The T Files The Library Gallery Daily News Leaves Of Wisdom Forums Home
The Book Of THoTH

The Book Of THoTH

Paranormal Research and Discussion 

  Login or Register

Main Menu

Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Table './thoth_sunthoth/nuke_session' is marked as crashed and should be repaired
Status

Welcome

Anonymous

Membership:
Latest: noumasa
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 9
Overall: 8606

Online Now [0]:
Visitors:
Members:

Page Views

We have received
51,794,564
page views since
December 23, 2003

The T Files


Non Fiction

Confucian Analects, by Confucius (500 BC)
Augustine: Confessions and Enchiridion, Translated by Albert C. Outler
The Essays, by Francis Bacon (1601)
The New Atlantis, by Francis Bacon (1626)
Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, by George Berkeley (1713)
A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human knowledge, by George Berkeley (1710)
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglass
The Song Celestial, or Bhagavad-Gita (400 BC)
Is the Bible Worth Reading, an Other Essays, by Lemuel K. Washburn (1911)

Browse The T Files

archive

Video Collection

Psychic / Consciousness
Nina Kulagina

Cool
Vimana Article Scribd

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Larry King special 4 of 4

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Larry King special 3 of 4

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Larry King special 2 of 4

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Larry King Special 1 of 4

Alternative History
Star Visions of the American Southwest

Funny
How To Behave on Forums

UFO Footage
Compilation of UFO Video Footage and Testimony

Science
"Taboos in Science" Dean Radin

Science
Paul Rothemund: Casting spells with DNA

Ancient History
Seven Wonders of The World

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
UFOs In the Bible

Alternative History
Bosnia's Valley of the Pyramids

Phenomena
Shamanism Aliens & Ayahuasca : Graham Hancock Pt.1

Psychic / Consciousness
The Mayan Calendar - Welcome to evolution 2012

Psychic / Consciousness
The Power of Dreams

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Buzz Aldrin UFO Sighting

Alternative History
Sumerian Origin of Humans?

UFO Conferences - Documentaries
Fastwalkers UFO Documentary

Spiritual
Terence Mckenna Shaman Approach to the UFO

Music
Yulunga

Music
Host of Seraphim

Cool
How Vinyl Records Are Made PART 1 OF 2

Conspiracy
Talk by Naomi Wolf..The End of America
























Browse All

Weekly Newsletter

The Book of THoTH Newsletter and Updates


Email:

Free BoT Wallpapers

Book of THoTH Paranormal Wallpaper

Click for full picture.

F5 to see another

Search Site



 
FAQ
It is currently Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:25 am




 Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Just one of those mysteries...
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:06 am 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
It's always fun to take a basic principle everybody knows from grade school and realize it's one of the deepest and most profound mysteries of the universe. This particular principle is old, encapsulated in Newton's very first law, the law of inertia:

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

In other words, its tough to change an object's state of motion, whether you be trying to slow down a speeding el train Spiderman(2)-style or start a motionless boulder rolling. The point of this thread is to ask why? Where does inertia come from? We're going to cover a lot of ground in this one so let's get started.

Equivalence Principle

More massive things have more inertia (it's more difficult to change their state of motion); in fact, that's actually a way to define mass. Everybody's seen Newton's Second Law at some point: F=ma. The force acting on some mass produces an acceleration that depends on the mass. The same force acting on a golf ball and a bowling ball will produce two very different accelerations—obviously a much smaller one for the bowling ball According to that equation that means the bowling must have a bigger “m.â€



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:41 pm 
Pyramid Level III
Pyramid Level III
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 169
Location: South Australia
Great Article Penthar,

Very well written (By You?)
A lot of interesting information there :D , keep up the good work


Domino


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:10 pm 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Very well written (By You?)


Yeah, thanks.



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:37 pm 
Da Boss
Da Boss
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 8778
Location: Now Here
For what it's worth which won't be very much, inertia or the idea of it could be completely wrong.

