pantheory

Kyle, I think there's no conundrum at all to that question. If one gives any dictionary definition of "sound" that they would like, then I'll give them absolutely the correct answer to the question, according to that definition, since there can be no valid answer without an exact definition, in this case, of the word sound. Many questions like this one, become erroneously debatable because exact definitions of the words being used differ between those individuals who think they are debating. cheers

Ah, Casper. Going north-east from Los Angeles in southern California, when continuing north-east I usually drive through Wyoming starting at Salt Lake City then driving across 80 to Cheyenne, then I'd have to go up 25 to Casper, or just fly into Natrona Intl. Probably can't make it this year since I expect to be living in the middle east for the next couple of years in the near future. To add quotes to your posting, copy it and then past it then add "[ q u o t e]" right before it and "[ / q u o t e ]" (except eliminate all spacing) immediately following it. If I eliminate the spacing and the " " marks it looks like this: . Another way to do it is to use the "quote" symbol. You will see it at the top of the posting box. It is the symbol which is the third from the right. Put your cursor under each of these symbols and you will see its function. The seventh symbol from the right are imodicons, symbolized by a happy face, for instance. Now highlight your quote and press the quote symbol above, that should do it. regards, Forrest

Well, of course the answer is just a matter of opinion. In mine, communism is an idealistic social system which is based upon the concept "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Although it has kinship to religions of many countries, most countries that have adopted it have been generally anti-religious. The Jews and their system of kibbutzes of yore, remind me of communism which I think morality wise seems quite "pure." Over time such countries that have practiced it, have come to realize that the system in its purest form is contrary to human nature, and for that reason it does not work. The number one problem, I believe, is that the system takes away human incentives since a garbage man might make the same income as a doctor for instance. The doctor takes ten years of study and the garbage man may need very little education to do a good job. It assumes that people will choose a profession concerning what they choose to do, regardless of the personal sacrifices that may be involved, which is an invalid assumption. Human nature seems to indicate that the hardest working people in a society are usually motivated by greater rewards than others that choose to work with an average effort and pursue their future with less zeal than those who seek greater money, possessions, luxury, servants, power, the right to give inheritance, travel, more spouses, better looking/ behaving/ smarter spouse(s)/ companions, harem, etc. Americans as well as other people, may hate those things that they think might be a threat to the possibilities of a happy and/or better future. For that reason much information and propaganda, concerning the problems with communism, have been available in America since the inception of Soviet communism in the early 20's. Also the Soviets declared capitalist counties as the primary enemies of their form of government, after the fall of Germany in WWI.

killafur, Hi Kyle! Many questions that might be asked could involve both science and philosophy, but I think most questions asked will be rather easy and fast for me to answer regardless of the question. I will tell you if I consider your question/ answer to be a matter of theory, observation, logic, philosophy, etc. question. I consider this a simple question and the answer is also very easy to understand. The answer to this question simply depends upon the definition for "sound" that you choose to use. Here are two different definitions: Sound: mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level. By this definition sound exists in the absence of any animal or human hearing it. Sound: the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. (human or animal ears) By this definition sound only exists if there is an entity that perceives it. http://dictionary.re...om/browse/sound I consider this a question of philosophy since the answer depends upon one's perspective or word definition(s) concerning the answer. comment I've had this theory for more than 50 years and think I've figured out every possible question that might be asked concerning the theory, and probably about most other questions I consider there are no "holes" in the theory but there are two things that I would like to see proven by observation. Either of these would add much additional strength to the model. The theory implies that all matter varies to a small extent in mass, maybe 1 part in a thousand to maybe 1 part in a million. Today's measurements of mass involve measuring large quantities of protons or electrons individually, for instance, and then taking an average of the entire mass which would vary very little. But this model implies a bigger individual variation -- but does not require it. The second thing that this theory does require is a physical aether. For this we would have to discover dark matter, or Higg's particle's, or gravitons, or quantum foam, or quantum sand, or any of a hundred other theoretical particles. Next this model requires that this particulate aether would be both the carrier of EM radiation as well as the cause of gravity. comment Thanks for your questions Kyle. regards, Forrest

