians. And other societies. In the bible, either for preconception or interest, the word reincarnation was replaced by resurrection. Jesus, the Christ, spoke of reincarnation. The philosophy of reincarnation explains much apparent injustice: because one is born with cerebral palsy and other is born the god of beauty and wealth. What is reincarnation? It is when the soul is born and reborn on earth.

Wrong forum, but I think you are mixing your religions, Buddhist rebirth or reincarnation has nothing to do with resurrection.

The resurrection comes from the concept of transmigration of sole from father to son. The Druze apparently believe in this practice and it likely comes from Egypt, whereby The father becomes the son on his death and passes all his worldy goods and power to his son along with his spirit. Or in terms of Christianity God sent the holy spirit to jesus, allowing him to speak for god or something like that. The fact that Jesus never existed is neither here or there in religion.

Under the forms of Buddhism that believe in rebirth you can just as easily be reborn as a worm as a human, its a random event. Many Buddhists don't believe in actual physical reincarnation of spirit sole or whatever else you might want to call it.

Life isn't fair why should it be, how one is born, and what family you are born into has nothing to do with fairness. You are dealt a set of cards at birth and have to play them the best way you can.  People are born with physical defects predisposition to mental illness etc, it is not their fault, it is just religions trying to explain things they don't understand that now with medication and who knows gene therapy in the future may be able to alleviate or even prevent and cure.

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking. 

I reckon in a hundred years time that view will be flipped, but both you and I will be dead, burnt to a crisp, I will be cast to the winds, I guess you will be producing beautiful roses from the nonsense you tried to convince me about. Empty space with no substance, singularities, a beginning of time, haha, I haven't fallen for it, and I aint going to either.

Just now, Strange said:

 

Except of course it has been observed. Presumably you think it was just invented for fun. 

I'm one of those who doesn't see any conflict between science and religion. 

You are completely off thread, BUT Citation required. Dark matter has never been detected it is simply inferred to exist to make an equation work.

ROFL

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Shrug. 

 

The individual believer, I guess. (Although it sounds like you want to do it for them.)

That sound you can hear is every irony detector on the planet breaking. 

The thread is about reconciling religion with science not about one belief crushing another, the fact that I think you are wrong is neither here or there, and I realy couldn't give a damn, I just aint going to believe in singularities from which all matter in the universe sprang and gravity being transmitted through a smooth empty space, devoid of anything, or dark matter come to that, that never has been detected or observed.

To reconcile religion and science there has to be some bending of words and understandings otherwise it will never happen. Clearly belief that god created everything could quite easily be re written as everything came out of space and has been destroyed and recycled for an eternity. Peoples feeling of connectedness could be reworded as all things are connected to a certain extent by quantum entanglement, you could even give the weirdos the possibility of a mystic connection to each other etc. An Esperanto language existing between religion and science could be encouraged to evolve, based on science and psychology, but for any reconciliation to take place some give and take has to be accepted on all sides. Very wide goalposts with acceptable views need to be taken into account when trying to persuade large numbers of people with very different backgrounds that religion and science might come anywhere near to being reconciled.

If there is no flexibility nothing and no one will ever be reconciled, and you are wasting your time and everyone elses by posting on a thread about reconciliation of science and religion.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps we should rename the thread 'Reconciling Science and Handy Andy'; although I think the OP is easier.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

- Carl Sagan

A mathematical model is just that it does not need to describe all the variables involved in what it is attempting to model. Relativity describes an end result it does not describe the mechanism which is described by quantum foam theory. 2+2=4 and 2+2+1-1=4 andc an infinite number of other eqations can get the same result. Belief that an equation describing an empty space completely ignoring the mechanism, causing gravity is religion. Being a clear minded numerate pagan none believer, you will just have to tolerate my disbelief.

Cross posted with a strange.  

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

-Particles are entangled because a quantum state is entangled (like the spin of an electron). This can only happen because of some form of interaction. They will probably find several new ways of how particles or objects can interact to form entanglement...this will give more info concerning the range of separation in which particles or objects can get entangled at.

-This concerns a model called Holographic Entangled Space time. According to this model...when you disentangle two regions in space then there appears energy which distorts the space...Energy is mass.(E=mc²) If this model is correct then there is a possibility that mass or energy can form because of the breaking of many body entanglement.

