God Through Physics and Astronomy

To rjcruiser,

Einstein has improved upon Newton's physics ... but Einstein's special and general relativty is still full of holes. To be blunt, it's a model (and theory )which fails to describe all moving objects (with or without a gravitational field) correctly.

Einstein's concept of time has problems, as Euclidean space has 'problems' with time being another orthogonal dimension. Consider this: three points which are not on a line and thus form a plane in Euclidean space. One point has a blinking light and the the other two points contain one eyeball each. Euclidean space assumes each eye will get the same light wave from the blinking light AT THE SAME TIME, but that's not true in all cases. That's why all the metrics listed here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_...ral_relativity) have 'problems' with the notion of space and time.

I'm not the only one to say as such ... this guy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwik_Silberstein provided a quantitative arguments as to why Einstein's relativity theory is flawed ... which might convince you that my qualtiative argument is correct.

Space ... just because you can't see it ... doesn't mean it's not there.

Just as matter can be compressed ... so can space. Maxwell's belief in space being a fluid is more correct than Einstein's attempt to 'complicate' Galilean transformations with Maxwell's equations.

In fact ... the Galilean transformations are wrong ... but Maxwell's orginal equations based on the quaternions are correct. It's Heavyside who screwed up.

The most interesting thing I read this past week is about a physicist named Julian Barbour who is arguing that Einsteins Theory of General Relativity is not really general. Barbour, and partially Einstein, takes his idea from Ernst Mach (same guy who was able to explain the sonic boom and where we get the Mach speed system) everything is relative, that is the three spacial dimensions and time, and no grid or back drop was need to give the position of a specific objects, only positions relative to tangible objects.

Einstein's special relativity abolished newtons absolute time claim, but it created an absolute space-time. His general relativity made the space-time more pliable, but still required a background where something still had a space-time location.

Barbour thinks Einstein thought this idea of relativity was to hard to get through. But his model would get rid of all notion of dark matter/energy.

There some problems though. For instance, observational astronomers argue evidence for dark matter is so strong that it would be pretty hard for one theory to just get rid of it.

I'm still hazy on a few of the details, but it's an interesting idea that hasn't gotten a lot of press yet, perhaps most physicist still think its bologna.

rjcrusier88,

Who is buzzing and who is not? And who is the buzzing associated with? Simple philosophy to discuss ... interesting you choose the word 'buzz.'

Because bees buzz and believe sounds just like bee leave. What have you seen rjcruiser88 because bees in mother nature are associated with extreme matriarchy ... maybe that's why nature is associated with the word ' mother.'

Long winded reply ... simply put ... so what have you seen that you are buzzing about?

ryan,
Never mind, I just reread your first post.

So, what physics and/or astronomy thing has got everyone buzzing? I've seen quite a few recently.

Hey everyone, sorry for the large amount of time between posts, it's hard to remember to check this everyday!!

pinetree,
I can't find really any information on quantum tubes and nerve cells in the context that you are describing (in fact, when I Google "quantum tubes" and "nerve cells" in the same search, your post on Catholic Answers is the first website on the list and there's only four other results). So I'm sorry, no bells rung here, it does sound like a very interesting idea involving physics most likely way over my head.

healonzo,
I watched those video, they were very entertaining and I actually watched quite a few of them. The Pauli exclusion principle video was spot on, and the standard model video seemed pretty good too. It's kind of like relativity in that it has been proven to work many times but is missing some key components (such as gravity and dark energy as described in the video).

ryan,
I'm sorry, but I have failed to see what your point was starting with "Make no doubt the parables of . . . the same as a 'pair of bowls' ", or at least the context for you to make these calculations, could you explain?

To rjcruiser88,

You won't find any mention of Saul being Pontius Pilate in the Bible ... in fact, I believe ( can't find it after searching ) there is a verse in one of Paul's letters that explicitly states he regrets never knowing Jesus in person.

But my study of the works in the English language ( and there may be difficulties in translation from Greek and/or Latin ) of Tacitius, Suetonius, and Josephus make me believe that the Bible is in fact well recorded history ... sometimes in agreement and other times in disagreement with the above historical sources.

Make no doubt the parables of Christ and 'para bowls' sound much the same ... the same as a 'pair of bowls.'

So how to place a 'pair of bowls' to produce a great amount of heat?

