Gravity Probe B

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />what ever you define as the "visible" universe is dependent on the existence of this megastruture to exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Untrue. There may be no megastructure that includes the visible universe as a part. We have no way to observe what exists on scales that large.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">which when it explodes it implies a finite time, not infinity!! begining and an end for this universe!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No such thing. If there is a megaplanet and it explodes, why can't every galaxy in our universe remain intact and unaffected? But whatever happens, all galaxies do have a finite lifetime, after which they either accrete into something larger, or dissolve into smaller things. But no substance ever ends.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: but the reason to support infinity seems to contridicted with giving a time line!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No to this, and no to every question in the rest of your message. As I said, we are not communicating. And you are now asking too many questions answered in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>. I tried to give you the flavor of it so you can judge whether you want to read that source material or not. But I decline to retype that entire chapter onto this MB. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />what ever you define as the "visible" universe is dependent on the existence of this megastruture to exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Untrue. There may be no megastructure that includes the visible universe as a part. We have no way to observe what exists on scales that large.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: irrelevant whether we observe these scales or not, gravitons and elysium( which are according to your theory) are dependent on this megaplanet to exist and when this megaplanet dies they die with it!! the implications.
_____________________________________________________________________

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">which when it explodes it implies a finite time, not infinity!! begining and an end for this universe!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No such thing. If there is a megaplanet and it explodes, why can't every galaxy in our universe remain intact and unaffected?
_____________________________________________________________________

Ques: how? explantion.

_____________________________________________________________________

But whatever happens, all galaxies do have a finite lifetime, after which they either accrete into something larger, or dissolve into smaller things. But no substance ever ends.
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: true

___________________________________________________________________

Ans: but the reason to support infinity seems to contridicted with giving a time line!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No to this, and no to every question in the rest of your message. As I said, we are not communicating. And you are now asking too many questions answered in chapter one of <i>Dark Matter...</i>. I tried to give you the flavor of it so you can judge whether you want to read that source material or not. But I decline to retype that entire chapter onto this MB. -|Tom|-
_____________________________________________________________________

Ans: i have reread this section. however and i note that o -1 there is an infinite divisions and that although applicable to a mathematical position the universe is not so.since o implies a non-existence and 1 a begining but since substance always is there is no between, 0-1. substance has always been. but the implication of a larger scale with our gravitons and elysium dependent upon this scale and the fact that the form in the larger scale has a finite existence causes me to follow that still the universe will end.



___

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />Ans: irrelevant whether we observe these scales or not, gravitons and elysium (which are according to your theory) are dependent on this megaplanet to exist and when this megaplanet dies they die with it!! the implications.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Substance at any scale does not depend on substance at any other specific scale to exist. Gravitons might have simply existed on their scale with no larger forms ever assembling there -- much like water molecules are the largest forms on their own scale.

We still have some strange disconnect I can't put my finger on. I repeat: At every scale, the universe is fundamentally the same, just differing in the details. Gravitons are nothing special, and neither are megaplanets. They are all just forms assembled from an infinity of smaller forms, and are parts of an infinity of larger forms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]:If there is a megaplanet and it explodes, why can't every galaxy in our universe remain intact and unaffected?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ques: how? explantion.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the nature of an explosion. No substance ever ceases to exist. Forms just assemble and disassemble. In an explosion, every bit of substance before the explosion still exists after the explosion. The substance is merely broken into smaller forms moving at higher speeds.

By hypothesis, the galaxies were the atoms of the megaplanet, so they are likely to remain intact as the big planet comes apart over billions or trillions of our years in what would be seen as a sudden explosion on the megaplanet's own scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Ans: i have reread this section. however and i note that o -1 there is an infinite divisions and that although applicable to a mathematical position the universe is not so. since o implies a non-existence and 1 a begining but since substance always is there is no between, 0-1. substance has always been. but the implication of a larger scale with our gravitons and elysium dependent upon this scale and the fact that the form in the larger scale has a finite existence causes me to follow that still the universe will end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, but this whole paragraph was incoherent to me. I have no idea what you mean here. -|Tom|-

Tom

what i'm trying to do here is "Explore the Foundation" of your theory.you have told me that the source of gravitons and it's medium,elysium are from a megaform,that this form's atoms(galaxies)and it's molecules(galaxy clusters)are from this universe,also that all forms are finite. so when this planet explodes,regardless of time,it will take us with it, since we are IN the fundamental make up of this megaform,therefore this universe is not infinite,it is finite.

