Comment

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 24, 2012 at 8:12pm

I am sorry planck volume is 1.something x 10-105 not area.

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 24, 2012 at 8:11pm

Planck length is 5,? x 10-45, planck area or singularity is 1.8? x 10-105.

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 24, 2012 at 7:56pm

I'm just skimming the PDF of the article, it's claiming "Microscope down to the Planck length…"

I'm going to wait to get a hard copy to read it, my tolerance for big blocks of text on a screen is low. Which issue of Sci Am (special issue?) were you speaking of, do you have a link?

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 24, 2012 at 7:50pm

No sounds interesting, but the energy to create a black hole or worm hole is beyond human ability.

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 24, 2012 at 7:38pm

"A black hole would be a singularity whose histories have been completely stripped away…"

Have you read Susskind's "Black Hole Wars"?

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 24, 2012 at 7:22pm

I have read his article in Sic Am,s quantum issue, this month. He is talking about quantum scale space the size of a photon and is limited to larger than planck volume, I am talking smaller. His space is capable of energy transference and wave propagation. I am talking about smaller than a singularity. 

Take a yard stick, in quantum terms has a center and center of gravity, you could balance the yardstick in the tip of a pencil. You could find the exact center if it were made of carbon 12 atoms in an uneven amount, however if the number of atoms were even, the exact center would be a cartesian point not the center of an atom. If you spin the yardstick on a tip of a pencil )or diamond to be more precise) would the entire yardstick spin? yes even the center point. This would mean a point in space without size can spin. No science or instrument can measure this size, only the quantum fluctuations of the photons wave/particle properties as they pass through.
And the particle properties are only apparent when another mass or particle interacts with it.

A point in space not only spins it spins in three directions at once without having any size, the spins are perpendicular and result in the 3D world we live in, not to mention the electric and weak nuclear force also are 3D. Soon discoveries will find the Strong nuclear force and even time is 3D. Because space spins in three directions at once at a sub-quantum level.

This would mean the big bang was not the result of membrane or brane colisions but the intersections of three one dimensional lines with spin, color, charge and other properties we have not yet discovered. Gravity and time result in the 3 spins creating a quantum field that resonates with the entropy or history of its wave to particle collapses. The universe is expanding because points in space absorb information. A black hole would be a singularity whose histories have been completely stripped away, it would be surrounded by 2D points at the event horizon causing an imbalance in time-direction/gravity/relativity 3D time. If you want to take a deeper (Glimpse into the mind of God)-Einstein, keep the discussion going. 

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 24, 2012 at 4:42pm

Found this...

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 23, 2012 at 12:38pm

Great special edition.

By coincidence, I've already been looking for this issue (I think) every time I pass a magazine rack, for the cover story.

Comment by Richard ∑wald on February 23, 2012 at 12:28pm

First, all powerful is a term for theists...

Then why bother with it if the proof is (supposedly) scientific?

  "Second, Science deals only with logic and math…"

This statement denotes limitation, which was what I was expressing, you've since added "logic", this more than adequately covers the "more than" I was referring to.

...not philosophy and spirits unless you ask why.

Science has a philosophy, as for the "why", in regards to "spirits", most attempts to explain the how and why of spirits from a standpoint of science; can often be shown to be pseudoscience and/or using flawed methodology.

Third, describing pi (with the current standard model ) is not what I was doing.

This doesn't address my question.

I am explaining infinities exist like the number of digits required for the exact value of pi. And no nothing ever brings you back to where you began because we live in a four dimensional world, same place in 2 or 3 dimensions is not the same place in time EVER.

So what? Time isn't a spacial dimension, nothing is ever in the same place in space/time. Why do you think physicists often represent time as a +1 dimension when describing multi-dimensional space (whether it's 1,2,3, …or 9 dimensions)?

Fourth, deep space telescopes have seen areas of space where atomic numbers and the standard model are different, read American Scientific "TIME" issue Jan. 2012.

No need, this was not what I was addressing, my problem was with your claim, "Deep space telescopes have shown at the very beginning…"

We cannot see into a blackhole but it has been postulated space on the other side of the event horizon is just like ours.

I wasn't referencing a black hole event horizon, but specifically "the particle horizon of the observable universe.

And Euler's number has also been proven a "only in our standard number" universe constant. Lastly the square root of 2 is an imaginary number like the number of Gods.

Since so far, the only property of pi you are making reference to is the fact that it's an irrational number. What difference does it make which irrational number is represented in your example?

Comment by thewoodenwand on February 23, 2012 at 11:43am

Typo that was supposed to be Sci. Am. not Am. Sci. sorry. Great special edition.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page