Sorcerer

I guess you could have interpreted what I said as meaning it "gains" momentum. But yes I understand that the same speed over a smaller distance = more revolutions. So what would the size of a disk a black hole formed from and what initial speed would it need to be rotating in order for it to end up spinning at close to the speed of light. How fast is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRS_1915%2B105BH spinning, it says 1,150 revs but what is the size of the equator at the event horizon. What does it mean for a singularity to be revolving? Is frame dragging influenced by speed of rotation, ie the same mass spinning faster will drag space time further? Is that the correct relationship, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging What's this, it just seems like some weird Hawking radiation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process and how is it that " the infalling piece has negative mass-energy". If a spaceship were to travel from the pole of a rotating black hole (just outside the event horizon) to the equator, what path would it follow. Can any similarities be made between this and the Coriolis effect? Is space dragging here analogous to the curvature of convection cells in the atmosphere. Do any of the equations overlap?

detected volatile molecules in PPM, range. Dogs would have higher res noses than humans. For instance. The OP refers to the classical 5 senses. I guess though the sense of balance would be measured objectively by time spent upright on an unstable platform. And the sense of hunger would be measured in accuracy for actual vs perceived need for nutrients to survive. Agreed comparison between senses is rather meaningless, but there can be inter-specific and intra-specific comparisons between analogous sensory organs. This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but: It's quite common I see people's threads get criticised to death here non-constructively. When you think about how to turn failures into something of merit you'll discover more faster and waste less of everyone's time. That depends on the required resources to process the sense vs that enhancing its effectiveness. For instance it might simply require more neuronal resources to process vision, because sound processing is easier. Not that vision is more highly detailed than sound because of more resources. Thinking laterally on topic, here is a nice image of a human scaled to size by nerve density/sense of touch. Showing how the resolution for our sense of touch varies over our body. http://www.ucalgary.ca/pip369/mod7/touch/neural2

Mos of this is actually a negative benefit to the economy, a source of inflation. For instance real estates value could only change in a real way by providing a reduction in labour, say if a resource moved closer. Stocks and interest are investment capital in business which is used to generate production, hence the increase in value or decrease when the capital isn't spent wisely. Speculation does lead to manipulation and generate inflatory forces. Inheritance is the surplus reward sum of someone elses production, this surplus should simply be due to their conservation of consumer items, but in reality money isn't actual wealth and they could have been unproportionately compensated. I think your main misconception here is that money is wealth. Money is an artifical means of exchange and can be flawed or manipulated by inflatory market forces. The value of true wealth, resources, labour, produced goods and services isn't as easily manipulated. Luxury production however has a subjective value, but also provide an incentive to produce, where as human needs are fairly objective based on man hours/life expenctancy. Even those who only produce require an organising body to distribute the resources and redistribute their production. A farmer may need shoes and a cobbler may need food, it's no good for a farmer to produce less food because his feet are split open, and it's no good for a cobbler to starve eating leather soup. The farmer needs fertiliser, he needs new technology to continue increasing his production, minimal production wouldn't make him richer than he is in a cooperating society. The cobbler needs leather and glues and textiles, there's more to just simply producing and keeping your product, it has far more value because there is a network of demand. Production is also increased by those who seemingly don't produce, organisation and innovation are required for a functioning labour forces production. The incentive to manage these tasks, which is a very challenging and competitive skill is a larger share in the profit of production. The rich SHOULD BE there only because we have set a restricted market system that rewards those who increase its productivity, and thus EVERYONE is richer. People who provide leisure also can increase production, working yourself to the bone creates fatigue and is less productive over lengths of time. Some leisure time recooperates. There is also incentive to produce so that, that production can be traded for pleasurable activities or commodoties, this increases production, slightly balancing the loss of man hours and resources spent on excess consumer items. Unfortunately there are some greed ridden leeches to society which exist on this planet. Those who produce goods which decrease labour, by killing, and burn and blow apart otherwise very useful resources. The irony is that normally the incentive is access to resources and a larger market share to trade. The selfish approach here is counter productive to the wealth of humanity as a whole. This form of capitalism isn't sustainable, the relative gap between rich and poor it creates is actually a void formed from the loss of production due to the war. War mongers, they'd be more productive as pig food. Just an interesting question to ask yourself: "how do I increase or support production?", it may not be immediately obvious depending on your job, but I couldn't name many jobs where there is a clear correlation. For instance, I'm site traffic management supervisor, I manage risk and provide health and safety for those producing and those transporting and those commuting to produce. I increase production by preventing deaths and damage to property, thus increasing labor (man hours) and preventing waste of already produced items.

