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 rousejohnny</i>
<br />The space between the planets is full of elysium as I understand it. The question I have is, if the elysium density is greater for planets, star, etc.; doesn't this require differencial density generate a "flow" in the elysium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If a mass suddenly materialized out of nothing, the elysium would need to flow to get into equilibrium (density balance) with the mass. But because masses pre-exist, little flow is needed to maintain equilibrium. When a mass accelerates, that sets off a gravitational wave in the elysium at the speed of light to restore the disturbed equilibrium.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You said as I interpreted that pull was the absence of push. Protons push, electrons don't so they "pull" which is the absence of push... What does a neutron do that allows the interaction of the strong nuclear force and causes the absence of anti-matter in our universe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The elysium sheathes around protons and electrons merge and combine to form a strongly bound nucleus containing "neutrons". But to make sense of this, you really need to read "Structure of matter in MM" in our December MRB. It really is a longer story than I can type into short messages. The figures probably help too. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: To be truly exact would require an infinity of coincidences...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[Skarp]: Thats just it - The MM provides that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, MM does not require any coincidences of the type I described (duplicates exact over an infinite range of scale).

<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]: ...unlikely to happen even with an infinite number of tries.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[Skarp]: There is no number of tries - That implies a finite sum. We are talking about a statistical certainty when infinity gets tossed in.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not so. If one thing exists in an infinite universe, there is no requirement that an exact duplicate also exist.

I asked you to explain your reason for asserting that it must be true, but you neglected to do so. You simply asserted it again.

<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]: Take for example the set of all integers. It is infinite. But the last time I checked, there were no duplicates anywhere in that infinite set. Isn't that a counterexample to your assertion?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">[Skarp]: Every integer is a duplicate. Thats the very nature of the counting process. Each integer is a one. You don't count like this - (1, 1.5693, 68.3, 9, 6.2, 7.7 10.653,). Rather like this 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm just not following your logic. In what way are the integer "1" and the integer "2" exact duplicates? They have the property "integer" in common, but are different quantitatively, sequentially, and in many other ways. Your reasoning seems to require that the set of all integers contain an infinite number of "1s" and "2s", which is clearly not the case. -|Tom|-

<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: so where does this protoplanet fit in?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I spoke of all the galaxies in the visible universe being like "atoms" of a megaplanet on an immense scale. How is it relevant whether that megaplanet orbits a megastar or is a rogue? Its condition is unobservable to us because the range of scale we can see, like the range of space and time, is limited. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If one thing exists in an infinite universe, there is no requirement that an exact duplicate also exist.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Just so as to pin you down to understand where you are coming from - Are you to say that there is a requirement that there are no duplicates in an infinitely scaled universe?

Is our scale finite?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm just not following your logic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,,,,,,,,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,,,,,,,,

Both lines above represent the same thing. For instance - Eight in the second line is just another one. It subsumes the seven ones before it( 7+1=8 ).

In reality there are only ones, one at a time.

<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 />

<i>Originally posted by north</i>
<br />Ans: so where does this protoplanet fit in?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I spoke of all the galaxies in the visible universe being like "atoms" of a megaplanet on an immense scale. How is it relevant whether that megaplanet orbits a megastar or is a rogue? Its condition is unobservable to us because the range of scale we can see, like the range of space and time, is limited. -|Tom|-
____________________________________________________________________

Ans: just to make sure i got this right,the universe is this planet's atoms,gravitons source is outgassing during formation of this protoplanet and the medium for these gravitons is the atmosphere of this planet.

why does this not strike you as a finite situation?,when the planet does die,no matter the reason it will,it will take all the universe with it.

now since it is just a matter of scale,physics is the same,how does something 1000 times the universes size produce something billions times smaller than even an atom?

if this planet is in a solar system then it must get energy from it's Sun and therefore energize it's atmosphere,which should brighten our universe at some point. there is not one planet in our solar system that does not have it's atmosphere affected or energized by the energy from the Sun. if a rogue i'm sure that the blast of a supernova would blast away any atmosphere it had.

Even though I do not agree with most the ideas you have about planets and SN events, I do agree with the idea about 1 being a unit and 6+1=7 makes sense too. So, being that 1 is a concept that fits in the real world it seems a small step to use that as a quantum number. You seem to reject that step and I wonder if that is correct and if not is the quantum number exceptable? I'm sure I am broad brushing this detail so please allow for that if you can.