An Idea

[AntonioLao]

you are really a theoritical physicist at Harvard or Cambridge.

That would be the reason why most of the books I'm reading are published by Harvard or Cambridge University Press.

[AntonioLao]

whether Gravitrons have mass. If they do, photons should also have mass.

Both graviton and photon have zero mass. The first is the exchange particle for a theory of quantum gravity while the second is the exchange particle of the quantized electromagnetic field. Keep in mind that they dont need mass to interact with other elementary particles. All they need is energy. Since energy is also affected by the gravitational field both agree with general relativity.

[Fredrick]

...In the mean time due to some quantum fuzziness You, I and the visible universe was formed ( A byproduct ) to this Eternal Expanding/Contracting Movement.

Again this process never started, it never stops, it's eternal. ( Something we humans can't comprehend )

Thank you, Pat, for delivering this as far as you can. I understand the attractiveness of ending at an equilibrium of some kind (which is in itself a feature we do find quite a bit in our universe), but I believe you are not able to take it further than this because of your wanting to keep a certain completeness intact.

I can understand your approach, though I do not consider it an accurate approach for the reality we exist in. Right now, the origin in your delivery is floating; there is no basis, no foundation, you simply state there is a result and that is it.

I do not think it is a choice to state the overall delivery is somehow complete. From science, there is no data to support our universe is somehow complete. But there is a lot of data to support the opposite; from Einstein to Godel to Bohr, from math to physics to biology.

That brings me back to your idea about god, Pat, because your idea about god contains that completeness that I believe is in the way. To accept the universe as eternal at both ends, we are forced to believe in this completeness and balance; otherwise it is not possible/not explainable.

I have no objections to you placing god in the highest position, but I desire you to agree that the spot of nothing is an even higher position. This nothing is the spot where the original god of all that is and all that was to come once resided - perfect, united, one. Yet as soon as this god got into a twist, that original spot was no longer taken in, it is empty now or taken in by dead or artificial objects; it is where abstracts 'live' and sometimes where our beliefs live. The living god, the successor, does not take in this spot, even when god can still be seen as highest (but not the same as the original).

From now on, I will consider a 'no comment' an inadequate answer, and I hope you will speak out. By now, you must know I am not after your belief; I am after your knowledge and what you do with it (and actually even more what you do not do with it).

[Profpat]

Thank you, Pat, for delivering this as far as you can. I understand the attractiveness of endingN0 end just process at an equilibrium of some kind (which is in itself a feature we do find quite a bit in our universe),I disagree most of the universe is in equilibrium including You and I but I believe you are not able to take it further than this because of your wanting to keep a certain completeness intact. The universe is complete.

I can understand your approach, though I do not consider it an accurate approach for the reality we exist in.I do Right now, the origin in your delivery is floating; there is no basis, no foundation,The universe itself is the basis and foundation you simply state there is a result and that is it.The universe is the result of this interaction

I do not think it is a choice to state the overall delivery is somehow complete. From science, there is no data to support our universe is somehow complete. But there is a lot of data to support the opposite; from Einstein to Godel to Bohr, from math to physics to biology.I have no idea what you are talking about Fredrick. The universe is complete. Do you believe in multiverses?

That brings me back to your idea about god, Pat, because your idea about god contains that completeness that I believe is in the way. To accept the universe as eternal at both ends,No ends just process we are forced to believe in this completeness and balance; otherwise it is not possible/not explainable. I agree therefore this must be the explanation

I have no objections to you placing god in the highest position, but I desire you to agree that the spot of nothing is an even higher position. This nothing is the spot where the original god of all that is and all that was to come once resided - perfect, united, one. Yet as soon as this god got into a twist, that original spot was no longer taken in, it is empty now or taken in by dead or artificial objects; it is where abstracts 'live' and sometimes where our beliefs live. The living god, the successor, does not take in this spot, even when god can still be seen as highest (but not the same as the original).Fredrick there is only One God and I can't even comprehend that; and now you are introducing prior god and an after god. I really don't want to debate this subject because when it comes to this " I KNOW NOTHING "

From now on, I will consider a 'no comment' an inadequate answer, and I hope you will speak out. By now, you must know I am not after your belief; I am after your knowledge I have no knowledge of God because God in His Eternal, Infinite, Perfection is incomprehensible .and what you do with it (and actually even more what you do not do with it).