You mean deceleration right? Don't electrons in higher orbitals have higher KE (due to covering larger distances/orbital shapes in the same time?) and therefore lose KE when they drop down a shell? Doesn't loss of KE = Deceleration?

To be indistinguishable all the particles would have to occupy the same space right? So bosons only? If they didn't then shouldn't this example be correct?

I thought spin = angular momentum = kinetic energy. This is correct right? By having spin = 0 do you mean in total spin of the individual particles, or total spin of the system? In a Helium atom, could you explain why we take total spin and not composite spins. Why then is the spin of a particle important, why not the system? If so, what makes composite spins important in a system of particles, but not important within a particle? How do spins cancel, is it directional, ie 1/2 spin clockwise + 1/2 spin counter clockwise = 0? I can't think of any other way, since negative spin makes no sense. Wiki lacks a simplified explanation, I began getting into magnetic moments and types of spin, it's there somewhere, but a simple sentence would help. I notice Higg's Bosons have 0 spin, are these the only elementary particle thought to? Does this mean spin isn't a required property of a particle?

The problem is that wealth is only accumulated by production. Production requires labour and resources. Killing the poor removes labour. Wealth cannot be accumulated as fast. Everyone is poorer. This doesn't even begin to take into account the synergistic effects of larger economy. It doesnt account for knowledge from education and research which benefit from larger populations and the massive "wealth" that is the service industry which allows leisure time and longevity through health care. I doubt 1% of the world, any 1% would know enough skills to maintain the technology we do right now. Rich people would prefer not to have to work the fields and live like the first agricultural people I think.

But at some point dark energy increases the energy density of expansion to a point where it is on par with gravity at larger scales and further still where it over comes it, right? Since gravity is an inverse square law, but expansion constant, as mass is removed from the edges, and thus combined mass, wouldn't this be sort of like a cascade? Since gravity is inverse square, but the expansion uniform, how does this shape clusters? Are small distant galaxys torn off?

Are the two related somehow? Or am I way off? Isn't florescence the breaking (loss of KE) of an electron as it moves between shells? Wiki didn't link the two.

I haven't looked at it, but yes the initial critical mass would be a foam. It would have holes where some of the particles had decayed, the majority being antiparticles. That energy is the expansion energy initially and it's borrowed it will return to that state.

They are produced but then annihilated, the net effect is 0. Not all VPs are produced from expansion energy, they can borrow energy from photons too.

The ground state is indeed higher than the state during inflation, they vary by how much energy the remaining universe took from the ground state.

It took some time for there to be an area of critical density to collapse into the big bang, that allowed enough time for the matter imbalance to prevent the total annihilation. And there to be a balancing gravitational effect. I may ask, why didn't the universe fly apart under normal models of inflation?

There is only one other question. Why didn't all pairs annihilate during the initial collapse? Because the rate of decay of anti particles is higher than normal. That's why it didn't fly apart.

In my proposal DE is constant because the rate of decay/annihilation of particles produced in the initial collapse which lead to the universe and again during inflation is constant from then on. As particles return their energy to the expansion energy the acceleration of expansion is produced. Now you might think this violates conservation laws. Firstly no, since everything is returning to an initial state it's conserved. Secondly as you say DE is nearly 0 over small scales, so observation of this effect is unlikely under the rules of classical physics. It is NOT PRODUCTION of virtual particles causing expansion, it is decay/annihilation of VPs originally made real particles by borrowing energy from expansion energy and prevented from then annihilating. VP production has 0 net effect normally, because VPs produced with energy borrowed from expansion energy quickly annihilate again; UNLESS they are prevented from doing so because the space between them is expanding so fast they cannot. This only happens 3 times in my speculation,1 initially,2 during inflation and 3 some very distant time from now. There is only one other distinct phase, the initial collapse of the universe, causes by forcing VPs back together, the rate of annihilation to hugely increase and thus pushes the rate of expansion up which leads to initial expansion and shortly after inflation. At all other times there is a gradual rate of decay returning energy to the initial energy of expansion.

