Quantized redshift anomaly

[Jim] "The most anyone can say is something like 'any model is better than no model'."

It may seem that way to those like yourself (I'm quoting you on this) who lack a technical background. But the technically adept are well aware that some models are better than others.

=== EXAMPLE ===

Consider two models of the relativity of motion: Special Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity. They appear very similar upon cursory examination, and they predict *exactly the same results* for all experiments that we are presently able (technically and economically) to perform.

But the very foundations of the two models (their respective postulates, or starting points) are as different as Night and Day. One leads to a proof that faster than light phenomena are strictly impossible, the other allows them. One or the other of them must, therefore, be grossly at odds with reality. Until we figure out which one, progress in growing the Catalog Of Knowledge is hampered. Not stopped (there are other fields of inquiry, other groups of facts, and other models about those other facts), but also not moving forward as rapidly as it could.

So here is an example of a real, actual model that is not better than no model at all. If it weren't for the existance of the other model progress in understanding the relativity of motion might actually be negative.

===

But even a bad model has its uses. When a (bad) model is first proposed its badness is not yet known. But as its predctions are tested this badness becomes obvious. Uh, most of the time.

However, knowing what doesn't work can be as valuable as knowing what does. Stated more generally, nothing is totally without value. If a thing can serve no other purpose it can always be a good example of a bad example.


Regards,
LB

<hr noshade size="1"> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Problematique: A graphical portrayal, constructed to rigorous specifications, of a particular aspect of complexity which arises in a problematic situation.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">
<font size="2"><center>Toward creating a hyperlinked problematique of Warfield's book

<b>Understanding Complexity; Thought and Behavior </center></font id="size2">

Phase One: Discovery/Description</b>

Excerpted by Thomas Mandel IISII


<center><font size="3"><b>J.N. Warfield


Understanding Complexity; Thought and Behavior</b></font id="size3">
(2002) Palm Harbor, FL: Ajar Publishing Company.
copyright 2001 J.N. Warfield
To Order the book: www.ajarmail.com/bookordering.html

CONTENTS



Chapter 1. Four Areas of Complexity
Infrastructure of the Science
Structure-Based Science of Complexity
Applications of the science
Site of the Applications



Chapter 2. The Infrastructure of Science
Thought Leaders
Language
Reasoning through Relationships
Empirical Data and Archival Information Sources



Chapter 3. The Structure-Based Science;
Part 1. Behavioral Pathologies, Individual, Groups, Organizations
Chronologies
Definitions
Human Attributes



Chapter 4. The Structure-Based Science
Part 2: Laws, Structures, and Metrics
Empirical Evidence



Chapter 5. The Work Program Of Complexity
Problematique


Discovery
Description
Diagnosis
Resolution
Design
Implementation



Chapter 6. The Organization: The Site of Applications
Organization (Budgeted Staff)
Local Infrastructure
Situation Room
Observatorium

Appendix A. Twenty laws of Complexity


Appendix B. Glossary of Complexity



Appendix D. The mathematics of Structure: Associations and Operations
The "Normal" or "Ordinary" Domain
The Domain of Complexity

Appendix D. Discovery and Complexity: A Small Anthology of Problematiques with Interpretations.


Appendix E Demands of Complexity Meet the Killer Assumptions

Bibliography

Index

<hr noshade size="1">



Appendix A. Twenty laws of Complexity
The Law of Tradic Compatibility
The Law of Requisite Parsimony
The Law of Structural Underconceptualization
The Law of organizational Linguistics
The Law of Vertical Incoherence in Organizations
The Law of Validation
The Law of Diverse Beliefs
The Law of gradation
The Law of Universal Priors
The Law of Inherent Conflict
The Law of Limits
The Law of Requisite Saliency
The Law of Success and Failure
The Law of Uncorrelated Extremes
The Law of Induced Groupthink
The Law of Requisite Variety
The Law of Forced Substitution
The Law of Precluded Resolution
The Law of Triadic Necessity and Sufficiency
The Law of Small Displays

Appendix B. Glossory in Work

"Complexity is that sensation experienced in the human mind when, in observing or considering a system, frustration arises from lack of comprehension of what is being explored. While this definition may be thought surprising, one of its notable attributes is that it allows for the possibility that complexity may be reduced or even eliminated, at least for some human beings, by a process called "learning". " p20.

