I'm taking a break before tackling one of the larger edits I have. It's a cold morning, and yesterday, for the first time in months I took a weather day from swimming and allowed sore joints a chance to heal. My musculature is, oddly, in the best shape in years, all wasted. Everything below the muscles has continued to age and however much it heals it is always some less than the day before.
The destruction of empire, in view of desolation. But today, I am anxious to see whether it is, in fact, too cold to swim as it appears. I stepped outside and realized that the water temperature outside would not heat up in whatever sun there was today. I looked at the long term weather forecast, beautiful days for walking together, but too cold for the water temperature to rise during the day. I feel the time is past when every day I need only throw off my clothes and swim.
While I have dug out and dusted off my pass to the inside pool, it is a dirty, crowded thing, mocking the peace and beauty of swimming while the birds and bugs fly above me.
If that is what the future holds, then so be it. If winter comes, spring cannot be far behind, I've read.
For the moment, the joints are not as sore, the mind more rested than not.
There is, however, a growing restlessness. The muscles need the exercise they missed even as the swollen joints deflate. The mind becomes alert again, wanting something it cannot have, for a lack of a better word peace, the kind that comes from going to sleep feeling arms around the one that's wanted and waking up self satisfied. Perhaps I could be content if I had not glimpsed what life could be, if I did not see what could happen if people were intelligent and kind, if I controlled my own destiny instead of living like a kite with a cut string.
During this brief break, I am not doing anything of real value. My writing otherwise is near pointless. I could, perhaps, help save this country from the Chinese for a time, but it seems like empire is fading, a mirror of the lives of those who live in it. The science I have ruins itself. If it is false science, it is meaningless and if it is true it is pointless. Either way it is less than important. I should perhaps put this all aside and just write what I enjoy and perhaps that will come with time, for my time in this place where I find myself is finite. I feel like it can be measured now in months if not weeks. But I don't know what waits on the other side. Must I finish my life in a quiet mediocrity or shall I vanish is a blaze of glory; one perhaps that I will not be able to see.
I did run across this which I found irritating, not for its science, but for the conclusions of the writer who could only have sought some brief flare of sensationalism. It is not science as it is written whatever science hides in the underlying work. It is a parody of science as Halloween is a parody of the true horror that lies just behind the masks we wear on October 31.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God. This article is incredibly stupid. The conclusion is not relevant, that's the worst of it. The science is old and dates from before 2002 and is largely covered in "The Theory of Everything" to the extent it has any real novelty, but it isn't terrible science, just the article is terrible. If you read that book, you'll see a lengthy discussion of expansion and virtual particles. What might be considered "new" in this 2015 article is to reach an absurd conclusion. This isn't to say that there is or is not a god, but to conclude anything about the universe from the perceived existence of virtual particles is nonsense.
Since there is nothing new or relevant in the article, why mention it? Well, the reason is that the mechanism which I wrote about some time ago for the creation of an intersecting F-series system appears here just in the guise of space-time and virtual particles. The article speaks in terms of expansion and the random creation of initial virtual particles working together to give more substance to the virtual particles.This is much the same as the mechanism for two intersecting spirals, although that's both are just model.
Another place where the two have some symmetry is with gravity as a pull towards non-linearity.
In the case of this article, they talk about the balance of positive and negative forces in the same way it was covered in 2002 speaking of the balance of: "negative
gravitational energy of the universe and the positive matter energy." This is both the same and less than the discussion in 2002 and Hawkins which points out that the ability to create virtual particles gives rise to a universe which has the potential to create additional information, as long as the net amount of information is balanced around zero.
This was rejected in even the early discussions in NLT and EMT before a clearer understanding of the information basis for the universe provides a better definition, the amount of information in the universe under NLC is fixed. Virtual particles are, however, in both a good conceptual framework, because no particles in NLC are real, they not even particles, space itself is made of the same quantum building block, they are all merely quantum bits of information.
This article covers the same ground as NLT, they talk about minimum length, which NLC shows is more nonsense. It is, however, at least related to the concept of quantum information which is much like a minimum length. Sadly, this is even less novel, even NLC doesn't come close to getting this concept first, it being 2600 years old, as I was told, the work of Parminides and Xeno.
The absurdity in the article is because it continues to rely on mechanisms that are pre-NLC mechanisms and therefore necessarily more poorly defined. The conclusions and theories are presumptive in the extreme saying the same things NLC says about the beginning of o-space; but not getting any closer to g-space than any other theory. It says that we are organized nothing which is a term that I like quite a bit, but we are not nothing. Meaningless, perhaps, but not nothing. They make the same mistake as all classic (pre NLC) physics makes, they accept distance as a reality, the loose site of the fact that if you can divide nothing into two halves that have value than nothing is something farm more concrete than anything else. It is something that NLC has defined, while other theories fumbled with the concept. That is, that space is the same as non-space. Space is merely information expressed with a single coordinate changing at once. This article presumes that space is not the same building block but that you can, instead, drop out of space into some place that is not space, but is instead a primordial material from which virtual particles can be created. While they wander around this point, the article fails to realize what it is saying. This distance between a minimum size (more correctly the difference between one bit of information and no information, or the environment where the information is crated) is something so vastly more important than o-space that it can be seen as the "true" reality that our universe only captures as on file or a painting. I refer to it as g-space, but only to show that I have a poor understanding of something.
The writing is a failure of a sort, because they make assumptions that are not relevant. The article says the existence of imaginary particles somehow precludes a god at the point in creation. I'm not ready to say that science says much about god, but allowing the origin of the universe to be tied to a non-informational or informational balance of positive and negative particles or bits of information is fine, but it does not say anything about the environment where these are created, nor is it new. To assume they can exist without an origin that we fully understand, and thereby that there is or is not a god is not news, but sensationalist nonsense. We exist, therefore there is creation at some level. The more minimalist the source of creation, I'm assuming so far that quantum information is the smallest bit that has been arrived at, being smaller by far and simpler than two part virtual particles; but no matter how small we get, the question of where the information comes from is far more important than to say, aha, we can show a model for spontaneous information, therefore, it exists randomly. NLC firmly rejects randomness, the universe itself rejects randomness. The scientist who were interviewed for the article rejected randomness. The only one who doesn't seem to recognize this is the author. The more outlandish the origin of the universe, the less it answers any questions. Sadly, however, the science of origin is consistent with what NLC and particularly F-intersecting spirals covers so I rant for no reason other than to rant. I am merely frustrated that so many see so much more clearly than I do. I do not refer to the scientist and certainly not to the writer of this article. No, I refer to those who have captured the frustration that I feel in the fall.
http://www.arthritisandfolkmedicine.com/cole.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2DqZOUvFy8
No comments:
Post a Comment