Quote:
Supposedly influences are limited to the speed of light and below so how can this be? Did the stars somehow know a thousand, million, or billion years ago that that we were going to try to accelerate our dresser to push it to the other side of the room today and accordingly they acted in just the right way eons ago to make everything work out correctly today? Or did their influence cross the gap between us instantaneously (somehow)?


I don't see a problem with that, its sticky stuff for physics but I can accept that it can happen instantaneously at multiples of the speed of light so close as to be indistinguishable. But then again, I think thought itself can traverse any distance instantaneously and be received.

It's my view that whatever happens (moving objects or simply thinking) is both the result of an action and the cause of others however they be defined. Inertia as a principle in that case could be one of the noticeables of that?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:05 am 
Empyrean
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 4610
Location: Florida
Just in the part that THoTH quoted, I thought of quantum entanglement, and their supposed instantaneous "communication." Honestly, I'm too tired today to read the whole thing, but I'll give it a look over soon. Thanks Penthar. :)



_________________
"There is no adequate defense, except stupidity, against the impact of a new idea."
Percy Williams Bridgman (1882-1961) U. S. physicist, Nobel Prize, 1946.

I have a blog!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:34 am 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
The possibility does exist that there's some kind of instant nonlocal connection between masses that would indeed satisfy Mach. The author of that last article I linked to briefly touches on efforts to coerce some kind of instantaneous link between distant masses (to account for inertia) out of general relativity:

Quote:
Roughly, the modern instantaneous action argument goes as follows. In general relativity theory matter "there" tells space "here" how to curve, and space "here" tells matter "here" how to move. (Matter "here" also tells space "there" how to curve.) Thus, in order to talk about any situation in dynamics we must specify the distribution and motion of matter throughout space. (Strictly speaking, we must provide "initial data" on some suitably chosen "three dimensional spacelike hypersurface".) The usual field equations for gravity (Einstein's equations) are not enough, by themselves, to do this it turns out. Because of the finite propagation velocity built into them, we might specify some distribution of matter that subsequently leads to idiotic results. To make sure this doesn't happen, our distribution of matter has to satisfy some additional equations called "constraint" equations. The neat thing about these constraint equations is that, unlike the field equations, they're instantaneous. (Technically, they're "elliptic" rather than "hyperbolic" differential equations.) It's then claimed that inertia is conveyed by the constraint equations -- instantaneously. The use of constraint equations to communicate real physical influences instantaneously is justified by appeal to the instantaneous propagation of stationary electric fields in the Coulomb gauge.


Getting mildly technical there. Anyway, the author then dismisses this idea as unsatisfying, artificial, and ultimately untenable (though, of course, that's far from the final word on it).

Quote:
For what it's worth which won't be very much, inertia or the idea of it could be completely wrong.

It's my view that whatever happens (moving objects or simply thinking) is both the result of an action and the cause of others however they be defined. Inertia as a principle in that case could be one of the noticeables of that?


I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Go on...



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 8:42 pm 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Is jiggling vacuum the origin of mass?

Where mass comes from is one of the deepest mysteries of nature. Now a controversial theory suggests that mass comes from the interaction of matter with the quantum vacuum that pervades the universe.

The theory was previously used to explain inertial mass – the property of matter that resists acceleration – but it has been extended to gravitational mass, which is the property of matter that feels the tug of gravity.

For decades, mainstream opinion has held that something called the Higgs field gives matter its mass, mediated by a particle called the Higgs boson. But no one has yet seen the Higgs boson, despite considerable time and money spent looking for it in particle accelerators.

In the 1990s, Alfonso Rueda of California State University in Long Beach and Bernard Haisch, who was then at the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Scotts Valley and is now with ManyOne Networks, suggested that a very different kind of field known as the quantum vacuum might be responsible for mass. This field, which is predicted by quantum theory, is the lowest energy state of space-time and is made of residual electromagnetic vibrations at every point in the universe. It is also called a zeropoint field and is thought to manifest itself as a sea of virtual photons that continually pop into and out of existence.