The Curriculum of Compexity

If the study of complexity mistakenly begins by simply assuming a received language. And if it ignores more than two millennia of thought about thinking, then it will be unlikely to reflect the high quality that is demanded when working with complexity. The subject is inherently difficult, and it does not require compounding the difficulty by ignoring the linguistic perils and possibilities; nor does it benefit from following the current fashions, while ignoring the magnificent history that is available.



Discovery reflects the idea that no one understands the complexity. A period of time devoted to Discovery is required for two reasons: First, to describe the situation and second, to diagnose the situation. While the Description and the Diagnosis are two tangible products of the Discovery component, the processes of arriving at these products are designed to resolve any of the issues related to the behavior pathologies; and also to assist in developing an appropriate object language with which to analysis, describe, and (re)design whatever situation is under observation or consideration. Pg67

Description: best done by groups (8 to 15) because each member has distinctive knowledge that can be affregated with the help of Interactive Management.

Products of Description: A type 1 Problematique, a problems field, an attributes field, and a Type 2 (categories) problematique., the latter being computable from the information contained in the Type 1 problematique, provided a problems field is available to show problems in categories.

Diagnosis best done by an individual who is experienced in using the dibasic aids developed for interpreting the structures produced in Interactive Management Workshops, especially in interpreting the Problematique; provided the individual then shares the diagnosis in an interpretive Session with the group that produced the results, both to check out the interpretation, and to make any needed amendments.

Products of Diagnosis: An analysis and classification of problems from the Type 1 Problematique, based on its structural features; computation of indexes on complexity for comparison with earlier studies, and a comparison of the categories problematique with organizational components to assess who might be doing what in the organization to help resolve the complexity

Resolution can be started, once the Discovery work has produced sufficient understanding to make possible the Design (or redesign) that is required in order to resolve the complexity associated with the problematic situation. Resolution incorporates recognition of the need for resources for the purpose of implementing the design, and that such resources normally are found only in organizations, because of the size and scope of complexity.

Design: best done by groups (8 to 15) because each member has distinctive knowledge that can be aggregated, with the help of Interactive Management.

Products of Design: An options field with one category for each category in the problems fields, at least two independently-developed options profiles by subgroups, a final options profile selection done in plenary session; and a DELTA Chart showing (a) what tasks will be performed in order to implement the design and 9b) who wil perform those tasks.

The Options Field shows the wide variety of possible options and the categories in which those options lie (these being the same categories as found earlier in the Problems Field)

Implementation: best done by the organization (whatever components that are required) following the Interpretation Session with the group that produced the results, both to check out the interpretation, and to make any needed amendments.

Infrastructure: It is particularly vital, in most applications, that the host organization create an infrastructure that is appropriate as a learning means for person in the organization who were not present during the IM work, but who need to understand what was done by the participants in order to make their own contributions to implementation,


Problematique: A graphical portrayal, constructed to rigorous specifications, of a particular aspect of complexity which arises in a problematic situation.

All products of the Work Program of Complexity are constructed as described in the Handbook of Interactive Management (Warfield and Cardenas, 1994).

Thought Leaders Numerous research studies have shown that several behavioral pathologies interfere with the possible resolution of complexity. Curiously, most of those studies rest in isolation from one another. Perhaps that accounts for the neglect of their findings in many circumstance where their insights are needed. The resolution of complexity relies on an integrated understanding of these pathologies. A careful design of a system for resolving complexity is required to be responsive to the collective pathologies, and to find ways to circumvent their mutually reinforcing effects. P31

Structural Incompetence; The definition of structural incompetence is; "the concept that describes the situation found in an organization by a program manager who is so constrained that he cannot apply his knowledge to resolve an issue, but instead must go along with a decision that inevitably appears to be a consequence of incompetence




Groupthink
1. The attribute defined carefully by Irving Janis. "how groups, especially when under external pressure, will profess to promote decisions on courses of action that are often totally st odds with what the individual members of the group believe. 2. A slang expression used by the uninformed to represent anything that a group produces which appears to have involved thought.
can be predictably induced in groups by the behavior of individuals who apply pressure on groups to produce results under a time limit; wherever complexity is paramount.
Symptoms see Page 149

Language
language is a vital part of all communication; not merely scienctfic communication. But the quality of the natural language, which evolves constantly, and which incorporates many ambiguities, is not adequate for scientific language. So, according to I.M. Bochenski (Bochenski, 1970) Gottfried Leibnitz offered the studied point of view that if scientists want to communicate with one another, they wil have to design a specialized language in order to do so.
Language Design see page 8