To be fair the OP's question implies a definition of the universe = observable universe. (And unobservable parts which are oupside our hubble volume, but contingent with the big bang). The concept of time/space can be extended if we consider time to be a final dimension. Rather than general relativity's 4D it is really 3D+1. Since 0 dimensions (points) 1 dimension (lines) and 2 dimensions (planes) all exist in our 3 dimensions (solid); we can speculate our 3D slice of time existing in a 4D geometrical shape slice of time. Time which is the cumulative of all moments in all 4 dimensions becomes a 5 dimensional space-time. As a 3 dimensional observer, we are aware of only 4d time but there may be higher dimensional areas outside our observable universe, in which at some point our universe began. This speculation can the extend to a limitless number of dimensions. +1 of time. Now I consider it, our time space could have come into being within another larger time space with equal dimensions. Like a balloon expanding inside a Swiss ball. We just see the point we expanded from as a limit of observation. Actually our limit is at about 300 million years after, the supposed, creation event, at the epoch called recombination in cosmology. However the answer is still, I don't know. It may be possible to find out one day though.

Mordred, I understand that presently the expansion of space, while accelerating apparently, is slow enough to only create these horizons over very large distances. I did allude to inflation in my original speculation on the a-causal genesis of the universe. Inflation within my idea is a return, or rebound of spacial expansion caused by return of boson/fermion energy to the spatial expansion field. While I don't have the capability to do the math in any detail, the ideas are simple enough. As, you stated, this is dependent on distance, since inflation is faster than current expansion, and space is currently expanding faster than the speed of light over a large distance, then space was expanding faster than the speed of light over a shorter distance during inflation. Also due to dark energy, and accelerating spatial expansion, Hubble volumes are gradually decreasing. What is the predicted size of the Hubble volume during the inflationary epoch in the inflation model? I'll highlight my ideas again, I can see myself some philosophical problems not removed by the speculation, for example I was trying to remove any prior cause or rather describe the default nature of an eternal space. However there still needs explanation as to why the conditions of the vacuum were set this way, and why since I am giving substance to the vacuum it existed in the first place. 1. A vacuum exists in which quantum flucuations producing particle anti-particle pairs is possible. 2. Energy must be conserved in this vacuum 3. The vacuum has energy which makes it expand. 4. The initial condition was where over distances small enough for uncertainty to allow pair production separation, the vacuum was expanding faster than the speed of light. _________________________________________ 5. Particle pairs, produced at a large scale simultaneously over a wide and dense enough area, unable to annihilate, and reducing the local vacuum's energy caused space to decelerate to a point where pair production didn't exclude pair annihilation. 6. At this point there was a critical density of matter over an area the size of our universe, where gravity could overcome the horizon boundaries set by expansion. 7. This allowed all matter and energy to collapse into an area far below the size of a Hubble volume. 8. Like core collapse in a supernova, negative pressure then repelled particles in this dense object, which is where the Big Bang starts. _________________________________________ 9. All events after this appear as we currently think. The inflationary era being a result of some of the newly formed universe decaying/annihilating and returning it's energy to the vacuum expansion energy. 10. The Inflationary epoch ends, because the process of pair production again removes enough vacuum energy to return the universe to a similar rate of expansion as we currently observe (accounting for dark energy's effect over the past 13 or billion years). _________________________________________ 11. Dark energy is a consequence also of energy being gradually returned to the vacuum. 12. Eventually enough energy is returned to the vacuum that again space is expanding fast enough over a small enough distance to allow another possibility of a critically dense area like our universe to form. ______________________________ I feel the need to point out how this relates to the OP's question. The "illusion" isn't inflation, but in this case, the universe. Inflation is a consequence of some of what we know to be real, returning to the normal state of affairs. The universe is simply a temporary era (or area) within an empty space which has a preference for extremely fast spatial expansion. There also may be a way to form areas of equilibrium in this expanding vacuum where particle creation is balanced by annihilation and the density of matter and the expansion of space are balanced. But my general feeling is that the universe would tend to return to the inital state of empty vacuum and maximum vacuum expansion energy, the length of time that this takes though is long for there to be a chance of someone like me thinking these thoughts to exist.

