[dleviwing]

Brian;
Quantum spin is an intrinsic value pertaining to quantum physics only.
I personally view it as a physical spherical volume influenced by the a physical particle and thus increases or decreases according to Planck's constant.
It really has not equivalent relation in classical physics terms (angular velocity).
You should add this web site to your favorites; it is useful most of the time for answering physics questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin (physics)

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

Mr nobody;
You are looking at strong force and weak force as if they are independent quantities. Gravity, Strong force, and weak force are interdependent proportional relationships. If one changes, they all change proportionally.
Your logic is flawed and totally based on gibberish.

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Mr nobody; You are looking at strong force and weak force as if they are independent quantities. Gravity, Strong force, and weak force are interdependent proportional relationships. If one changes, they all change proportionally. Your logic is flawed and totally based on gibberish.

Read what my statement pertained to. It was said to disprove the logic of "Fine Tuned Universe". Obviously none of the deviations do exist here and right now, as we live here and right now. The gist of the argument is to show that the universe is not fine tuned in the sense of "prepared for us by some intelligence", but that intelligence is a result from within, adaptation to the environment it was born in, trying to explain its existence by pointing to all mondane as proof for its own divinity.

[dleviwing]

Mr nobody;
It is not my intent to insult you, only to say to that I've "BEEN THERE, DONE THAT" and thus understand where you are on the understanding of reality. I wish there were a way to allow you to see what I have seen. Unfortunately the learning process is extremely slow and also hindered by many false notions of reality.

You seem to have edited your post from what I received in my Email, but to answer your questions "YES. I can dismiss, it for I KNOW it is false."

Imagination is great for science fiction authors, however it can be a ball and chain to real science at times.

[Brian Jakub]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Brian: Follow the logic of the anthropic principle to its bitter conclusion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520 Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Intelligent Design & Fine-Tuned Universe) = Pr(Fine-Tuned Universe | Chance & Fine-Tuned Universe) = 1 This is to say that since we are here we must live in a universe fine-tuned to our existence regardless of whether that universe was created by an intelligent designer or by random chance. Therefore, the fine-tuned universe argument does not, in the final analysis, promote either intelligent design or chance (Sober). The Fine Structure Constant and Speed of Light are not so constant: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/4/9

--------------------------
Mr. Nobody,
If I understand you right I think I could picture your argument another way. In a definition of the second law of thermal dynamics this picture was given. That if you add order to a cylinder of gas by partitioning the cylinder into two parts and pump all the gas to one side you have added order to the system. If you pull the divider out the second law states that the gas will flow back to its original state of disorder and fill the whole cylinder. But, there is that chance that the molecules of the gas will bounce off of each other in such a way that they may stay in the partinioned half when the partition is removed.

I think our universe with order could be represented by the partitioned half with all the gas in it, and there could be other universes out there without order we don't live in or observe because they are partitioned of in another dimension or something, like the empty half of the cylinder. Now if there is an ordered and disordered universe like this then there is an equal chance to live in ether one. But, since we need to live in order to observe order, we live in the one with that has the gas in it.

I find two problems with this argument though:

1. Someone still had to put in the partition and pump the gas over to one side, which takes intelligence.

2. If nobody pumped it over the molecules are staying over there by chance, and though that is possible, I think we could partition off a lot of of cylinders, and then pull out the partition and none would stay ordered, let alone divide themselves again and again and add order over time.

Even if I give you your equal chance argument, (and I will do that) that means we should be spending equal time trying to figure out how the universe happened by chance, and equal time figuring out the mechanisms some sort of intelligence is using to guide it. And, maybe what kind of intelligence it is. It appears to me right now in Science we are trying to figure how all the gas is staying on one side and then dividing itself again by chance, when we should be trying to figure how something or someone decided to divide the cylinder in the first place, and then kept doing it in such way to get us where we are today. Because if they both are possible but only one is right are we going to find the right answer studying only one possibility. You said we have a equal chance we are wrong.

I know the constants aren't really constants, but they're predictable for a reason.
-----------------------
Dave,
If we are ever going to find a TOE, we are going to need a real picture, not abstract definitions or mathematical equations. Can you give me a picture of spin. I think every spherical volume has energy in it, matter is just a hyper dimension of the energy in the ether. Or in other words matter is ether divided up into order. In organic farming today the catch phrase is "energy is order". The more energy we can put in a plant the more tons of ordered energy I have to sell, and I have to make intelligent decisions, based on chemistry, physics and input allocation to get that order. I can picture that. I can picture a spherical volume and I can picture Planck's constant as a specific volume of energy, though some people wouldn't like me giving energy a volume so lets call it a packet. But, what the heck is the intrinsic value of spin measuring, and what does that measurement look like besides statistical grouping of data. Those groups should represent something real not abstract.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
I think in thermal dynamics, it is the degree of freedom that applies to Mr nobody's argument as far as order and chaos are concerned. Large degrees of freedom infers chaos, whereas low degrees of freedom infers uniformity and stability.