Structural Incompetence; The definition of structural incompetence is; "the concept that describes the situation found in an organization by a program manager who is so constrained that he cannot apply his knowledge to resolve an issue, but instead must go along with a decision that inevitably appears to be a consequence of incompetence



Killer Assumptions
A condition of unjustified belief which, if held, will greatly inhibit the likelihood that human beings can resolve complexity


<center>Killer assumptions about complexity</center>

Complexity
Site: in the system being observed
Learning
Scale: Human power independent of it
History: Irrelevant in a high-tech society
Evidence
Need: Irrelevant, just go to "guru's"
Source: "Prestigious" source is sufficient
Processes
Normal: They are sufficient
Behavioral:
Research Finds They are too "soft" to be relevant to management of technological organizations
Knowledge Integration:
just aggregate multiple disciplines
Types of Relationships:
Requires no special considerations
Infrastructure
Representational: Adequacy of prose
Formalisms:
Extensive applicability of physical science
Spatial:
No need for dedicated space
Linguistic:
Natural Language adequacy
Workplace:
Designed for normal activity
Scientific:
Same as technology
Academic Terminology:
No need for academic precision
Executive Decisions
Executive Capacity: Adequate


Demands of Complexity
Page 38
Recognition of Distinctiveness
Underestimating Complexity
Learning and Profiting from history
Careful Choice of Processes
Distrust of Prestigious Authority
Recognizing Defects in Normal Processes
Recognizing Key Products of Behavioral Research
Emphasizing Learning Process Efficacy
Focusing on Relationships as Bases of Inquiry
Becoming sensitized to Infrastructure Benefits
Dishonoring Imposed Linguistic Pollution
Becoming sensitized to Space Needs for Working with Complexity
Disenfranchising Un-Augmented Prose as a Communication Tool
Tailoring Workspace to Requirements


(Elaborations)


<center>Thought Leaders About Language: Second Order Thought</center>



Thought Leader Charles Sanders Peirce
"One singular deception of this sort, which often occurs, is to mistake the sensation produced by our own unclearness of thought for a character of the object we are thining. Instead of perceiving that the obscurity is purely subjective, we fancy that we contemplate a quality of the object which is essentially mysterious" (Peirce)

In summary. Complexity is that sensation experienced in the human mind when, in observing or considering a system, frustration arises from lack of comprehension of what is being explored.

Thought Leader Frank Harary
In the 1965 work, Harary et al span several branches of mathematics to present the analytical basis for the mathematic of modeling, the mathematics of structure. Taking that mathematics as a basis, John Warfield augmented it with the corresponding synthesis scheme, so that where Harary's approach analyzes structural models, and shows how they are presentable symbolically, Warfield's approach offers the algorithmic basis for model construction: i.e., for construction of structural models that show patterns of understanding (Warfield 1976)

Thought Leader Augustus De Morgan
He was the first logician to present a logic of relations

Thought Leader Aristotle
Aristotle saw logic as a means to the attainment of knowledge (as did Peirce, who did not se it a a final determinant, but highly contributory to understanding). He insisted on rigorous scientific procedure, and contributed to standard philosophic method by his invention of the syllogism. His innovation in developing categories contributed to the thought process which he fostered.

Thought Leader George Boole
Boole presented a system of logic that encourages the representation of propositions by variables, so that a variable x might represent the proposition "this coin is a dime." By invoking the idea off a collection of propositions, it became possible with Boolean algebra to construct a collection of propositions, each of which could become represented by a particular variable.


Thought Leader Peter Abelard
According to Bochenski (1970), Peter Abelard first stated the concept of the syllogism in a single statement in each of the following ways:
"Whatever implies the antecedent (implies) also the consequent."
Whatever follows from the consequent (follows) also from the antecedent."


Gottfried Leibnitz
Leibnitz recognized the need for design of language just for scientists to communicate with one another.

Thought Leader David Hilbert
Hilbert conceived the idea of "metalanguage", a concept that plays a foundational role in today's computer science, and one that formalized in language the idea f Lebnitz that scientists would have to develop languages of their own, if they were going to be able to communicate effectively.