. The above model proposes that only one thing exists in the entire universe, which everything else is either comprised of, or can be defined by, and the following would apply. Things that Do Not Exist. -- dark matter -- dark energy -- pure energy -- the forces of nature -- warped space -- a hot dense past Things that have a different explanation -- galactic redshifts -- the microwave background -- the beginning of the universe -- the beginnings of galaxies -- black holes -- the cause of gravity -- the cause of magnetism -- the cause of the Strong force, Weak force, Strong interaction -- reason for the speed of light -- EM radiation -- the double slit experiment -- the Michelson Morly experiment Things that are required by this model, but not by the standard model -- an aether of fundamental particulates -- that particle spin is real spin, not just "angular momentum" -- that the force that causes particle spin is the single fundamental force in the universe -- that the observable universe generally does not change over time, as to its general appearance, average age, or density. -- that black holes are a compressed forms of "field material" and are a form of matter -- that the Michelson Morly experiment was wrong; the speed of light on Earth is not constant but varies to a small extent -- that the forces of black holes, in combination with the ZPF, create protons, electrons, and their anti-particles -- that galactic jets create the observed "abundance" of light elements -- that the universe is many times older than the standard model -- that the speed of light here on Earth and elsewhere, is not constant Things that are implied by this model -- field material as well as matter are made up of a string of fundamental particles that extend to a spring-like appearance -- atomic particles vary in mass to a yet undetectable extent .

Them turtles sure get around

O.K. if you insist

Hey Tom, where do you live? I live on the west coast of the US and travel the world. Maybe we c/. ould meet up somewhere since our thinking seems to be parallel, such as pink noise and a beer. My own theory is quite similar since it involves violet noise and a case of beer, implying a strong commonality of interests Please respond. regards, Forrest Noble

The Pan Theory: Brief Summary This cosmological model being discussed here might be classified under the cosmology category called "Scaling Theory" (also called scale changing theory, rescaling theory etc.) The idea of scaling theory in general is that the scale(s) of reality in general changes over time whether uniformly or otherwise. Such models in general seemingly cannot be disproved based upon their scale changing proposal alone. The first such proposal was made by Paul Dirac in the late 1920's when galactic redshifts were first discovered. His proposal was that both matter and space expand over time. The second generally known Scaling theory was proposed by Hoyle/ Narlikar in the mid 1960's whereby atomic diameters were proposed to be reducing over time (electrons moving closer to the nucleus). If atomic diameters were larger in the past then the resulting EM radiation that they would have produced would have been longer, explaining the observed galactic redshifts. The subject Scaling Theory model could also be called a Diminution of Matter theory. If matter was very slowly becoming smaller, as in this model, space would only appear to be expanding like it is now proposed, but instead the universe as a whole would generally not be expanding, instead matter would be getting smaller. This model being presented here is unique among scaling theories in that it explains why scales slowly but steadily change over time as briefly discussed below. The universe accordingly started as a single simple particle and very slowly divided into strings of exactly the same particles excepting smaller. For this reason it might also be called a simple (3 dimension + time) string theory. The minimum age of the observable universe accordingly would be at least a trillion years old via this process. According to this model there is only one particle which forms strings of particles which are the foundation for all of reality. This proposed particle is presently unknown (something like dark matter, Higgs particles etc. but greatly smaller) and makes up all of reality. In this model there are no forces of nature/ pulling forces, and no pure energy. Instead Gravity, the Strong Force, the Weak force, the Strong Interaction, and the Electromagnetic force, are explained as either field interactions of these particles, or physical connections within nuclei with no a priori forces involved. There would only be one internal mechanical a priori force within these particles. This force causes them to unwind/ re-wind and slowly form strings of like particles (while becoming smaller), which can eventually be looped by self interacting forces into atomic particles (spinning loops). In their few stable looped forms they spin as fermions, perpetuating changes which define time. Space accordingly is the volume which matter and field occupies, being an extension of matter and nothing more. This theory also could be called an aether model in general, explaining both EM radiation and gravity as being simply aether field internal motions. Since according to this model there is just one single entity that makes up all of reality, called a "pan," I believe it is by far the simplest possible cosmological model that can be justified by observation. The Pan Theory is not an unknown theory. It's been around for 50 years and has been published for more than 20 years.