Create one large paraboloid of revolution with the shiny surface on the inside of the parabowl. Create another smaller paraboloid of revolution with the shiny reflective surface on the outside of the parabowl. Place the smaller bowl inside the outer bowl so both inner and outer parabowls share the same focus. When the inner parabowl is aligned to be 'symetrically pointed in the same direction' as the outer parabowl ... almost all the sunlight coming into the outer parabowl is reflected by the inner parabowl towards the directrix(s). If the inner parabowl has a 'circle area' of only 10% of the 'circle area' of the outer parabowl ... 90% of the sunlight entering the outer parabowl will be focused into 1/10 the previous area hitting the earth's surface.

The output from this pair of two bowls could then be input into another pair of two bowls, each of smaller dimension than the first pair. (Yes, it's easier to post a picture but I don't have the tools to do as such.) In theory, one could infinitely repeat this pattern in a recursive manner to focues all the Sun's 'heat' at a single point in space ... which any mathematical topologist can prove. But ignoring math theory and concentrating on easy to implement physics ... if the first bowl is ballpark 3 meters in diameter, and sunlight bounces off three more smaller bowls ... the sunlight should be concentrated enough to easily and quickly boil water.

Assuming 1370 watts of Sunlight hits a square meter of the Earth's surface:

With a parabowl of 3 meters in diameter, 1370*3.14159*1.5*1.5 ( the last three numbers are pi times the radius squared ) = 9683 watts of solar energy enters the first bowl. So 9683 watts is spread out over 7.0685 square meters, which is the 'circle area' of the largest bowl.

Assuming 90% of 9683 watts of energy is 'squeezed' into an area 1/10 the size the previous bowl ... leads to .90*9683 watts spread out over .10*7.0685 square meters. Thus the energy density or 'solar flux' has been amplified from 1370 watts per square meter to 12,328 watts per square meter, ( 12,328 = .9*9683 / (.1*7.0685) ) and actually there's a way to even better this flux increase ... but to continue the recursion,

Assuming 90% of the energy output from the second bowl is 'spewed out' from the fourth bowl but is squeezed into an area 1/10 the previous 'circle size' of the second bowl ... leads to the energy density being increased to 110,960 watts per square meter ( .9*.9*9683 / (.1*.1*7.0685) ).

So some watts have been lost because I only have 7843 watts (.9*.9*9683) output by the fourth bowl, but all this energy has been compressed into an area of about .07 square meters ... which is a circle area of about a foot in diameter. It's the energy density of 110,960 watts per square meter that can easily boil water upon contact.

Obviously, the above numbers are under 'ideal circumstances' ... but even if I loose alot of energy from such things as an imperfect shaped bowl or bad bowl alignment or dispersion of light (and other problems) ... it's still good enough to boil water quickly.

Is this a good analogy of the standard model and the Pauli exclusion principle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVO0H...eature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxeb3...eature=channel

Freewill-- there was a story a few years ago (lost it) about quantum tubes in nerve cells. With enough cells in a complex enough array (human brain), it is possible that the certainty of physical laws can be overcome and controlled by a being that would have the ability to affect the outcome of quantum states based on its own self awareness. It could make a free decision. Does this ring a bell with anyone. I think Isaac Asimov wrote about this somewhere.

rjcruiser88

You are right about the difficulty with commenting on quotes taken out of context. I find that Lewis' Miracles is an interesting take on the question of what is "natural", as in 'part of nature" and what is "supernatural"; things that seem to defy natural laws. Lewis names his book Miracles, by which he means instances of events that do not follow the established laws of nature.
I quoted it mainly to see if anyone else has read it and had any thoughts on it.

Here is an interesting discover I found in "100 Stories of 2011" issue from Discover Magazine titled "Quantum Weirdness Enters the Larger World". What the article discusses is that physicists have been able to see the particle-wave duality of a massive, 400 atom molecule, the biggest yet. They found that the molecule, called the "quantum octopus", since 8 tentacle-like structures radiating from it's center, showed diffraction patterns, the easiest way to see wave-like characteristics. As a particle or group of particles becomes more massive, it collapses more and more into one state, making it act less and less like a wave. This means that quantum mechanics might not only apply to the quantum world! God is working in such mysterious ways, I love it!