Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Applied General Relativity

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Fire Fighting - Sub Rant (Part 3 B)

    If there is a vehicle crash and the passenger are all OK, then a cancel code can be sent by typing in the code on a touch screen on the Dashboard. The 4 digit code will be sent to the Response base.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    I am not convinced that the “entangled” experiments are carried out as how the Boss instructed.

    Einstein was convinced that the some of the interpretations of Quantum Mechanics were wrong. In the end, he was probably the only one.
    I would say that the collaboration with him and the other scientists during the era of developing Quantum Mechanic was a failure. The other scientist had the boss right there, and he would state that the theory of Q M was incomplete. Experiment after experiment, debate after debate, then they would make him look like old school news as if he did not have what it takes to think in quantum terms. However he was the one who first realized the quantum nature of light, even before Plank realized it. Plank created the Plank’s constant as a mathematical hack to an equation of black body radiation (spectrum and peak) against Temperature. Just to have an equation that maps to the experimental value, and it worked perfectly. It was Einstein who later looked at the equation and said to Plank. Look here, what you have is the Quantization of light energy. Einstein also wrote a paper on the photoelectric effect. (He got a Nobel prize for almost 20 year later for his discovery and theory on the photoelectric effect. No doubt this significantly contribute to us having solar panels today) He suggested the particle nature of light, aka the photon. He also provided the equation for the energy of the photon. He also calculate the Brownian motion. Who does that. So you can know how pollen grains would actually move in water. He used the actual motion of particles. He also got a physics Nobel prize for this. My point is: At that time, if anybody understood the quantum nature of our world, it was Albert Einstein.

    However other scientists were running with Quantum Mechanics (QM) with some interpretation that would imply that the moon is not there if you are not looking. Einstein had problem with that. Me too. Also a particle can have a spin that is in two opposite directions at the same time, and they call it Quantum superposition. I wonder what Tesla would say, with superposition not adding and canceling each other out. Also some things were non deterministic, but Einstein would say that there is some variable causing it, but we just do not know what it is as yet. He had so much problem with that that he even tried to disprove the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, which he should not have tried still. Scientists were using that to justify the non deterministic nature. The uncertainty principle is mathematically true in its own right but it have nothing to do with something having a non deterministic behaviour. Einstein should have just said that their reasoning was illogical, and left it at that. (Basically if you cannot measure a value exactly, it does not imply that the value is undetermined in nature. In simpler terms, because you cannot measure it it does NOT IMPLY that it does not have a real value, or more than one value at the same time)

    (Werner Heisenberg, Physicist and Quantum Mechanic must have been pissed with Einstein for that. Thus Einstein is partly to blame for the failure in collaboration)

    Einstein even developed the experiment that would settle the argument, but the implementation of it was years before its time. He hoped to disprove the weird interpretations of QM with his suggested entanglement experiment.

    At one time Erwin Schrödinger was against the interpretation of Superposition. And he was the one who made probable the most valuable equation in QM. He devised a thought experiment that would imply that a cat being alive and dead at the same time (And you know we do not encounter any thing like this in our world)

    Some collaboration with Einstein did happen.
    The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) that they interpreted as indicating that the explanation of physical reality provided by Quantum Mechanics was incomplete.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
    Also, the Einstein Rosen Bridge
    Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance.
    https://stillunfold.com/public/uploa...media_qS8c.jpg


    In the end, nobody wanted to work with Einstein because he was stuck on his intuition. Some call it stubborn. But this was his style from the beginning. And without that style, he could not have gotten Special Relativity. I don’t believe what they say. I do not think anyone else would have developed Special Relativity, at all, during the 20th century. Much less GR.

    In the end, nobody entertained his view and he had to develop on his idea by himself. He never finished the Theory of Everything. I believe that his disagreement with the the interpretation of quantum mechanics was what drove him to try and find a theory of everything. In other words, he wanted to complete QM and enhance GR.

    (Near to the end, Einstein stated something about nobody understood the true nature of light, but I can’t find that info again to quote it better)

    Einstein was convince that the theory of Quantum mechanic was incomplete. This was his intuition. Tesla had high regards for a person’s intuition. Coincidence.

    Collaboration with Einstein and his colleague was not a major success in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe this is why Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity has not merged as yet.


    ( Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal "does not imply" any weird Quantum Interpretation. I may rant on the reasoning. Ahh, forget it)




    Quantum Weirdness - Sub Rant

    Quantum Weirdness = Quantum Super Position (up and down alive simultaneously OR dead and alive simultaneously ) + totally probabilistic and non deterministic (entangled particles)

    Einstein suggested an entanglement experiment to test the quantum weirdness that he was in so much disagreement with.