unnoticed oracle, I believe the best way to explain the containment of the universe is that it is a characteristic of the universe itself, such a question would be "what exists beyond the containment or the universe" Such a question would have no more meaning than what exists beyond reality? If there is just a single universe, then to say "where" is it? the answer accordingly is: There is only one place where the universe can exist and that's the only place where it does exist since there would be no other place.

I'm not fond of complicated science models which I consider much of quantum physics to be. The mathematics are the best analog that we have yet, granted, put together to match what has been observed for the long history that quantum theory has existed. Even though the math is the best available to date, the wording of the theory, I view as senseless or ridiculous I believe that the way this theory is put together and explained, totally lacking is an understatement -- well that's a conservative description of the entire theory I believe your explanation is as good as anything I've heard concerning quantum physics I can almost image the "double talking" that I perceive would be involved with a quantum theory (verbal) explanation of entropy. I believe the 20th century will be remembered as a hilarious time when illogical religions, superstitions, and ridiculous science abounded as standard models. I am optimistic concerning the 21st century but I think there's not much to show yet. -- excepting for the internet a wonderful education tool (with a little spammed false info added) -- but to end with a happy face, the progression of science goes through relative stages of enlightenment, ending in better understandings ultimately IMHO

Thanks, I have looked for Wright's related paper and found this on-line version which is quite interesting. http://www.astro.ucl...ht/stdystat.htm If this is not the paper you had in mind, do you have a link to it? He has published a great number of related papers. As you said, such a proposal as Li's might be considered to be a stretch. But I believe that complete thermalization by this process would not be a stretch with the inclusion of a particulate aether, continuous proximity, and a great deal more time to thermalize, as in this proposed model. I have read Wright's material on 1a supernova's, comparing his (student prepared) binned data with my own, and have perused his tutorials. The standard model chart that I use for comparison with my own model explaining away dark energy, is very similar to the one that Wright published concerning dark energy interpretations since I generally used (redrew) his graphic version which I thought was the best to explain standard model interpretations. I only live maybe 30 miles south of UCLA which I attended, and where Wright still teaches (as far as I know) since he is younger than I am From your previous posting: In this model I generally rely on the same equations and physics as the standard model concerning the abundances of light elements although I suspect there are different physics involved. According to the standard model, hydrogen along with the light elements "condensed out" of the original very hot, dense "primordial energy," being the starting material of the universe. In the subject model, such a similar state accordingly continues to exist concerning galactic jets from active galactic nuclei (AGN's), excepting instead of pure energy it is accordingly newly created protons, electrons, mixed with disintegrated (fissioned) matter that surrounded black holes within their toruses. Also many positrons were created but few anti-protons, which in this model are relatively short-lived particles. This model also proposes fusion processes surrounding black holes and within the base of the galactic jets, as well as fission processes. The jets however could also be looked at as mostly reduced to pure energy as in the standard model version of creation, justifying the use of the same equations. Black holes in this model, are a form of condensed matter that would be the same as the concept of highly condensed field material, which you could call compressed dark matter. Being another form of matter, accordingly it would look like a compressed ball of tiny strings, if we could see the details -- with no particulate matter within it since original matter would accordingly be broken down to its elementary string constituents.