Imperialism. Economic dependency on the military industrial complex. There needs to be a transition, abrupt or gradual, from government spending dominated by militarism to one dominated by investment in human resources. (Education, health care and social welfare). Currently America is locked in a cyclic pattern of aggression to gain and maintain access to foreign markets and resoures, which encourages foreign aggression. This fosters a dependency on militarism to maintain this advantage. The loss of production from consumed arms and labour (hours and lives) makes holding this advantage less profitable, in terms of value to the majority. When compared to using those resources to further growth by investing in their own citizens.

Spin = kinetic energy - right? You can't have a particle without spin, even at 0 kelvin - right? So even without 0 point energy, they would still have KE. Right? I guess the wiki was only referring to heat energy.

You could observe it as it changes. Do these particles all occupy the same space? My definition of change differs, change doesn't require a different static configuration, before and after, merely a movement between 2 points in time. Say you took the two cue balls played a game of 1 ball, then racked them as before while Bill was out of the room. He would think nothing changed. But that's only because he didn't observe the event, which occurs between 2 points in time. I don't understand if there are 3 particles, let's represent them { ... } low energy and { ::: } high energy. How can they not be distinguished by their position in space? { ::. } {.::} and {:.:} all differ. I understand bosons can all occupy the same space, even so, just because the change appeared the same, doesn't make it the same. Also doesn't uncertainty allow each independent probability of position. Why does our ignorance effect reality, just because we can't know something does it objectively mean it doesn't exist. In Bills reality did the cue ball really not move? I noticed Einstein assumed non interacting gas, is this because interaction allows the particles to each be an observer? Also, if they all occupy the same space. How in your example are 2 and 3 observably different. 1 particle would appear the same as 2 particles. Shouldn't N only have 3 possible states regardless of its value? Up down or both. How are identical particles counted, how could you know you haven't counted twice? __________ OK I get it, only 2 states all in one place. There is no intermediate position, no transition to observe. But then how can there be any change, there's only 1 possible configuration. It can't change, also it doesn't exist, because it can't be observed, because it's non interacting.

Surely being swapped changed the state of the table. There would be a permutation of cue ball movements, why is only the state before and after important? Also, then why is the number of states N+1 , if we remove the energy level by your logic the number of states is 1 for any value of N.

Not really hawking radiation, the event horizon isn't due to a black hole. In the case of hawking radiation the anti particle still annihilates. In this case every particle is locked away from every other due to faster than light expansion of space at every scale. All fermion pairs, due to the Pauli exclusion principle would be permanently separated. Someone else once compared the idea to unruh radiation. This also isn't relevant, when space is expanding this fast there is no relativity, photons will never encounter anything. But the creation of all this new matter must be balanced somehow, if that energy is borrowed from the energy expanding space, it allows for a cyclic universe.

This confuses me, why is a particle being distinguishable from another a factor in determining the number of configurations? Surely the configurations exist independent of our ability to distinguish them. As a thought experiment I visualised a room with a billiards table in it. The table is packed in a lattice with cue balls. Two people are in the room, Bill and Ben. Bill leaves and Ben, switches as many balls as he likes or none at all and then asks Bill to return. This process is repeated hundreds of times over the course of the day. Bill could apply the quoted logic to the cue balls and Ben would know he was completely wrong. Since for us, particles can move and "Ben" is always present, we're almost always "out of the room", why do we assume we are right?

From wiki: Is this ground state equal to the combined spins of the particles in the system. Is the kinetic energy only angular momentum?

Good point, I meant on quantum scales. So event horizons seperate particle anti particle pairs before they have a chance to annihilate. Similar to how the expansion of space would be after an extremely long time from now if expansion continues to accelerate unregulated.