    He suggested to get two entangled particles, put each in a box, then ship them far away from each other. Then open the boxes. Then measure the particles, eg spin

    If the particles are both each in a superposition of up and down at the same time, and when you open it (QM says the waveform “collapses” non-deterministic-ally and you see that one particle is by chance up, and then the other particle is instantaneously match with a down.) Then this would be spooky action at a distance. Either the particles always existed in the up or down state, with some hidden variables specifying the state when the box is opened deterministic-ally, that we don’t know about, or they communicated faster that light which he says relativity rules out. (This is a terrible explanation but I did a previous post on the topic that was written better I think)

    However, the photons, the entangled particle are not isolated in a box as Einstein instructed.

    I am suggesting that there is a permittivity-field between the photons used in the experiments, and the conditions that one photon experiences when it reaches the test point will affect the other photon at the other test point. The hidden variables would be in the permittivity-field itself along with initial conditions of the photon. Thus the photons were never in an isolated box.

    In the double slit experiment, with single photon interference, I suggested that having two slits, changed the permittivity-field than when there was one slit. So when one photon (or electron) at a time is fired (each photon have different initial conditions, but travel in the same permittivity-field and make the same pattern. There is no need to only believe that the photon travels trough both slits at the same time. I am not saying that the photon (or electron) does not travel as a wave. I am just saying, it is not fair to say that the photon (or electron) travels like a particle when there is a single slit but it is a wave when there is a double slit.

    I already explained where this permittivity-field for the photon is similar to the the permittivity-field that causes lightning to pass trough a metal rod in preference to bare atmosphere.

    John Stewart Bell is a brilliant scientist. I never contested Bell’s Inequality because I understand and agree with Bell’s result. I am just saying that the statistics would be bias if the entangled particles experience a matching external field before being measured. A simple oversight, perhaps. This has nothing to do with disproving Bell’s Theorem, as I agree with the theorem and its use to settle the matter.

    Even the Quantum Delayed Choice experiment (a brilliant experiment. You must Google) has the same flaw. From the photon is split into two entangled photons, the permittivity-field between the two photons are connected.

    Modification to the experiment. Fire two entangled photons miles away from each other in opposite directions while the polarizer and detector are in normal position and blocked. Keep blocking the signal (no light can pass). Then for microsecond unblock, and insert a 0, or 120 or 240 degree polarizer just as the photon is passing true. Then block and normalize again. The detectors need to be extremely far apart so that there is no feedback of the permittivity-field at one end with the other, which may travel as fast as the speed of light. Allow the permittivity field to settle before doing another photon test.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quantum Computing - Scientific Sub Rant


    If Quantum Mechanics interpretation is wrong then Quantum computers will have difficultly in resonance as I believe neighbouring “permittivity-fields” can affect particle in a way that is different than the current interpretation. Not everything would be wrong, just the quantum weirdness part. Most features of Quantum Computing could still be possible. Decoherence may be related to the proposed permittivity-field. If I am wrong then I am wrong.

    Good video that explains the programming side of Quantum Computing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Riqjdh2oM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUwZZaI5u0c

    Resonance was a concept that Tesla was good at. I think Quantum Computers can use resonance to crack large prime number codes. I think. I am not fully understanding Quantum Computing.
    If Tesla was alive today, he would build a resonance Computer machine, in his head, before putting it on paper, if it is possible, using Tesla Resonance Even break Quantum Cryptography which is a different concept of cryptography
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiiaAJ3c6dM
    This is a brilliant way to send a key, or rather create a key. And both Alice and Bob will end up with the same key, securely. There is no “weirdness” in this.
    Most of which may still be possible on a Tesla Resonance Computer.



    Black Hole Information Paradox - Scientific Sub Rant


    According to the Late Great Stephen Hawkins, a Boss to give due respect to, using Quantum Mechanics, a black hole radiates at is boundaries, and this radiation is equivalent to the radiation of a black body. This radiation is called Hawkins Radiation. A large black hole radiates low frequency, and a small black hole radiates high frequency. He wanted to merge General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, a deduced a paradox which he wanted to resolve as being useful for the merger. This is the Black Hole Information Paradox. When objects fall into a black hole, then gets radiated back into space, all information before gets scrambled. i.e the original object cannot be recovered. He used QM to develop this theory, however QM itself is based on information being preserved, hence the paradox.

    I am not a fan of some of the interpretations of QM especially the non deterministic nature of it. If that is to be dropped from QM, then there is one solution where there is no paradox. What if we interpret particles outside the black hole interacting with particles inside the black hole whether it be some form of permittivity or field. (We already know that a black hole can have charge, and angular momentum. Thus both electric and magnetic fields are present) Basically, when a photon is emitted from the boundary, it would have been “caused’ to be emitted. Nothing would be random. Those particles with lower energy would be emitted first, then at the final life of the black hole, those particles with the highest energy would be emitted. Even if two black holes collide and merge, and gets bigger, and starts emitting lower energy photons, ALL of an equivalent value, there still would be no scramble of info. (eg a wide mix spectrum in, but constant “black body” out) Only thing that would happen … would be the lower frequencies would go out first (that gives the appearance that the info was scrambled). Then as the black hole shrinks, the higher frequency would go out. When a photon goes out, certain conditions would be met outside the boundary, and the presence is felt across the boundary. I do not know how, but I am thinking about a sort of permittivity or field. Thus it is not be random chance that a photon goes out, and thus the information can be tracked. Also, when the black holes merge, the collision itself would cause a new distribution of particles … I wonder … to allow the radiation of lower frequency photons.


