geordief

I just found the url (in history) on my phone and the message got is that the post can't be located so it was definitely this site.

Wasn't there a wacky post last night about NASA finding fossils on Mars "again"? Supposedly reported in the National Geo. Just wondering ,was it deleted or maybe did I see it somewhere else? I thought Mr dimreepr posted in reply to the effect that it was bs.

Is it more correct to say "a point is in one dimension" etc? Or "a point illustrates one dimension" ? Must we distinguish between mathematical points and physical points?(having heard tell of "point particles", but not understanding the subject)

Years ago now ,but I seem to remember it was very well written and Molly had a very good soliloquy. Where I did burn my bridges with him was Finnegan's Wake , though I may not have been his target audience (I am not the smartest).

For whom the bell tolls. Does it get any better after the first 50 pages? Completely stilted up to then.

Is philosophy about more than truth or is it perhaps only about truth? ("to thyself be true" and "courage is the greatest virtue*") Interestingly there never seems to be a final point to philosophical discourse but the same can perhaps be said about scientific discovery . Is this where we can let ourselves down ,we imagine that we can ever reach a "final point"when all that we ever reach is staging posts(in both philosophy and scientific interpretation)? *W.Churchill

There is more from Kip Thorne here https://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/PubScans/BlackHoles-Thorne-Starmus.pdf "Now, Einstein’s Law of Time Warps says that “Things like to live where they age the most slowly, and gravity pulls them there”. On Earth, time flows more slowly than in outer space by 4 parts in 10 billion, and that (according to Einstein) is enough to account for the gravity that holds us on the Earth’s surface. Since the slowing of time becomes enormous as one nears a black hole’s horizon, the pull of gravity becomes enormous there; and precisely at the horizon, time slows to a complete halt, so the pull of gravity is infinite. Inside the horizon, time still flows – but, strangely, it flows in a direction that you would have thought is spatial: toward the singularity at the hole’s center. This is why nothing can get out of a black hole; to get out, things would have to travel upward, which means backward in time, and nothing can do that. This explanation of a black hole’s blackness is equivalent to the “infinite gravitational pull” explanation. The two explanations are related by Einstein’s Law of Time Warps." I can't comment .

I see what you mean now*. (Fields are more interesting ,though ) *stretching it a bit...

"affect" is a noun practically always http://web.ku.edu/~edit/affect.html And to think I was giving you the benefit of autocomplete syndrome doubt (can't be wrong here surely,you can't have meant it as a psychiatric term ??)

(1) Because both those charges (if they exist) are field originators whose fields are (as you say) indistinguishable. Extrapolating ,there is only one field made up of all the "component" fields. (2) Doesn't the charge create a field -and vice versa? If we don't try to understand the ontology of a particle (apart from its make up) why would we try to understand the ontology of a field ? But the field is every bit as "real" as what we used to think of as particles ,isn't it? The particle is dead ,long live ....the particle? So that just tells us what kind of a field it is..... "effect" for your English lesson

Is is possible to treat a field as an extensive object (modeled mathematically) so that it is a "body" without boundaries** and with an unlimited number of sources? So ,instead of (or in parallel with) the measurement at any point it can also be described as a whole? I mean ,the human body (or any system) is sometimes described in terms the whole being greater than the sum of its parts-and the human body can a further be treated as a unit in a system . Is this purely a philosophical question or is there any scientific merit in viewing a field in this way? By the way re your " It says nothing of the ontological nature i.e. the 'what is', of the phenomena causing the field, " does not the fact that field only affect objects of the same nature as the source itself say something about the nature of the (particular) field ? (gravity the exception?) ** so "undefined" is a good description

https://www.google.ie/search?ei=W-vuWt21FsyegAaavaigCw&q="geordief"++studiot+surveyor&oq="geordief"++studiot+surveyor&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8224.14168.0.14644.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.agVIrr0P618 My username is a great help as ,in quote ,it is a great filter to start off.A few relevant search terms narrows it down and it helps to have an idea what you are looking for and what it looks like when you get there.

This one? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/99414-alternative-analogies-for-the-curvature-of-space-time/?do=findComment&comment=949023

Is this "centre is everywhere" idea one of those** where intuition is no help?We have to understand it intellectually and not in the mind's eye? **as perhaps,for example spacetime curvature can't be visualized at a local level (we just see its effects in the round and have to understand it at the local level as a mathematical model)

Have you an example of a space with no field? (you haven't answered my 2nd reply to your expansion question yet .....)

Please expand on this seriously (I do struggle with expansion /inflation in the global context) and would like to get over a hurdle or two.) I am familiar with the idea that every point (outside zones held by gravity) separate from each other in a homogeneous way. And of course that there was no centre at the origin of the expansion (it is everywhere)

All right,if I take a 2d plane at rt angles to the walls I want to populate the block with equally spaced /sized spherical objects. With expansion the distance between the spherical objects increases and the object (discounting the hole) gets larger uniformly. As for the hole it also increases if we say that the distances between opposite walls increase. I can build the 3d block up from these 2d planes. Am I close?

Is the block physically realistic? Can I imagine it being heated or cooled uniformly so as to expand or contract?

Does it matter that we can't say whether the universe is infinite or not? Is infinity(in this context) an approximation,albeit as close an approximation to anything as can be imagined ?

Have we lost Mordred's answer to your post ? He said that Kip Thorne seems to have just got it wrong if I recall right. Edit:it seems to be koti's post I was looking at . Thought it was Mordred's .My mistake.

Is it just my approximate level of understanding or do these fluctuations bear any (extremely loose analogical) comparison with the "god of the gaps" notion? Do they sort of appear because the overall framework is stretched and ,like a night sky these fluctuations peep through like stars (again just an analogy) These fluctuations do have consequences,don't they ?

Am I going (further) off topic to wonder whether quantum fluctuations are embedded in the various fundamental fields or ,as it were separate to them?

Are there any theories as to why the values for permittivity and permeabiity of the vacuum are as they have been measured? Are there any circumstances where they could (have been) be different ? Could they be a function of any other variable ? Have they any role in quantum theory?

If there were no upper limit to the value of c would it be incorrect to define it as "infinite" since ,once measured it is ,by definition finite? Would the speed of any object be dependent on an energetic input? (the size or energy capacity of the universe as a whole) Agree about the flashlight.

Interactions would be instantaneous**. I am not sure what would follow from that but it is not what I would call an interaction ;everything would be undifferentiated,there would only be one global "interaction". **or is it they would approach instantaneity as a limit in the same way as the universal speed limit would only approach infinity ?