 

Thank you for that answer, I was thinking along the lines of Feynman diagrams, but your answer is better, do you have any links better than Wikipedia?

The following link might also be of interest to you, it is a bit more general than itoeros but points to the fact that all things could be entangled to a certain extent. It still does not answer your question ref range of seperation things can be entangled at.

http://discovermagazine.com/2016/jul-aug/entanglement

On 17/08/2017 at 6:48 PM, Itoero said:

There is a link between a temperature that is nearly 0 K and many body entanglement.

"A many-body quantum system is cooled to zero temperature so that it is forced into its overall non degenerate ground state. We discuss the measurement of a sub-system Hamiltonian and demonstrate that it can be found in an excited state with a probability that depends on the coupling to its environment. This non-intuitive result is a pure quantum phenomenon" https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0311647.pdf

Itoero that link is incredibly interesting, the same arguments must exist in space also. 

Can matter form by the process of many body entanglement in space. Question mark

On 17/08/2017 at 11:57 AM, Strange said:

Wrong on three counts.

Science is not based on belief. Science always admits it is wrong. Science is never certainly correct. All theories are provisional. 

That is completely backwards. Theories are based on observed evidence ("facts" is a very poor word that I would generally avoid in the context of science apart from really obvious things like "gravity exists" or "evolution happens").

Science never claims to be preaching (or even stating) the truth. I don't think any modern philosophers of science (and few scientists) would say science has anything to do with "truth". That belongs to religion and philosophy.

Remaining drivel skipped. (Although, I would say it is not "along religious lines" - it is just a collection of sciency-sounding words strung together in a meaningless way.)

On 17/08/2017 at 0:17 PM, iNow said:

Strange already addressed all relevant bits and I fully agree. Poor Handy Andy very clearly doesn't understand science and instead attacks a strawman or caricature of it. 

Poor people, I simply dont believe in the standard models absolute accuracy. 

Whilst the Quantum foam Theory of gravity hasnt been accepted as the standard model yet, it mostly agrees with my assertions over the previous threads that you argued against.

I think only fools believe in singularities a beginning and end of time, time travel etc etc. Space is not an empty nothing consisting of fixed dimensions. It is full of virtual particles or quantum foam which creates space, without which their is no space for you to exist in. You are both in denial and preach the standard model as actual fact, when in actual FACT is is a mathematical model with some unbelievable predictions that only a religious fool would believe. The standard model is a model which ignores irregularities or dreams up unobserved dark matter to make it work.

The concept I put forward above, was partly plausible and an attempt at actually contributing to thread, reconciling religion and science, rather than trying to crush peoples religious belief in something else. 

It is generally accepted that religion is a tool used for controlling the masses, based on high priests speaking on behalf of god and preaching the standard model of their religion or doctrine. Pagans or disbelievers are told off or get moderated, in the hope they will believe in nonsense. 

It is also widely recognized today and in the past that religion is misused by some religious leaders, to try and expand their influence or control of world resources. The concept I tried to put forward above takes the god concept out of the hands of leaders and puts it inside everything.

I think the following comes from some religion or other or perhaps I just made it up, from some fading memory. Dont you know god is in you and around you and in everything you see and feel. For your average scientist that could be the god particle.

The concept of what someone feels is something that will never go away, even if it is just a chemical reaction in your body after eating or making love. Science is going to have to come up with a plausible explanation that cant be proved or disproved, which peasants can understand, and believe in. The Greeks had the aether, I suggested quantum foam, it is same concept. Animal emotions are what make animals behave the way we do, etc In the absence of Zeus coming down to earth in a space ship, the aether concept is all that should remain of the greek religions. 

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 2:32 PM, dordle-loddle said:

Is the Universe infinite or just really, really big?

The question is philosophical and gives rise to various answers. Static space, Dynamic space etc

I assume you are referring to space being infinite or finite dimensions.