Thanks for your comments since I realize that all of them well-represent mainstream consensus. I was quite impressed with the paper I presented concerning the CMBR and how it might be produced by "cosmic needles." I too do not favor Steady State models in general. First of all I dislike them philosophically concerning an infinite universe in time, space, and matter. To me infinity is far from simple and difficult to logically justify. Being finite is difficult enough for many people to understand concerning the universe as a whole and in particular its beginning. Logic is different between individuals but for me a "finite" universe in all respects is the only possibility. The other problem I have with both models is the asserted expansion of the universe, since I believe there is a far better and simpler explanation for the observed redshifts than the recession of galaxies from each other. The best that I presently can do concerning explaining the observed background radiation is by presenting this link (copied wrong above ) http://iopscience.io...f/56860.web.pdf because it is very well documented, with much supporting maths involving the related theoretical physics and I can see no fault of explanation. As I said before, I think justification for such a proposal would be even easier with the inclusion of physical entities in the ZPF such as dark-matter-like constituents, for instance, which this model requires. It would be interesting to me to see the mainstream responses to that paper. I think this paper is preferable to Hoyle's final version in that two elements are used instead of just one: iron and graphite (carbon). and that it includes many other studies and supporting papers since Hoyle's last paper. This model being presented has only a few things in common with the "older" SS models. The proposal that the universe in a general steady state condition, is one similarity of the models, and another is the continuous creation of new matter from the background field (ZPF), as first proposed by Dirac. How this model differs from Hoyle's models is that the Universe in this model is finite in all respects, and secondly that there is no expansion of the universe. So I do not favor Hoyle's models as being preferable to the standard model since my own model, first written in 1959, differs greatly from both models. How the redshift is explained in this model is by a diminution of matter process. Matter must accordingly decrease in size ~1/000 part every 5 million years. In my opinion this explains the observed redshifts with equivalent merit as the expanding space model. Larger atomic/ molecular matter in the past would have accordingly produced longer wavelengths of radiation. The reason for this diminution would accordingly be that matter of all types must unwind/ rewind for its existence, according to this model. Its internal potential energy and externally expressed kinetic energy can accordingly be observed as particle spin. When such strings (since this is also a 3 dimensional string theory plus time) of field material deform to loop and self engage, we observe their spin (angular momentum) but in this model spin really means spinning. There is no other explanation for particle spin (angular momentum) that I know of concerning the standard model, so I consider particle spin as evidence that supports this model concerning the diminution of matter. The model also "requires" an additional theory of relativity in that everything in its own time frame would appear and measure exactly the same as everything comparable would in any other time frame. This is also explained mathematically. respectfully, Forrest Noble

I agree, I haven't seen any mainstream papers concerning a luminiferous aether (explaining EM radiation waves) in the last 30-40 years but the models of yore are still out there as well as numerous alternative (non-mainstream) proposals and papers in alternative cosmology journals and other publications. I also propose such a model. As to gravitation aether, my own model is also one of those -- so aether is mandatory for my own model for these and other reasons. When talking to young-earth people (or religious people in general) I usually try to change the subject after their initial assertions, to one where I can learn something rather than just listening to what I consider to be ill-conceived justifications such as the ones above. I love your postings. No axe to grind, simply edifying all concerning the facts and theories involved, providing information for learning. In my experience these qualities are very rare concerning someone with your extent of education. Thanks, Forrest

You may be unfamiliar with the very numerous modern aether theories; of course this is totally unrelated to a 6,000 year old Earth or creationism, and I agree that most of what is suggested in the above paragraph I also consider to be rubbish, but aether remains a serious theory concerning many scientists as evidenced by the many modern papers concerning its mechanics. This link below shows some of these many modern papers concerning aether. I provided this link because it is a summary but certainly not all inclusive. The most recent paper listed was in 1995 and there are many more recent. http://www.mountainm...au/aetherqr.htm