<center>Behaviorial Pathologies: Individual, Group, and Organization (Page 33-6)</center>


Behaviorial Pathologies: Individual,
Thought Leader Robert F. Bales
Bales work shows clearly that individuals can disrupt the kinds of group work that promote success by activating negative behavior in the Social-Emotiona area.

Thought Leader Kenneth Boulding
Boulding has described the propensity of leaders (a) to accept and propagate uncritically ideas and concept that diminish productivity, (b) to allocate importance in spurious ways across possible options and (c) to suppress or at least to avoid incorporating valuable additions into the prevailing culture, defying those who have worked hard to make such additions available.

Thought Leader Michel Foucault
Foucault asks that received doctrine not be uncritically accepted; and asks that a greater sensitivity be developed to the importance of uncovering the origins of belief and the trajectory of that belief through time, to determine where it may have gone astray and may require reconstruction in the light of new discoveries, Foucault would not expand disciplines by addition, but rather by integration and subtraction.

Thought Leader George Miller
Miller's experiments indicate that individuals cannot rely only on mental activity to inquire into relationships among large sets of variables. If learning about complexity is a goal, external adjuncts to learning are necessary to supplement mental activity.

Thought Leader Herbert A. Simon
A central conclusion of Simon's work could be that the construction of symbolic categories to replace more numerous individual members is critical in advancing human understanding.

Thought Leader Sir Geoffrey Vickers
Among Vickers views were these: (a) the language of science is constantly being downgraded by individuals who use words to suit their own ends. Instead of maintaining a sense of community by respecting the integrity of scientific language, (b) representatives of the physical sciences are prone to make major errors by overlooking the human aspects of human systems, and (c) it is helpful to think of an "appreciative system", when looking toward major decisions.


<center>Summarizing and Integrating: Individual Behavioral Pathologies Pg 36</center>

Many potential hazards await when an individual strives to comprehend complexity. Included are these: (a) a limitation on the amount of information that can be managed in short term memory. (b) the choice of inappropriate categories, inadequate to reflect the membership in those categories, (c) inability to take part in group activity without disrupting it by exercise of emotional negatives, (d) mindless acceptance of received doctrine which biases an inquiry at its onset. (e) inability to allocate importance across members of a large set in the light of relative saliency, (f) downgrading of the language of science to suit individual preferences, (g) inadequate use of external learning adjuncts to compensate for mental limitation, (h) disinterest in the origins and trajectories of bodies of beliefs, (i) uncritical propagation of dysfunctional received doctrine, (j) lack of self-recognition of physiologically-based mental limitations when pressing personal beliefs on others, (k) excessive emphasis upon products of physical science when working with human systems, and (l) self-generated action frameworks that may incorporate combinations of the foregoing.


<center>Thought Leaders on Group Behavioral Pathologies</center>


Thought Leader Graham Allison
Graham Allison shoed how the "Groupthink" pathology was heavily evidenced in policymaking that produced the decision to go ahead with the "Bay of Pigs Invasion. He showed further that this pathology could survive at the highest levels of government, and that it could be induced by executive pressure to reach a decision.


Thought Leader Irving Janis
Janis described how groups, especially when under external pressure, will profess to promoter decisions on course of action that are often toatyy at odds with what the individual members of the group believe.

Thought Leader Harold Dwight Lasswell
Recommended the Lasswell Triad: (a) situation room, tailored to serve group needs for information and comfort; (b) a prelegislature, developing policy concepts in depth before the political process began (to minimize false starts and effects of lack of knowledge) and (c) the social planetarium, or use of real estate to educate with large, sequentially-spaced displays, as a follow-up to high-quality exploration of an issue.

Thought Leader B.W. Tuckman
Tuckman reviewed a large number of studies of groups in action. He concluded tht there is a typical pattern that characterizes group work. This pattern, he indicated, consists of these four stages
Forming, getting to know one another
Storming, striving to get their own views into the discussion
Norming, arrangements are reached for proceeding
Performing. Members contribute to the task


<center>Summarizing and Integrating: Group Behavioral Pathologies Pg46</center>

In summarizing the group pathologies, once again it can be recalled that each member of the group brings that member's uniquely-fashioned individual behavioral pathologies to the group. To the cumulative effect of those, one now escalates the difficulties in group work. The group is susceptible both to groupthink and to clanthink, either or both threatening the quality of the group product. Add to that the common practice of failing to understand the importance of working infrastructure when struggling with complexity, and there is already a tower of reasons to suppose that the group product cannot help resolve complexity. Recognizing further that the language which is needed to portray complexity cannot be as hoc but must carefully evolve as the group proceeds, and that it must portray structural nonlinearity; one sees that the work of ordinary groups, no matter how prominent and no matter how frequently occurring, can hardly be taken seriously by anyone who is seeking a modicum of understanding.



