Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi ghytrfvbnmju7654 ,
You say " If the coordinate for your energy-dimension
is something other than energy ,
then calling it an energy-dimension is misleading . "


What are the coordinates of the progression from
the big bang with no gravitational energy to
now with 10 ^ 80 " Particles " to
the projected big freeze with , once again ,
no gravitational energy ?

There you go using the words "gravitational energy" again.
I don't even think this has been defined except in
asymptotically flat spacetime.

That coordinate system is the Spatial energyscape
and it's the fifth dimension .

It's basic cosmology , Why can't you see this ?

I believe I've explained to you already that a model
of space-time curvature would require more than one
embedding dimension.

It's very likely that this fifth dimension exists
regardless of how our perceptions change
as when we zoom our instruments .

Absolute material determinism makes it spatial .
And Stephen Hawking does a good job of explaining it.

Stephen Hawking would have to be a super-human teacher
to explain general relativity to someone like you who
knows no math. And if you do know any math, why aren't
you reading real textbooks, instead of these lame
popularizations?

Speaking of determinism, surely you're not one of those
fools that occasionally pop up on this newsgroup, who
think QM isn't any good and we should go back to classical
mechanics. Oh, I forgot; you don't know anything about
QM.

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say " Speaking of determinism ,
surely you're not one of those fools that
occasionally pop up on this newsgroup ,
who think QM isn't any good
and we should go back to classical mechanics . "


I'm sure that QM is Very correct .

The Copenhagen Interpretation is _ Fairly _ correct .

The CI should replace the word " Measurement "
with the word " Biased perception " .

For some of J.S. Bell's thoughts on this see :


If QM is correct, determinism is wrong. Even if you
side with the many-worlds interpretation, you must
admit that the practical world we can see and feel
and touch includes totally random events.

Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say :
" If QM is correct , determinism is wrong .
Even if you side with the many-worlds interpretation ,
you must admit that the practical world we can see
and feel and touch includes totally random events . "


QM is just a bunch of biased perceptions .

QM makes No statement about whether or not
pure nature follows absolute material determinism .
( Nor does The Copenhagen Interpretation . )


" In the practical world "
Coin tosses are obviously Pseudo random .

But QM " Measurements "
don't just produce this kind of pseudo randomness ...
They also produce pseudo order ... Artificial Biases .

This means that there's no _ Genuine _ free will ...
on;y Pseudo free will .

" The past , present , and future ,
are only illusions , however persistent . "
-- Einstein

In other words :
We're biased by our position in the timescape .
( And , I add , by our position in the heatscape . )

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...


But Einsteinian spacetime is very dynamic :
In the long run , As things get ever colder ,
the earth will likely hit the sun .
And the sun will likely hit Sagittarius A* .
( The frozen star at the center of the Milky way . )


Did you see that Twilight Zone episode?

This woman wakes up in her apartment, painting pictures.

She is one of the few remaining city dwellers, as the Earth,
is beginning to spiral into the sun, making things hotter and
hotter.

Then near the end of it, she gets knocked unconscious.

Then she wakes up and it's all a dream, the earth is actually
moving away from the sun and it's deathly cold.

That's what are you naysaying physicists remind me of.

One day it's heat, the other day it's cold.

Hi John John John ,
You ask :
" Did you see that Twilight Zone episode ? "


How do you remember all these Twilight Zone episodes ?
You must have the Sci-Fi channel .
I haven't had a TV for about 15 years now .

You think :
" That's what you naysaying physicists remind me of .
One day it's heat , the other day it's cold . "


" Naysaying " ?

Some people care about the big picture ... Some don't .

What do you care about ? Toe Jam ?

(ghytrfvbnmju7654) wrote in message om...
Jeff Relf wrote in message ...
Hi Jim , [ ghytrfvbnmju7654 ]
You say " Speaking of determinism ,
surely you're not one of those fools that
occasionally pop up on this newsgroup ,
who think QM isn't any good
and we should go back to classical mechanics . "


I'm sure that QM is Very correct .

The Copenhagen Interpretation is _ Fairly _ correct .

The CI should replace the word " Measurement "
with the word " Biased perception " .

For some of J.S. Bell's thoughts on this see :


If QM is correct, determinism is wrong. Even if you
side with the many-worlds interpretation, you must
admit that the practical world we can see and feel
and touch includes totally random events.
---------------------
the fact that particle world seems to be random is only our fault.
it is at this moment too complicated to us
and we lack the propoer tools and knwoledge
but at the end of the day, it is clear ,at least to me,
that our world is absolutely deterministic.
it cant be otherwise.
sometimes it seems to have many possibilities
but the fact is that at the end of the day only one happense
it only seems to us to have many possibilities, but the many posibilites
belong to many events not to one event.
so to say that our world is porbablistic is a sort of surrender-
sort of giving up the need for more knowledge.
-------------
all the best
Y.porat
--------------------

On 8 Sep 2003 17:15:44 -0700, (john bailo)
wrote:


Then she wakes up and it's all a dream, the earth is actually
moving away from the sun and it's deathly cold.

**** happens

That's what are you naysaying physicists remind me of.

One day it's heat, the other day it's cold.

I say goto heaven. goto hell. (tm. Roy - BladeRunner.dvx)

Hi Y.Porat ,
You correctly say :
" The fact that particle world
seems to be random is only our fault . "


Exactly .

If we fail to correctly forecast the weather
it's because of our ignorance ,
not because nature is somehow intrinsically random .

^.^ wrote in message ...
On 8 Sep 2003 17:15:44 -0700, (john bailo)
wrote:

Then she wakes up and it's all a dream, the earth is actually
moving away from the sun and it's deathly cold.

**** happens

That's what are you naysaying physicists remind me of.

One day it's heat, the other day it's cold.

I say goto heaven. goto hell. (tm. Roy - BladeRunner.dvx)

"Wake up! - Time to die!"

Again, for the Naysayers:
http://www.geocities.com/warpcore91/Warp_drive.html
Is there one who will say, "Yay?"

First question:
If all the energized surfaces are encased in asphalt or tar,
is the "ionic wind" explanation valid?
If built this way, doesn't it constitute a "vacuum test"
by it's very composition?

Second Question:
If you don't build it, how can you dismiss it?

Jeff Relf wrote in message ...


What do you care about ? Toe Jam ?

1 and 1 and 1 is 3

Got to be good looking cause he's so hard to see.