What Happened?

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote: Do you think he’s really gone or is he bluffing?

Hmm. We might need some more robust moderation around these forums. I’m pretty laissez-faire

…
This makes me grow nostalgic for John Astin, in the Brothers O’Toole:

Michael O’Toole:
…
And while I, of all people, fret and sweat for a way to pull these Simple Simons out of the bog, you stand around making flatulent noises for the titillation of the vulgar mob. And while he’s bubbling himself, what are you doing, you pusillanimous pack of popcorn pickers? You clattered clutch of clucks? The town dilapidating around you, coasting downhill in a handcart to Hell while you stand about gaping for flies and going patty-cake with your hands!
Mayor: There now! Now just one minute you!
Michael O’Toole: All right, all right, all right! Fine! Keep it, and treasure it the way it is! For when all this trash has collapsed into one pile, and the howling wilderness has claimed its own again, I want you hicks to be happy, belching and spitting, laughing and singing, swinging from tree to tree, with your friend Soapy Sam here, the Uriah Heep of the hookworm belt, standing around below waiting to steal anything that falls to the ground. If a nut should drop and fall – leave it lying there. It’s probably my little brother Timothy.

…

You shouldn’t be reading and admiring such stuff, Rezwan. It’ll pollute and twist your girlish mind! :coolsmirk:

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan wrote: Do you think he’s really gone or is he bluffing?

Until he proves otherwise…

[Rezwan]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Until he proves otherwise…

Heh!

If he does prove otherwise, that statement’ll get you in hot water again:

dash wrote: I see. Now as a bit of useful feedback, in the future you might want to state exactly what you mean, because the “Until then…” was very ambiguous, and what first came to mind was nothing whatsoever like what you intended to convey.

Such exactitude. From a guy who claims others don’t acknowledge the limits of knowledge. What about the limits of language? Language is like plasma. You can’t straightjacket it into something exact. It defies control. It may give the illusion of precision but it’s really fundamentally ambiguous stuff.

You have to kind of dance with it. Get into a groove.

Your “Until…” statements have seemed pretty straightforward to me. But what do I know?

[Phil’s Dad]

Rezwan wrote: Language is like plasma. You can’t straightjacket it into something exact. It defies control. It may give the illusion of precision but it’s really fundamentally ambiguous stuff.

…and if you use it in the wrong way it blows up in your face. :bug:

I shall miss him in a way. I learn a lot from those who criticise me. It helps me clarify my own thinking and sharpen my proposition.

But what do I know?

You are the Administrator. You are all knowing

[pluto]

G’day from the land of ozzzzzz

To understand or even get close to understanding everything one needs to understand the properties of quantum matter close to the seed process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0640
Loop quantum cosmology with higher order holonomy corrections

Authors: Dah-Wei Chiou, Li-Fang Li
(Submitted on 3 Jul 2009 (v1), last revised 13 Aug 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: With a well-motivated extension of higher order holonomy corrections, the quantum theory of loop quantum cosmology (LQC) for the $k=0$ Friedmann-Robertson-Walker model (with a free massless scalar) is rigorously formulated. The analytical investigation reveals that, regardless of the order of holonomy corrections and for any arbitrary states, the matter density remains finite, bounded from above by an upper bound, which equals the critical density obtained at the level of heuristic effective dynamics. Particularly, with all orders of corrections included, the dynamical evolution is shown to follow the bouncing scenario in which two Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) solutions (expanding and contracting) are bridged together through the quantum bounce. These observations provide further evidence that the quantum bounce is essentially a consequence of the intrinsic discreteness of LQC and LQC is fundamentally different from the WDW theory. Meanwhile, the possibility is also explored that the higher order holonomy corrections can be interpreted as a result of admitting generic SU(2) representations for the Hamiltonian constraint operators.

There are numerous scientific papers on the mechanisms on transient phases where normal matter is changed to Neutron matter to quark matter to varies composites and Neutrino matter and the properties of such compact matter that is able to form jets that are able to eject matter far far away short distance and extreme distances such as millions of light years as an example of giant jets formed from the centre of AGN found in the centres of clusters of galaxies. It is also fantastic how this degenerate matter has a memory to form normal matter again. Einsteins E=MC^2 equation works. These jets have the potential to form the spiral arms of future galaxies. What I say I can also support by observations via images.

[Phil’s Dad]

Pluto, you have explained how, but can you explain why?

[pluto]

G’day

Is this new ground for you?

How far do I explain the properties of Quantum matter?

The formation of jets?

Do you want images?

[Phil’s Dad]

pluto wrote:

To understand or even get close to understanding everything…

I was reacting to this part of your last post.

You seem well versed in explaining how the universe works for which I take off my hat to you. I was just wondering what your thoughts are on why it exists at all. You would need to answer that to get close to understanding everything.

(Pictures would be good :wow:)

[pluto]

G’day

The Universe does not need a reason to exist.

It exists without limitations.

It exists because matter cannot be created or distroyed.

It exists because matter recycles from one form to the next and this is where the fun starts in understanding the formation and evolution of form.

This is not coming out of my head, its coming from the many many papers explaining the events by using science and observations rather then ad hoc theories to make a model work.

[Phil’s Dad]

pluto wrote:

The Universe does not need a reason to exist.

Simple logic of course says you are right. It does not need a reason. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

If I could bring this back down to earth.

FF could be just an interesting experiment in a laboratory. It doesn’t need a purpose. Mr Lerner and his team have long since figured out how. Now they are just proving it to the rest of us.

The question that makes it special is why. Why does FF matter (no pun intended)? Why do we want it to succeed? Why would governments and businesses roll it out across the world? Why would any one want to stop it? If we know the answer to those questions we can address the people that will make it happen in the right language; and help to make it happen.

Why stands head and shoulders above any other question.

[pluto]

G’day Phills dad

I feel that I’m talking to myself. My son is Phill and thus I’m called Phill’s dad.

Why does the universe exist, because it is infinite? The Laws of physics can be applied to it.

Why do we have different phases of matter? That is a different type of “WHY”.

My favorite word through school was “WHY”: I wanted to know why things work.

Such as

When someone says the Star collapsed into the core. I want to know the “WHY” the WHEN” the “HOW” and the “WHAT” and so on.

[Phil’s Dad]

I think we both share a healthy curiosity. Long may it remain so.

[pluto]

G’day Phill’s Dad

If you had one question about cosmology.

What would it be?

[Phil’s Dad]

I know you would hate me if I answered truly (which would of course be; WHY?) 😉

Instead let’s go with one of many lesser questions that spring to mind. 8-/

Sans big bang, where did relic radiation come from? :smirk:

[pluto]

G’day

What do you mean by relic radiation?

Also what do you think of the BBT and the expansion of the universe?

Please do not think I’m pushing the question aside.

[Author]

Posts