From the philosophical point of view it is a chicken or egg question between infinite space or no space and which existed first, perhaps both could exist at the same time, with all points in space being connected via a common wormhole. Quantum entanglement allows separated particles to be influenced instantly via a theoretical  wormhole connecting points in space. Space has no observable edge and is expanding between galaxies as a quantum foam, without which there would be no space. The gravitational field regardless of if you assume it to be governed by relativity or caused by the expansion and contraction of quantum foam flowing towards mass causes the existence of space, ie no field = no space. A zero Space separates producing virtual particles of opposite polarity, these move around, possibly entangled possibly not? etc etc  

An actual fact about space, is it is really big from the human point of view, and from the quantum entanglement point of view, separated parts are or can be connected, this is best visualized with the wormhole concept, but a mathematical equation works also

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, CaptainT said:

IMO, science and religion are NOT incompatible. They answer different questions.

My encouragement is to seek to understand with an open mind and heart, regardless of whether you're a believer or an atheist. We can't completely avoid confirmation bias in our endeavors to understand science and/or faith, but having awareness of it could result in us being more honest to our discoveries.

If, in learning about faith, one discovers that it is not incompatible with science and/or previously established beliefs and biases, then one must be humble to admit that. And this applies for those coming from the faith background learning about science.

 

On ‎14‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 3:10 PM, iNow said:

The only question religion answers is how many people are willing to believe nonsense in the absence of (or in direct contradiction to) available evidence.

It's a mistake to suggest that religious works of fiction actually "answer" any questions. They don't. They tell stories that make some feel better about lacking answers, or that bond communities together over shared narratives, but (of the two) science is the ONLY one putting forth any actual answers. 

Try not to conflate "stories" and "tales" with "answers." It's an abuse of the meaning of words.

You are both right partly. Extremist beliefs to one side

The question science and religion are facing is belief, both believe themselves to be correct. Neither will admit they are wrong. Science is based on perceived facts generated by popular theories today, whereas religious belief is based on theories held in the past. Both want to control and claim to be preaching the truth, some religions are backing down, others are claiming scientists are a set of idiots.

Most religion is based on some human requirement for spirituality, peace of mind, oneness with god, gaia or the universe type of thing, at the basic level. Clearly the omnipotent gods of the past don't exist unless they are space aliens are something along those lines.

I would like to play with the idea of the oneness with a omnipresent god that makes up all things, not exactly a creator god, a bit like a god particle, (a deity can be a brick or statue if you want something to meditate on) Space is an interesting concept it is in everything in all the gaps, as must be quantum matter which is ethereal. All things evolve grow old and are recycled. 

If the moderators would care to stay of my back for the next three paragraphs, whilst I make something up, along religious lines, to demonstrate an idea. I haven't had any negative points for a while and am missing them.

Space is made up of an expanding and contracting quantum foam, which is your god substance or particle ie the mind of god. For your scientist death has about as much influence in the here and now as a omnipresent god. For the Spiritually minded the none detectable quantum particles inside your dead body, could be entangled and form a spirit for a while before they decohere and become one with god, ie decohered quantum foam.

Quantum matter or foam can over an eternity forms into stable particles, which swirl around and form into gas clouds or nebulae and eventually blackholes and make all things in the universe all things are created from space, or quantum foam, which is exploded out into space etc

Multiple Black holes are the source of big bangs along with supernovae etc. Matter and gamma rays have been observed being ejected from black holes, this could well be caused by matter being converted into anti matter inside blackholes due to extreme pressure and temperature and when produced in high enough quantities and forced into contact with matter it explodes, emitting gamma rays and matter from black holes. On a large enough scale these could be the big bangs, of which there may have  been many over an eternity.

The basic concepts above are simple to understand and may appeal to some religious type folk with a few modifications, a god type idea and some spiritual concept off a possible afterlife, not based on complete bollocks, might appeal to the religious minded folk of the world, and not totally discredit everything some people feel

How many people have died from gun crimes in America the same day the car was driven into the protesters.?

Any political leader promoting or condoning activity likely to support behaviour not in the best interests of the majority of the people in their country, are committing treason. For America to provoke a war with North Korea and drag other countries along with them is not in the interests of anybody except the arms industry. Politicians have demonstrated an ability to avoid prosecution in the past, why does anyone think Trump will be any different and get impeached ?

Bush and Blair waged an illegal war against Iraq which would was not in the interests of anyone except the arms industry. Bush wasn't prosecuted, Blair was found guilty of waging an illegal war, but was not prosecuted for treason, which is one of the few crimes in the UK still carries the death penalty. Does treason carry the death penalty in the US, should trump be executed for treason if he starts a world war, which if China gets involved may well happen?