<center>Thought Leaders on Organizational Behavioral Pathologies</center>


Thought Leader Chris Argyris
One Track Behavior
Undiscussability
Disconnect Between Announced and Actual Behavior

Thought Leader Anthony Downs
Rational Procedure as Goal
Self-Interest as Motivaton
Social Influence as Highly Determining

Thought Leader Harold Dwight Lasswell
By informing all members of the relevant organization of the major activities going on in the organization and of the interconnections among them, every viewer is placed in a position to assess and act on the shared information.

Thought Leader Herbert A. Simon
His recognition of "satisficing" as a standard organizational practice helped reveal the fact that organizations do not search systematically for ways to resolve their organizational problems, but, rather, simply take the first seemingly viable avenue that appears.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> <center><b><font size="3">10.5 TRIGGERING QUESTIONS.</font id="size3"></b></center>

At any given time in an IM Workshop, the group of participants has before them a question that focuses their work. The questions are normally designed during Phase 1, through collaboration between IM Broker and IM Workshop Planner, and the questions appear in the Workshop Plan. One important type of question is called a "triggering question".

<b>Triggering questions are stimuli to the generation of ideas. </b>Successful triggering questions typically satisfy these criteria:

Only a single focus is given to trigger the response; (do not ask for more than one kind of concept in a given work situation. If several different kinds of response are required, a Separate question and a separate process should be used for each.)

It is feasible both to understand and respond to the question; the question does not ask for something that is ambiguous, nor does it ask for something that the participants cannot reasonably be expected to provide.

The words used to provide the focus for the request are neither so general that the responses are not likely to be to the point, nor so specific that the answers are likely to be overly restricted in utility. To be useful, the focus should be neither too general nor too specific.

The triggering question is responsive to and correlated with the context in which the issue is embedded.

The contextual implication of the triggering question should be compatible with the background of the participants and the scope of the workshop.

In order to benefit from experience, it is common to choose a triggering question from a small set that has been shown to be effective in the one-thousand or so IM Workshops that have been held.

I suggest that you go to the GMU web site and download the DOS-based ISM software and user guide. That should answer your questions.

That site can be found as a link at www.ajarmail.com

The third and fourth web sites there are the ones to consult. The third one in the list is where you can download software and the fourth responds to questions like yours.

J Warfield <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

quote:

---

It is not likely that the alternative to the Big Bang will be this or that particular theory. It is more likely that an alternative theory will require input from all of the various data producers.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is very easy to use the CREIL, and it seems to solve all problems of redshift or thermal radiation: Where there is H* (very hot hydrogen (100 000 K) or 10 000 K + Lyman alpha pumping, or...) the beams of light are redshifted, and the thermal radiations are heated (CMB, "hot dust") or blueshifted ( radio signals from the Pioneers)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

quote:

---

Thus a serious effort to be ready when the Big Bang blows up on them will require the efforts and cooperation of many cosmologists. As it is, the Big Bangers stick together, right or wrong, while the opposing team is divided into bits and pieces here and there arguing amonst themselves.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree with this, but, after, you introduce strange hypothesis....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<hr noshade size="1"> I looked back to where say after, and after that is almost everything I said! But then again, all I am doing is looking at things from a different perspective while I still can hold a different perspective.
Still, you made me think about "strange" but what is strange?

Well, First of all I am making the ontological assumption that empty space is not empty. I am assuming it is full. Justification? The Chinese always thought this way, almost all esoteric literature refers to it that way, and Bell's theorem demonstrates it, and Hal Puthoff shows us how it works that way and science has a dozen different names for it. Until science decides on the appropriate name I will refer to it as the INSIDE, cuz that is where it is anyhow...

So how would the Universe work if we assume an energy inside of empty space? First of all the creation of matter would not have to occur at a single point or at a certain time. Matter could be created anywhere at any time.