Alternatives to natural selection, The O.P.: How new species are/ can be created: There are at least two other known players that assist in genetic flow and species determination. The first one involves something called "epi-genetic speciation," also having other names, and the second agent is called "cross genetic flow," also having other names to it. These two are not exactly in competition with natural selection but certainly play some part in genetic flow and speciation in general but ultimately involve natural selection to continue the existence or improvements of new species. I will briefly explain the details of each: Both of these processes are a type of instant speciation. There are several other known and possible agents for speciation (more speculative) that I won't discuss. First concerning epi-genetic speciation: It involves external agents like radiation, many types of chemicals, whether natural or organic via food, ingested, inhaled, puncture wounds, etc., or internal errant excretion processes. All organisms have two systems concerning there genetic character. One is called its gene structure each of which contains long stands of DNA. And secondly their epi-genetic system, which determines which DNA strands of particular genes are active and which are not (turned on or off). For all organisms most DNA strands concerning potentially active strands, are inactive (turned off). Through epi-genetic changes conceivably a new species could be created by a single individual, usually a female (in plants or animals) when sex is involved. Either by radiation or by eating a foreign food/ material for instance or random processes, the ovarian DNA might be changed by foreign or internal agents in rare cases. In such cases if a change in the genes themselves (long stands of DNA where there is a change in turning DNA on or off) occur by chance, some offspring may not be able to breed with the main stock and will only be able to bread with their brothers and sisters which have the same epi-genetic characteristics. This epi-genetic change(s) may also cause an individual to look different so that in one generation speciation has occurred. It is theory in that it has never been observed in nature but it is fact in that such changes have occurred in the lab primarily through radiation. Some epi-genetic speciation is also thought to involve Lemarckism which has been discussed above. The other agent of speciation is called cross genetic flow, which also concerns a one-step process of speciation. In its most common form it involves viruses or bacteria getting into the DNA of animals (or plants) from their blood stream into their ovaries of testes. Accordingly before an animal is born and during the time of their development. If an genetic invasion happens during this formative time then the ovaries or testes will have genetic variations that can be greatly replicated in the animals reproductive organs. The animals themselves most often will be normal physically but its offspring may only be fertile concerning mating with some of its brothers or sisters respectively and may not be able to reproduce with the parent stock of animals. Again in one generation a new species might be created in this way with greatly different characteristics. The new species does not have to be better adapted, it only needs to be able to eat and reproduce with its own kind and then it will survive as a new species. All of these occurrences are rare in nature but we are aware of both viral and bacterial stands of DNA in our own genetics concerning all humans. These DNA strands do not have to be active but they change the folding of our DNA which determines which DNA sequences in our genome are turned on and off -- so without at least some of them, we would not be the same. The same processes described above for animals also apply to plants. There are a great many things about evolution that we still do not know or understand but you can believe that natural selection will probably never be replaced as the dominant player concerning speciation.

My quote bottom paragraph posting #16: SHB: It's not that these entities (space, time, gravity) must have been created at the beginning of the universe, it's that they would have no meaning in and of themselves, like in another universe for instance, in the absence of matter or field. This is the most common understanding of the standard model as well as this model being presented. The concept of "before the beginning" of the universe (if "universe" means everything that ever has existed) is also a logical contradiction

BJC, On reflection concerning my last posting, I think Barbour when using the words "static universe" means not expanding or contracting. If this is his perspective then it is contrary to the standard model but in-line with own thinking and cosmological model I'll have to check that out. Also his perspectives/ hypothesis/ theory on this matter would be cool to check out. Yeah, on this matter his perspective and related theory differ from my own. And both perspectives differ from the standard model understandings. I should look at his wrings and the video since many of his ideas sound interesting. regards Forrest

I think it is a possibility and maybe in accord with all theory, but if not maybe a logical alternative hypothesis can explain it. This is how it may work if all your photo info, timing and measurement(s) are accurate: As flare material is blasted out from the sun there is much matter involved with the blast which may move at a speed of let's say 5% the speed of light. The quantity of this material may be substantial. EM radiation will travel within/through this outward moving matter field which might be accompanied by its own gravitational field. The speed of the EM radiation would then be the speed of the fast moving field plus the speed of light. This leading radiation could then light up initial, invisible precursor materials to the visible blast material resulting in what you have observed, or not Assuming what you have determined as well as the related timing of it is correct, I expect that there are also other hypothesis which could explain what you have preliminary determined. I agree that if your interpretation and all else is valid, that it would seem to be an important discovery.