China is now building a fleet to rival the US pacific fleet, they have also stopped the restriction on birth control, are they planning for a war, against an aggressive colonial power?

On ‎13‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 11:12 AM, interested said:

Thanks Handy andy BUT What does "China leads the way, maybe!" mean, do you or anyone else doubt the Chinese claims.

 

The Chinese claim to be the first to have done this, why believe them without more information? . Researchers need to raise funds, claiming to be the first is good publicity etc. 

I have a tendency to disbelieve and look for inconsistencies in arguments, rather than believing everything that is written. You will notice that quantum entanglement appears to violate special relativity. This might imply special relativity which is part of the standard model of physics is a little bit wrong, something you may get into trouble with the moderators for suggesting.

I saw this and thought of you. China leads the way, maybe!

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-chinese-team-quantum-keys-ground.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

8 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

STOP BRINGING UP YOUR DISSATISFACTION WITH MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IN OTHER PEOPLES' THREADS

 

!

Moderator Note

I have split some OT posts to the trash can. If you are not discussing the OP or directing questions to the OP, you are hijacking. You do not get to raise new issues in someone else's thread. Take it somewhere else.

Everyone involved has been here long enough to know this.

 

 

My post ref the quantum foam was intended to give Martillo a leg to stand on, otherwise his argument ref his god definition was destined to lose.

I don't have dissatisfaction with mainstream science, just so long as what is talked about keeps up with newer ideas, and does not hang on to some ancient ideas like a hand reaching out from the past, like we see in some religions. As I have pointed out science is not meant to be based on religious belief or attitudes, I know this annoys the crap out of you. You have spent a long time being wrong in many of your posts to me, get over it and move on.

The following competition will annoy you as well, but others may be interested in the possibility of a competition on gravity, by the gravity research foundation ($4000 prize1st prize) https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/ requesting a 1500 word essay on gravity. Your insistence on a smooth space time, and space being an empty nothingness, most likely is going to be laughed out like the flat earth society. Gravity is caused by a flow of space and all waves and forces passing through space are affected by it. Just accept it, like a grown up. Quantum foam fills all of space, without which there would be no gravitational forces space or nothing. You could even go so far as stating quantum  foam is a form of the ether, which I originally annoyed with for amusement. 

Happily for you I have moved to another forum, due to fake advertisements and fake scientists acting as moderators. I can learn more via google and up to date science books than putting up with your crap.

Kind Regards and best wishes with your future.

2018-competition.pdf

Warning, An advertisement I noticed ref government backed secure bonds on this forum drew my suspicions, so I made enquiries with the FCA. FYI the following is the response:-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your web form to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

I understand that that you have concerns about the firm url removed as to if they’re legitimate. Hopefully I can help.

Securebonds

I've searched our financial services register for url removed and I can confirm that this firm is not regulated by us.

I’ve also searched further after reviewing the website and searched under ‘Bovarius Ltd’, the companies’ house number that they’ve provided and the postcode. I couldn’t find any further data on that information. Whilst 9 results were provided under the postcode I couldn’t match any information to this firm.

url removed

I’ve reviewed the Terms and Conditions and can see that the firm mention that they only offer their services to sophisticated and/or high net worth individual investors who are professional clients. Within out FCA handbook (COBS 4.12.6) provides a definition of sophisticated or high net worth investors. You can read the full criteria on the above link.
It may be that what the firm are offering meets the criteria which are why they may not need to be regulated.

Further Guidance

I must stress that if you carry out an activity with a firm that isn’t authorised by us you wouldn’t have access to redress with the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.  

Having said that it you carried out regulated activity with a regulated firm as a sophisticated or high net worth individual you still may not have this access as you’d be signing documents to confirm that you’re a sophisticated or high net worth individual, you can read more about the rules in COBS 3.5.3.

To have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service you’d need to meet the eligibility criteria, the criteria of this is within DISP 2.7.3.

If you need any financial advice you may wish to speak to a financial adviser to talk through your options.

What I’ve done with this information  

Please take this email as confirm that I’ve passed your concerns onto our Unauthorised Business Department for them to look into this company further, they will review if this company is doing something that should be regulated and take forward as they deem appropriate.  

I won’t be able to let you know what we do with the information, or provide feedback as this information is confidential.
 