How? Through Plasma currents How? By means of Maxwell's displacement currents. What is that? Maxwell coined the name because he believed in an ether, and displacement currents was how he connected the ether to the four maxwell equations, But when the ether went, his displacements currents went too. When the ether came back in different name, someone forgot to bring back Maxwell's displacement currents too. As Thomas Kuhn says pp77, "perhaps someday we shall know what displacement currents are."

Thus, if we assume the INSIDE is a source of energy, we would find it very strange indeed if the star did not spew out matter...

Just got these links from Hal Puthoff. They don't talk about what I said, but they are interesting nonetheless in our context. The Casimir effect is an experiment usually touted as evidence of the ZPE. Two highly polished plates placed next to each other with stick to each other.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Astrophysics, abstract
astro-ph/9405060
From: Igor Sokolov [view email]
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 13:25:38 -0400 (6kb)
Date (revised): Thu, 2 Jun 1994 13:35:30 -0400
Date (revised): Wed, 22 Jun 1994 18:20:12 -0400
Date (revised): Sat, 25 Jun 1994 23:44:10 -0400

The Casimir Effect as a Possible Source of Cosmic Energy
Authors: Igor Yu.Sokolov
Comments: 6 pages, Latex ver.2.09, preprint UTPT-94-12., (new version - with substraction of the electron self-energy)
Journal-ref: What Next, eds.J.R.Cudell et al. World Sci.,1994 p.119

Energy production due to the Casimir effect is considered for the case of a superdense state of matter, which can appear in such cosmological objects as white dwarfs, neutron stars, quasars and so on. The energy output produced by the Casimir effect during the creation of a neutron star turns out to be sufficient to explain nova and supernova explosions. It is shown that the Casimir effect might be a possible source of the huge energy output of quasars. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">DOI: 10.1209/epl/i1996-00280-2

Europhys. Lett, 36 (, pp. 637-642 (1996)


Gamma-ray bursts, neutron star quakes, and the Casimir effect
C. E. Carlson , T. Goldman and J. Pérez-Mercader


Physics Department, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA
Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM 87545, USA
Laboratorio de Astrofísica Espacial y Física Fundamental
Apartado 50727, E-28080 Madrid, Spain


(received 21 May 1996; accepted in final form 24 October 1996)


PACS. 98.70Rz - Gamma-ray sources.
PACS. 95.85Pw - Gamma-ray.
PACS. 97.60Jd - Neutron stars.


Abstract:
We propose that the dynamic Casimir effect is a mechanism that converts the energy of neutron starquakes into -rays. This mechanism efficiently produces photons from electromagnetic Casimir energy released by the rapid motion of a dielectric medium into a vacuum. Estimates based on the cut-off energy of the gamma-ray bursts and the volume involved in a starquake indicate that the total gamma-ray energy emission is consonant with observational requirements. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<hr noshade size="1">
I wish I could retract my overgeneralisations about Radiation though. It's just that "radiation" is a very general term and except in general contexts, does not actually say much specifically. I think I want to make a distinction between EM fields moving as fields in space in contrast to EM fields resulting from electron and ion current flows, e.g., solar wind.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
I already know that the Black Hole is not really a hole, it is a quicksand made of neutrons. Or so they say. I don't know if they have actually found one. I hear that Cahill did the M&M experiment and found an anomaly. The Big Bangers deny it. The topology of space with black holes... I wonder if they really mean singularities?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We are tempted to introduce astonishing concepts, liking marvelous. Observing what appears for somebody big quasars, and knowing the existence of astonishing mathematical results, the math concept was identified with the observation. But there is no serious proof, no sufficient physical study of the consequences of the mathematical hypothesis.

Big bang, black holes are loquacities.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(JMB)
Observing what appears for somebody big quasars, and knowing the existence of astonishing mathematical results, the math concept was identified with the observation.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately, maybe, I am not a math person. But even if I wanted to become one, which math should I learn? Besides, I once read that math is a tautology - what you get out of it is what you put into it. What this means in a pragmatic sense, I am not sure, but I know that the math starts out with assumptions. What is the major assumption behind a Black hole? I think it is that empty space is empty. If empty space were assumed to be a source of energy, would a black hole be a logical conclusion? Why not a White hole? From which comes energy instead of energy being sucked into it. Turns out that Arp actually talks about a white hole. I hear that white holes can be found in the equations, but they are not allowed. But that disallowance is also based on the assumptions. Seems to me that if empty space is a source, then it would be the black holes that are disallowed...

What is a loquacity?

If gravity rules, how can a globular galaxy exist?