Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:16:28 -0500

Thanks Ron, for the teaching in particular particles. Allow me to interspace some naive remarks into your text
John
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ron McFarland
  To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
  Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:39 AM
  Subject: Re: Black Holes and Gravity Carrier


  On 26 Feb 2004 at 11:37, John M wrote:
> Ron:
> do you believe there are non-virtual gravitons?
> John Mikes
  [RMcF]:

  Greetings, John. Over the decades I've waffled a lot on that
  very question. I currently do not believe that any type of
  gravity force carrier exists, and it is an attempt to
  explain the (seemingly verified by observation of supernova)
  accelerating expansion of the universe that tilts me in that
  direction.
  [JM]:
  Agree, but it is a great idea and many awards, tenures,
  prixes were accelerated with it. Hubble was a genius, just
  did not consider other (less plausible?) explanations for the
  redshift than the fashionable optical Dopler.
  So you don't believe the 'real', only the 'virtual' which
  shows appreciation in imgination. (Read on)
  [RMcF]:

  But I do believe in the existence of virtual particles, and
  I further believe that our entire universe is a rather
  improbable but possible collection of virtual particles.
  Actually, I think there might be 2 entirely different
  classes of virtual particles. One type is seen as
  particle/anti-particle pairs. The other type has no anti-
  particle pair, and the first type of virtual particles along
  with all the matter in our universe is composed of it. I
  think of this second type of virtual particles to be a
  localized (meaning the spheroid and non infinite but
  expanding boundaries of our entire universe) energy
  fluxation against a truly infinite area that is on the
  average composed of 100% nothingness. That fluxation I think...
  [JM]:
  If you just "think" about 100% nothingness, it disappears: by
  thinking of it you imply the information of such and that makes
  it already into "somethingness" .
  [JMcF]:
  of as being something not at all related to nothingness, I
  think of it as being completely separate and not sharing any
  properties of nothingness. Nonetheless, I think of the
  fluxation as being exactly that - a fluxation that seeks to
  ultimately return a localized area of (on the average) 100%
  nothingness back to its average energy density of exactly
  zero. I think that gravity is that `seeking' phenomenon, the
  universal `desire' to return to an equilibrium condition of
  zero energy.
  [JM]:
  Zero energy could not start anything, a universe has got to
  get started. Do you assign that to "outside" factors only?
  Or - as seen below - a nihilistic solipsism?
  [RMcF]:

  Through some more convoluted thinking, I think of space/time
  and matter/energy as being `universally localized'
  expressions of that `seeking' phenomenon, i.e. what is
  measurable within the spheroid volume that we call our
  universe. I also think that the `seeking' phenomenon, not
  being particle based, is a true analog phenomenon and thus
  not describable by QM; it is a separate thing expressed as
  space/time coexisting with an ultimately temporary condition
  known as matter/energy. My thoughts are that space/time and
  matter/energy, these 2 things, are not at all related to
  each other and that they are what we can `locally' measure.
  For lack of a better word, I've thought of that `seeking'
  phenomenon as a sort of tension that is not a force nor is
  it energy. Weirdly, I think that our universe exists and is
  only measurable within its own framework against something
  that we call space/time, but that on the average and in the
  context of infinity it never really existed, because an
  equilibrium of 100% nothingness exists on the average. That
  thought is quite difficult to fully explain.


  And I've certainly been wrong before!


  But the thought of virtual particles appearing and
  disappearing (and so on the average never having existed)
  affecting upon our universe is also quite difficult to fully
  explain. Perhaps one must conceptualize outside the boundary
  of our universe in order to explain our universe.
  [JM]:
  I conceptualize 'my' multiverse as fluctuations of inevitable
  stress-seeds in a Plentiude of Everything in total dynamic
  exchange, an infinite symmetry where the completeness of
  diversity produces violations of the invariance = BigBangs,
  i.e. fluctuations into universes which re-dissipate into the
  symmetry in a timeless manner. This is outside the boundaries
  of our universe.
  The dissipating "stress-seeds", however,, are called 'energy'
  in the reductionist physics. So I disagree with your zero-energy
  startup and only the endup is such when "universe" also
  disappears in the Plenitude.

  [RMcF]: Ron McFarland

  [JM]: John Mikes
Received on Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:30:01 PST