As far as the real picture without abstract definition of mathematical equations are concerned, you must stop using these abstracts in your requirements. The term "ENERGY" is one of those abstracts (mass is another). Energy is a change in the distribution of motion of the matter of a system and not an entity of the system or universe. This is the change we measure and call energy. Radiant energy is the cyclic wave motion caused by increase and decrease of the spatial ether density. This is randomized from all directions in space and results in the expanding universe.

One way to visualize quantum spin is to imagine a directional vector for all the waves in the universe and then doing a vector analysis of these vectors. If a resulting predominant directional vector resulted, this could be considered the quantum spin of the universe. Now apply the same concept to the degree of freedom motion of the particles.

Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

Just because radiant energy is randomn, doesn't mean the medium carrying the waves is constructed in a randomn way. If the aether is constructed in an orderly way couldn't this structure or order in the aether itself keep the universe from collapsing and the randomn electro magnetic radiation just be heating the universe or the structure known as the aether to 3 degrees kelvin as Penzias and Wilson discovered.

As for my loose use of the word energy, you are right, I need to be more disciplined in its use. This is science, not the local coffee shop, thanks. I should have said.

The more energy I transfer to a state of order from the sun and other sources, the more I can get a hold of and harvest. A plant needs that energy in a certian order or frequency, before it can use it. And, it takes intelligent transfer of energy to create that order, thus organic farmers should say intelligent transfer of energy gives us order, and order gives us energy we can tap into and use later, rather than energy is order.

But, is it completely wrong to say that energy is transferred in packets of a specific volume in Planck's constant. hv If you wanted to draw a picture of relativity don't the transformations between frames of reference appear as a hydraulic transfer between references constructed of fluids that have the same viscosity (perfect) and molecular or crystalline structure (energy travels through both mediums identically)
E=mc^2 and e=hv
mc^2=hv=m(length)^2/time
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
First of all if the medium carrying the wave were in a state of order or structure, this would be considered symmetry and thus not suitable to form particulate matter, galaxies or anything else.

The REST MASS ENERGY EQUATION is:

E2 =p2 c2 + m2 c4


Where "p" is the momentum of the particle (mass x velocity) When you consider radiant energy dose not have mass, the equation reduces to the Einstein energy equation.
Planck's constant multiplied by the frequency defines the rate of kinetic energy or force of a wave.
You seem to be confusing your physics. All this type of information is available on the web.

As long as you maintain focused as to what is meant by energy, there is nothing wrong with saying it is transferred. Just remember, no entity of the universe is transferred; only a conversion of motion.

Sorry Brian, but I think you need to do more research into the fundamentals of physics.

Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

I just have this picture of the aether with enfolded pieces of the aether forming matter. These enfolded pieces of the aether have momentum in relation to the aether stored in a standing wave like a beach ball spinning in water, and the water is actually made up of smaller beach balls. The inside of an atom has order to it defined by the qm spin of the particles that make it up. This same order repeats itself in the aether but is undetectable. The aether is undetectable because it is a perfect fluid which perfectly moves out of the way as we try to detect it, and is made up of particles arranged in a matrix but are too small to detect. As we break up an atom back into particles of aether their momentum is transferred back into the aether as they slow down and become aether. This would make the atom a three-dimensional space or universe imbedded in the universe of the aether. It seems to work as I picture it, but you're right I need to learn, to be able to prove it right or fix any mistakes.

I have this question though. If the medium has perfect three-dimensional symmetry or, infinite four particle combinations, why is it impossible to build matter out of it if matter has symmetry also?

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
Rather than continue this topic in Michael's introduction thread, I have started a thread under the "your TOE theory" forum entitled "The philosophy and Attributes of ETHER"

let's move our future posts to that thread.

All are welcome to join us and share their comments and posts conserning Ether philosophy.

Best regards;
Dave

[Mr. Nobody]

I like to picture the fundamental particles as probability waves of existence, nothing tangible at all. These existence waves enter reality by interacting with other waves to produce information as location, speed, spin, etc of energy (sorry Dave, I meant matter). This information is subject to competition for the propagation and construction of stability, the fittest information to arrive to where we are now (not because we are special, but because we are the ones asking now). I am stuck at the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and it has defined my view more than anything. So, for me probability almost is, dare I say, an actual entity. Dave will think I am crazy, but until I find a better way of visualizing QM uncertainty, probability will not just be presented as a statistical exercise, but as a necessity for fluid reality, competition and survival as well as free will if you will. If this built in indeterminism did not exist, everything would be predetermined, rigid and unable to evolve and adapt. Maybe this breaking from determinism caused inflation, Big Bang, the beginning of this cosmic epoch.
Caused who and what to break, Brian wants to know. Brian asked who is dividing the cylinder? Who is making the gas stay put. Nobody divided the gas and nobody is making it stay put. Evolution is not an addition of order, it is allocation of order from one system to another. The overall entropy is still increasing.
So, who broke? We did.....