now in my mind this is a result wanting to "measure" or view them from a mathematical point of view.i noticed that in chapter 1 of your book you constantly referring to give "meaning"too,spin and/or motion.in your two particle example we may not be able to measure their spin or motion but this does not mean that they do not.for instance if one of particles were to move in the verticle then we could see that relative to the other it is either above or below the other even though we may not be able to measure it's movement,we can see that it actually has moved.also if one had moved to eclipse the other either fully or partiality,this also would indicate movement.now i did this from observational point of view.the universe just is, it was here before us without the need for meaning.meaning is our condition.in Zeno's case i find it illogical from the point of view that it is a contridiction to say that there is movement but with no transition in the first place.if you get half way to something then you can get all the way.if for example we were trying to get 5 blocks away from present position and we have gone half way,we have now not only passed fully 2 blocks, but have also gone further than if someone else only wanted to go 1 1/2 blocks,meaning that if i can't to my destination then no destination is possible,not even half way.or half way is a relative thing.the same can be said of the so called paradox of,if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it does it make a sound?

in my way of thinking i look at infinity in this universe this way, as two horns,with one, the small end on the left the larger end on the right,then getting another horn put it on top of the other but in reverse,the large end of the second meeting the first horns small end and the small end of the second on the large end of the first.this represents to me infinity because the small to large scale and then the large to small a closed circle.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] "what I'm trying to do here is "Explore the Foundation" of your theory. You have told me that the source of gravitons and it's medium, elysium are from a megaform ... "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's not even close to what he said.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... ,that this form's atoms (galaxies) and it's molecules (galaxy clusters) are from this universe, ..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Are you sure you are actually reading what he has written? You certainly are not comprehending it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... also that all forms are finite."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah, good. You did get something right.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " So when this planet explodes, regardless of time, it will take us with it, .."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No.

No no no no no.

In a chemical explosion (at our scale), not one single atom is destroyed. They don't even get their hair frizzed. Atoms that were next to each other are separated. But that is probably all. We are safe.

Even in a nuclear explosion only a tiny fraction of the atoms are damaged in any way. And even those are probably not "destroyed". (And if they were, the tiny pieces that were the result of that "destruction" would continue to exist.)

We might also become the victim of the larger scale equivalent of a "spontaneous radioacive decay event". FYI, some of the galaxies we can see in our telescopes appear to be in the process of exploding right now. And, only a few of the stars in those galaxies seem to be effected in any significant manner.

Perhaps in a few billion years, when one of these explosions is nearly over, we will be able to tell how many stars were hurt.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... since we are IN the fundamental make up of this megaform, ..."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Right. Another hit. Good for you. But (just to stir up some more mud for you) that particular mega-form we have been talking about is IN the fundamental make up of yet another super duper giga-form.

And that giga-form is IN the fundamental makeup of yet another extra hyper gigantic tera-form.

And so on ...

(Don't take these prefixes too literally. We have no idea what the actual spacing is as you move up and down the scale dimension. A thousand orders of magnitude sounds like a lot to us right now. But it is probably just a small step in the grand scheme of things.)

Starting to get it now?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[North] " ... therefore this universe is not infinite, it is finite."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It sounds as if you believe that "this universe" is the same as the tiny portion of the actual universe that we are able to see.

And that is way wrong.

The megastructure that Dr. Van Flandern has spoken of is an analogy. His "megaplanet" is an attempt to help us visualize what we might see if we are ever able to move along the scale axis in a manner analogous to our current ability to move along the three spatial axes.

He is *speculating* when he says that, at that scale, our galaxy might might be like an atom is on our scale.

===

So please do not take it so literally.

Pretty please?

===

HINT - until you grok these very basic (*) features of MM, you are not going to have even a slight chance of asking interesting questions.

You know, the kind of question that might lead to finding an actual problem with the theory. Or to an as yet unseen prediction that could give us starships. (Realistically, few of us will ever ask such questions, but it's fun to dream.)

Learning this stuff is worth the effort.

Make it.

(*) As in foundational. Whether or not they are also simple or obvious is an individual thing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

---

[North] " ... also that all forms are finite."

---

Ah, good. You did get something right.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Actually in MM - No form can be determined absolutely considering the infinity of scales.