If you are trying to explain how reality works by reasoning with him, I wouldn't bother. He is too far down on the education ladder to understand valid explanations by anyone IMO. If you are trying to better understand this material yourself and also to be able to provide enlightenment for such conversations, there are some relatively simple cosmology primers out there as well as on-line material that can be read in maybe just a few days. If you Google "ether" (aether) you will see a number of modern aether models so he may not be wrong in this statement, since considerations of a particulate aether such as the many dark matter proposals, Higg's particles, quantum foam, gravitons, field strings, etc. continue. Otherwise I see no merit at all, according to evidence or logic, in anything else that he believes as indicated above

BJC, Thanks for that. Haven't heard of Barbour before but greatly like his general perspectives and the quote you presented concerning his related "enlightenments." I may have disagreement with his last two sentences, which I think is only minor compared to the gist of the whole paragraph. I probably do not understand what he means by "static." If he means generally unchanging over hundreds of millions of years, I would generally agree. . As to this quote, although he soften the suggestion by saying "may be," this sentence seems to me as a contradiction to his other statements concerning time, where time accordingly seems to be solely the change between two instances, which is a simple concept and I think the best perspective and definition of it. Change is both measurable and understandable, and the relative dilation of time is comprehensible. For instance "unchanging things," like going backward it time, does not seem reasonable IMO. Motion is also a relative condition and as such is simple to understand, but his last sentence does not seem to fit with the whole concerning his generally enlightening perspectives IMO.

Maybe not now, but seemingly in our cosmic future such a computer adjusted clock concerning "galactic meantime" or "universe meantime" will be a necessity for space colonies, star travel, etc.

ajb, Answer continued: Although I may prefer a more hypothetical primary mechanism to evenly "thermalize" the microwave background, there are accordingly facilitating factors and considerations according to this model. which could result in the even temperature distribution of the CMBR. The first factor concerns the consideration that in this model the universe is many times older than the age of the universe according to the BB model. This would allow much more time for this proposed equilibrium process to work. The second consideration is that accordingly the universe is not expanding as in the standard model or Hoyle's models. There instead is another explanation for galactic redshifts. Non-expanding volumes also provide a greater amount of time concerning the continuous proximity of matter to adjacent matter, accordingly enabling it to reach temperature equilibrium. Even though I have suggested this temperature distribution mechanism as possibly being the most important mechanism, this does not discount the possibility according to this model, that Hoyle's mechanism is the most important CMBR temperature distribution and equilibrium mechanism. Here is a link below to a modern analysis of Hoyle's proposal which is enhanced concerning the use of both iron and graphite as the elements of temperature distribution having blackbody absorption characteristics. According to this paper some of this intergalactic matter from supernova would be somewhat extended in form, called needles, which accordingly would have greater absorption characteristics. http://www.sciencefo...9-speculations/

Killafur, Hi Kyle, There are models that propose that both pre-existed the present universe. That is not the model that I am presenting however. I believe this is by far the simplest possible model that represents reality in general as it is. In time you can decide if you can think of a simpler model than this one. In this model space is the distance between matter and gravity requires an aether or dark matter in the Zero Point Field if you prefer to think of it that way. The field accordingly was the first thing created and soon thereafter matter. The field acts on matter to push it together which are accordingly the mechanics of gravity. I believe yours is a valid perspective. Time, accordingly is an interval of change between 2 instances -- that's it. All of reality is classified by humans to help them explain reality. The way that we chose to organize it is certainly not the only way it could be logically organized. Think about it. What would be the meaning of gravity and space without matter and field. Gravity also would seem meaningless without matter. In this model space and time cannot exist separately from matter and field. The behavior of gravity requires matter to give meaning to the word gravity. In one way or another everything that has existence is an extension of matter and field, and accordingly matter itself is created from field material. So according to this model all of these words and concepts (space, time, gravity, matter) are man-made concepts that accordingly could not exist without the field to define or create them. Without the field reality could not have existence. Without intelligence to define and organize them, these concepts and related entities would be generally meaningless. It's not that these entities were created in the beginning, it's that they have no meaning separate from substance (matter and field) which had an original creation point in a model finite in time, which this is. To consider the concept of "before the beginning" is a logical contradiction

While there is a great deal of supporting evidence for evolution tis true, and some supporting genetic analysis involved, but math is not a good analog of evolution and probably never will be IMO.