So yes I think I tied everything together and even wrapped it in a colorful bow.

What is your thought of the universe creation and destruction.

I do not believe it came from nothing. Either it is eternal or the God who created it is eternal. Either case you have something from something.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Why is the universe in dynamic balance?

When a cosmic object is acted upon by a transmissible force in space it will move in the direction of the force. A perfect illustration of this fact is seen in the movement of a comet’s tail. When a comet comes near the sun, its tail is seen to move always in the direction of sun’s radiation emission, even to travel ahead of the comet’s heavier body. The entire life of the cosmos is in fact a drama of interactions between masses and forces. Force is what energizes all the interactions. Force is also the energy that synchronizes the entire cosmic movements.

The fig on the right shows when Halley Comet approaches sun from the lower side of graph, its tail splits into a dust tail (yellow) and a gas tail (white). The gas tail being lighter is pushed by solar wind to travel ahead of the comet body

Yin and Yang
Dynamic Equilibrium in the Universe

"The Chinese saw the universe as a balancing act between two opposed but complementary aspects of nature: yin and yang. Their strength and influence were visible in the oscillation of day and night and in the cycle of the seasons. Yin is passive, and yang is active; yin is dark, and yang is light; yin is feminine, and yang is masculine; yin is winter, and yang is summer."1

"In Taoism and Confucianism, they [yin and yang] are represented by two interlocked curved shapes within a circle, one white, one black, with a spot of contrasting color within the head of each."2

<FONT color=#0000ff>

[austintorn@aol.com]

The finishing touches to the glass house:

[Felix Schrodinger]

The Universe is expanding in time, as Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929. As the photons travel across the Universe, the space that they travel through expands, thereby stretching the wavelength of the photon. Longer wavelengths mean less energy. This is called the cosmological redshift.

Hubble discovered redshift and it has been widely interpreted that this means that the universe is expanding. If photons lose energy as they travel long distances then the expnding universe concept falls appart.

Photons can also change energy by traversing a gravitational potential well, called the gravitational redshift. As far as gravitons and photons are concerned, it is important to realize that they are both force mediators - meaning the photon is a quanta which "transmits" the electromagnetic force. So, when 2 positively charged particles to repel each other, they are exchanging photons. Similarly, when 2 masses attract one another, they exchange gravitons. To our knowledge, gravitons and photon do not interact with each other. If you have read somewhere that the gravitational field of an object, say a black hole, has an effect on the magnetic field around it, this is true but it arises from geometrical effects (the black hole warps space around it and electromagnetic fields can be compressed or diluted depending on their location) alone.

I can't believe that an academic establishment can put out such unadulterated cow excrement. The effect we call gravity is adequately explained by the bending of space in the presence of mass and does not require the exchange of (undiscovered and unproven) particles to mediate it.

regards
Felix

PS - sorry for the delay - computer problems.

[Profpat]

Hubble discovered redshift and it has been widely interpreted that this means that the universe is expanding. If photons lose energy as they travel long distances then the expnding universe concept falls appart.



I can't believe that an academic establishment can put out such unadulterated cow excrement. The effect we call gravity is adequately explained by the bending of space in the presence of mass and does not require the exchange of (undiscovered and unproven) particles to mediate it.

regards
Felix

PS - sorry for the delay - computer problems.

You could be right Felix it may be cow doodoo.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Thanks Antonio for such an insightful reply. Another query, how can a photon which is an energy particle eject another energy particle gravitron and still not loose drastically on energy?

Both graviton and photon have zero mass. The first is the exchange particle for a theory of quantum gravity while the second is the exchange particle of the quantized electromagnetic field. Keep in mind that they dont need mass to interact with other elementary particles. All they need is energy. Since energy is also affected by the gravitational field both agree with general relativity.

[Profpat]

God is the beginning and end. Cosmic cycles.


I am death that carries off all,
And the origin of things that are to be.
[x.34]
All beings, son of Kunti,
Pass into my material nature
At the end of a world-aeon; them again
I send forth at the beginning of a new world-aeon.
[ix.7]

This is from the Bhagavad Gita.

I think in further defense of the the cyclic universe model is the fact that this universe began anew 14 billion years ago. That is how old our matter is. What was/is it going to do throughout eternity. Something has to be eternal the universe and/or God.