Rueda and Haisch argued that charged matter particles such as electrons and quarks are unceasingly jiggled around by the zero-point field. If they are at rest, or travelling at a constant speed with respect to the field, then the net effect of all this jiggling is zero: there is no force acting on the particle. But if a particle is accelerating, their calculations in 1994 showed that it would encounter more photons from the quantum vacuum in front than behind it (see Diagram). This would result in a net force pushing against the particle, giving rise to its inertial mass (Physical Review A, vol 49, p 678).

But this work only explained one type of mass. Now the researchers say that the same process can explain gravitational mass. Imagine a massive body that warps the fabric of space-time around it. The object would also warp the zero-point field such that a particle in its vicinity would encounter more photons on the side away from the object than on the nearer side. This would result in a net force towards the massive object, so the particle would feel the tug of gravity. This would be its gravitational mass, or weight (Annalen der Physik, vol 14, p 479).

Rueda and Haisch say this demonstrates the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass – something that Einstein argued for in his theory of general relativity. "In place of having the particle accelerate through the zero-point field, you have the zero-point field accelerating past the particle," says Haisch. "So the generation of weight is the same as the generation of inertial mass."

The idea is far from winning wide acceptance. To begin with, there's a conundrum about the zero-point field that needs to be solved. The total energy contained in the field is staggeringly large – enough to warp space-time and make the universe collapse in a heartbeat. Obviously this is not happening. Also, the pair's work can only account for the mass of charged particles.

Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow of Boston University is dismissive. "This stuff, as Wolfgang Pauli would say, is not even wrong," he says. But physicist Paul Wesson of Stanford University in California says Rueda and Haisch's unorthodox approach shows promise, though he adds that the theory needs to be backed up by experimental evidence. "If Haisch [and Rueda] could come up with a concrete prediction, then that would make people sit up and take notice," he says. "We're all looking for something we can measure."

>


Just throwing that in there. Interesting but when the reigning king of quantum field theory quotes Pauli to call it not even wrong you don't want to put any money on it...



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:00 pm 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
The original post focused on inertia and not precisely the origin of mass but the two don't exist in a vacuum from each other, so to speak. That news article certainly blurred the lines a little. It mentioned the Higgs field, which in standard lore is the mass-giver, though it hasn't be observed yet. The July issue of Scientific American had a pretty good article on this which is available in its entirety online. The Mysteries of Mass. A snippet:

Quote:
Most people think they know what mass is, but they understand only part of the story. For instance, an elephant is clearly bulkier and weighs more than an ant. Even in the absence of gravity, the elephant would have greater mass--it would be harder to push and set in motion. Obviously the elephant is more massive because it is made of many more atoms than the ant is, but what determines the masses of the individual atoms? What about the elementary particles that make up the atoms--what determines their masses? Indeed, why do they even have mass?

We see that the problem of mass has two independent aspects. First, we need to learn how mass arises at all. It turns out mass results from at least three different mechanisms, which I will describe below. A key player in physicists' tentative theories about mass is a new kind of field that permeates all of reality, called the Higgs field. Elementary particle masses are thought to come about from the interaction with the Higgs field. If the Higgs field exists, theory demands that it have an associated particle, the Higgs boson. Using particle accelerators, scientists are now hunting for the Higgs.

The second aspect is that scientists want to know why different species of elementary particles have their specific quantities of mass. Their intrinsic masses span at least 11 orders of magnitude, but we do not yet know why that should be so. For comparison, an elephant and the smallest of ants differ by about 11 orders of magnitude of mass.

What Is Mass?
Isaac newton presented the earliest scientific definition of mass in 1687 in his landmark Principia: "The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjointly." That very basic definition was good enough for Newton and other scientists for more than 200 years. They understood that science should proceed first by describing how things work and later by understanding why. In recent years, however, the why of mass has become a research topic in physics. Understanding the meaning and origins of mass will complete and extend the Standard Model of particle physics, the well-established theory that describes the known elementary particles and their interactions. It will also resolve mysteries such as dark matter, which makes up about 25 percent of the universe.