I hope the information provided has been helpful, should you have any further questions please respond to my email.

To help us improve our service, I’m interested in finding out about your experience with the Contact Centre today. I’ll send you a link to a survey and I’d appreciate it if you could take a few moments to share your feedback on the service you’ve received from me.

Yours sincerely, 
Kelly Smart

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone considering this companies claims might want to exercise some caution.

On ‎07‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 8:15 PM, Mordred said:

Beecee gave a valid correction to your post. However LQC does have DM and the cosmological constant. Yes there is models that try to replace the two but when answering posts it is vital to make sure your responses are accurate and non misleading.

Try not to take corrections personally, in many cases its not the models your referring to but how you are describing those models that needs improving.  

Use the opportunity to learn why you are being corrected. You will find that no one objects to spinfoam or quantum foam. Rather they are correcting how you are applying spinfoam in your descriptives.

Accuracy is extremely important when replying to threads.

For example LQC avoids the singularity issue by applying effective cutoffs called the IR and UV cutoff bounds. IR is your minima UV is the maxima. They avoid any infinities by using these cutoffs in their mathematics. However those same cutoffs allow the renormalization of spacetime. However as we cannot quantize gravity we still have renormalization problems. LQC doesn't provide an answer to this problem but is still working on it just as every other related theory is also doing.

 Fundamentally LQC is fully compatible with LCDM, with the exception that LCDM doesn't address how the universe started as it is no longer accurate prior to 10^-43 seconds.  LQC doesn't address this problem either except for applying the cutoffs and having the bounce avoid the singularity issues due to infinities.

In other words LQC doesn't solve the singularity issues it avoids them with renormalization cutoffs.

Which is in essence the renormalization problem inherent in quantum field treatments. With the electromagnetic fields we know photons are discrete, we have yet to confirm this is true with spacetime itself.  Every attempt to show that spacetime is lumpy (discrete) has shown it is smooth as in not discrete. ( a means to learn the cutoffs in QFT treatments is to study  Observable operators and propogators which are not observable.

To be observable requires a minima of a quanta of action. The effective maxima in QFT is the Planck temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_temperature

Relativity doesn't apply these cutoffs and won't until we solve the quantizing of spacetime issue. Though even if the cutoffs eventually get accepted as accurate relativity will still work as accurately. Within the range of cutoffs, that is the issue. Where do we establish the range where where a metric remains valid and when does it become invalid due to infinities. Spinfoam doesn't address this issue as a spinfoam uses operators in its renormalizations for each Hilbert space. In other words the external lines on a Feyman diagram. The internal lines being your virtual particles or fluctuations as opposed to an excitation.

To get a better handle on this read

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106004-useful-fundamental-formulas-of-qft/

I go into extensive detail on the operators vs propogators though I haven't done the path integrals for Feyman diagrams as of yet. (Still trying to figure out how to simplify)

 

 

I take nothing personally  Thank you for taking the time to reply, contrary to popular belief I am learning.  

I have problems believing in gods, singularities, time travel, and a single big bang as the origins of all matter in the universe.

I also have problems with gravitons radiating from particles in black holes for instance causing things to be pulled in. A contraction or absorption of space towards a mass seems more logical rather than a particle transmitting a force. Quantum foam fits this idea I think, I still need to study your links above, and I need some time to really sit down and get to grips with it.

Matter when it is compressed is heated and eventually breaks down and can decay into antimatter and matter. Black holes emit gamma ray bursts, which may be due to this process. The concept of a single big bang giving rise to all the galaxies in the universe, seems a little bizarre. There lots of galaxies assumed to have black holes at the centre. Supernovae maybe a small version of a big bang but driven by matter antimatter collisions. If each galaxy has a black hole in the middle, then it is possible that the contraction of space in a galaxy in the black hole results in a big bang which starts the whole process over again of recreating galaxies, a kind of rebirth or recycling,(this is the religious forum).

Martillo's deist idea of god interested me but lacked range, and clearly he was going to lose. The religious folk on the forum don't put up much of a fight and get mawled regularly I thought it might be interesting for him to try quantum foam as an Omnipresent Deist god, rather than a magnetic or electric field  

I tend to think in pictures, rather than maths or words although I do get by in multiple languages including maths, but like all languages if you don't use them you get a bit rusty. High level maths is like Latin spoken by priests, which few people understand. Good luck with the simplifications.