The foundation of our modern understanding of mass is far more intricate than Newton's definition and is based on the Standard Model. At the heart of the Standard Model is a mathematical function called a Lagrangian, which represents how the various particles interact. From that function, by following rules known as relativistic quantum theory, physicists can calculate the behavior of the elementary particles, including how they come together to form compound particles, such as protons. For both the elementary particles and the compound ones, we can then calculate how they will respond to forces, and for a force F, we can write Newton's equation F = ma, which relates the force, the mass and the resulting acceleration. The Lagrangian tells us what to use for m here, and that is what is meant by the mass of the particle.

But mass, as we ordinarily understand it, shows up in more than just F = ma. For example, Einstein's special relativity theory predicts that massless particles in a vacuum travel at the speed of light and that particles with mass travel more slowly, in a way that can be calculated if we know their mass. The laws of gravity predict that gravity acts on mass and energy as well, in a precise manner. The quantity m deduced from the Lagrangian for each particle behaves correctly in all those ways, just as we expect for a given mass.

Fundamental particles have an intrinsic mass known as their rest mass (those with zero rest mass are called massless). For a compound particle, the constituents' rest mass and also their kinetic energy of motion and potential energy of interactions contribute to the particle's total mass. Energy and mass are related, as described by Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2 (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared).

...


Long snippet. But there's a lot more.



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:51 pm 
Ambrosian
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 2811
Location: Waiting & Watching
Is it possible that tachyons appear to move backwards in time, because they travel faster than light? Or am I whizzing up a rope?



_________________
Evil: "When I have the map, I will be free, and the world will be different, because I have understanding."

Robert: "Understanding of what, master?"

Evil: "Digital watches."
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 12:00 am 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
There was a thread on that a ways back: here. The short answer is yes. Though they aren't known to physically exist.



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 1:09 am 
Ambrosian
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 2811
Location: Waiting & Watching
OK, if light can be stopped, and then restarted at full speed, couldn't you then encode tachyons with information, slow them down or stop them the way you do with light, and then gather that information? In this manner, you could communicate with the past. It's supposed that tachyons can't go slower than light, but if light can be slowed down or stopped, why not tachyons?

But at that point, does the timeline that would have carried on in the future come to a dead end, or rather, a loopback to the moment the message is received, and a new, different timeline emerge? Or does the original timeline carry on unhindered, and a new alternate timeline branch off and proceed from the point of contact?



_________________
Evil: "When I have the map, I will be free, and the world will be different, because I have understanding."

Robert: "Understanding of what, master?"

Evil: "Digital watches."
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:56 am 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
I'm not a big fan of alternate/multiple timelines and all that. It's a lot easier to maintain consistency when nothing changes. I laid my thoughts out in these two threads (especially the first one):

Back...to the future

time mining



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:07 am 
Ambrosian
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:00 am
Posts: 2811
Location: Waiting & Watching
Where do you stand on membrane theory? Does that pop up in one of the threads anywhere?



_________________
Evil: "When I have the map, I will be free, and the world will be different, because I have understanding."

Robert: "Understanding of what, master?"

Evil: "Digital watches."
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:33 pm 
Oracle
Oracle
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 784
Location: Chicago
It's interesting, cutting edge stuff but not yet on firm enough ground. Some things can be fun but so far in the realm of the theoretical that in some respects they almost don't qualify as science. And no, it hasn't come up in any threads that I know of.



_________________
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made." -- Richard Feynman
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 1 of 1 [ 14 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



 
© 2008 The Book of THoTH Paranormal Research and Discussion Website.
You can syndicate our news  or take your pick of our other feeds from our  Feed List area


(Original PHP-Nuke Code Copyright © 2004 by Francisco Burzi)
Page Generation: 0.13 Seconds