On ‎07‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 9:03 PM, John Cuthber said:

Then you will know that it's the terrain, at least as much as the cloud, that "decides" where the strike is.

So why did you say "Lightning is coming from a km or so up normally, and has largely made up its mind so to speak before it comes to ground. "?

It makes up its mind based on the streamers from the ground (and, where appropriate, from a conductor) so it hardly matters how far up it comes from.

I didn't mention that positive discharge to ground most likely doesn't follow a streamer, it moves horizontally pauses and moves again.

I didn't mention lightning balls or sprites the make up off which, is an interesting topic in itself.

Just to make sure I have hit most points LMGTFY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

I didn't mention anything about the differences observed in low and high altitude ball lightning, or any suspicions I have ref some explosive lightning events.

The reason for this is the thread is about lightning conductors, possibly increasing the risk of lightning strikes.

A shorter path to ground is the most likely path, but when dealing with high voltage lightning it is not the only path. If lightning hits a buildings masonry and a conductor is available to ground hopefully most of the energy will be diverted, without damaging too much masonry.

Ref terrain if you happen to live in the mountains, or like mountaineering lightning doesn't have as far to go to ground. however you do have to be extremely unlucky to get hit. etc

If there is anything I have not mentioned on lightning it may be deliberate, it is a big subject and takes a lot of time to write down.

If you would like to speculate on lightning balls, which are more interesting than sprites which I suspect are just a form of st elmos fire, I might be interested to see if they agree with my own ideas.

19 hours ago, beecee said:

Join the club....They didn't have a ticker tape parade for me either.

While I personally believe as do most scientists that we are certainly not alone in this big wide wonderous universe, there is as yet no evidence indicating other life anywhere, and there is absolutely no convincing evidence of any Alien visitation to Earth, nor for any other type of supernatural/paranormal happening. 99% of UFO's for example, have been scientifically and logically explained away by other means, and the remaining 1% remains as unexplained or unidentified. That's what the U stands for.

The same goes for most  paranormal and supernatural claims. The point to consider in reality is that any confirmation of ETL, would be  a momentous event in human history for many reasons, and as such, and as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.

That of course also applies to any and all paranormal and supernatural claims.

It would be an extra ordinary claim to state that life elsewhere in the universe does not exist. As for aliens on the planet, you don't have to look any further than Donald Trump.

The idea that humans are an intelligent species that an alien who was smart enough to get here would want to communicate with, is a bit of a leap of faith, it might be more interesting to communicate with a tree. Maybe Aliens are where the concept of gods coming down from heaven etc come from.  . Perhaps looking at the pyramids and solar deities, or reading anything religious they should be taken literally, the aliens come down from the sky and are like gods. Scarily if this was the case, then they have been around along time, and are the root cause of religion and all the religious hate we have on the planet today. Alternatively someone could have just dreamt them up and the Aliens are imaginary thingy's.

How one would travel from one solar system to another is interesting, perhaps folding space. This is far enough of topic to get the thread closed.

7 hours ago, beecee said:

 

Not really.....The BB theory of the universe is about the evolution of spacetime from around 10-43 seconds after t=0. Speculation has it that the BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam, not the quantum foam arising from the BB.

A future validated  QGT should reveal and describe in more detail this quantum foam.

 

Also obviously after your slip up, your unbelievability in the BB model that is well supported by the evidence, is because you have failed to understand what the BB entails.

You are off thread, but as you mention it, you and various moderators fail to grasp that space is not just an empty nothing. it is full of all manner of waves and particles, without which there is no space. Amusingly using QFT time dilation and dark matter are not required.  . t=0 is not required either.

What I was trying to do above was to give Martillo who started the thread a chance to get of the hook, and develop some kind of Pantheist idea rather than looking like a complete dick.

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Lightning starts from the ground and goes up as much as it starts from the clouds and comes down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning#Upward_streamers

But you are clearly right about the second part.

Ionized or plasma Feeders travel up from the ground, but the main discharge that causes the damage comes down from the cloud, not up. I was keeping it brief, lightning was a hobby of mine.

1 hour ago, martillo said:

May be that our Universe runs in a "Universal Supra-computer"... The proposition of a deistic creator God would belong to Metaphysics isn't it?