    Remember also that the Hawking Radiation itself, even though uniform black body radiation, it would be seen as new information … for observers outside the black hole. The radiation outwards is likely an encoding of the radiation inwards, if QM is not considered to be random.


    In the paradox, if we drop the idea that “things that happen at the boundary of a black hole is random”, then we can have information being radiated deterministic-ally, somehow. Lets say a black hole has a charge. That charge may cannot leave the black hole, but can affect the field outside it and photon are said to be vibration in the EM field so what is “inside” affects “outside” and visa verso. Maybe the presence of the charge cause a "bending" in the em field. I don’t know.


    A thought experiment to illustrate that “outside” may influence “inside” of a black hole is consider two black holes. One very small like a football, and the other is extremely large.
    If you then have a pole of infinite strength and very long length and very low mass, and you inserted one end into the small black hole … just beyond the event horizon ... Could you pull the pole out! Remember that it is a small black hole, with a mass maybe of Jupiter, but a limited mass, so the force needed to pull the pole out would not be infinite. For an observer very far from the black hole, holding the pole, he does not experience the event horizon, so why would if be impossible for him to get back his pole. Consider when the pole is being pulled out, every particle in the pole develops a space time bending around them, and this is super imposed on the existing curvature caused by the black hole. However there may no longer be a perfect event horizon at the particles in the pole, as oppose to other particles in the black hole trap within the black hole waiting on the right conditions and Hawking Radiation

    Creating a black hole would be possible as well if the Hawking Radiation is deterministic. Imagine reverse Hawking Radiation. If we know certain conditions, we could radiate into a single point, ultra ultra high frequency uniform radiation, followed by semi ultra ultra high frequency, and so on, and create a stable small black hole. The amount of energy needed is far higher than what we can generate today. And this would be dangerous for earth, because it would be difficult to contain and if the black hole falls to the ground, it may have enough tidal force, to break rock apart, and eventually fall through the crust and that might be the end of earth.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Arrow of Time - Scientific Sub Rant


    I am not entirely comfortable with scientist using entropy to signify the arrow of time. It is theorized that a reduce in entropy signifies the forward arrow of time.

    Firstly, Entropy is probabilistic and can be reduced in localized small areas. Does this means that time reverses. No.
    Further more many engines today reverse the entropy on a subsystem but time is not reverse for it. Example, a plant uses solar energy in it leaf subsystem to reduce the entropy of carbon-dioxide and water and organizes it it fruits. Would you say that the fruit goes back in time when it is created.

    Another issue is that everybody experiences a forward arrow of time. And time flows at different rate for everyone. Even though the entropy of the universe , overall, always increases. There is no match between the overall universe increase and time in each subsystem.

    What happens when entropy does not change, does that means that time has stop, since there is no defined direction of flow. So, an isolated box that is filled with a gas and travels slowly in space would not experience a forward direction of time. This sounds incorrect as we know time progresses forward always (The gas experience time but it can be conceived that virtually no entropy is gained). The rate at which time progresses can depend on the box’s speed, and its position in a spacetime well.

    I would rather prefer an idea where the arrow of time is actually matched somehow with some aspect of space time. I have not figured out it yet, but as an example, anything that falls in a black hole, stays in a black hole. To come out of a black hole, you would have to truly experience a reverse in time. What property/ties has changed. Eg things tend to a lower spacetime value? I really don't know. But I would rather see some theory developed on the line of falling into a spacetime well. i.e past is a higher value and future is a lower value (for each particle).

    Also, it is not fair to use the beginning of the universe as the ONLY reference for change in entropy from “then” to the current level for all systems … Since the past, present and future are relative to each other and different for each observer. Your past can be my future. We are relative to each other. Where a system’s entropy may definitely be greater than that at the the time of the big bang (in theory) … Its entropy can ripple, by randomness. It can actually become more or less. This would violate the past, present, and future being mapped to a system’s entropy.

    Entropy can be considered to be order. In a thought experiment with a box which has Maxwell demon sorting fast and slow particles. If the demon know the average temp and sort and test by that. It could rearrange the particles (also, can occur in a one in a million chance if there is pure random sort). The information on the system, and Maxwell’s demon does not have to increase. Further more, information is neither created or destroyed. I really leave this particular rant for another post.

    (Other thought when I’m way over-thinking)

    What if entropy never changes from the “beginning” to the “end” of the universe.

    What if our current universe is in a massive box. Forget the Inflational Theory for a second. The box is so shape (not really a box) that walls will simultaneous reflect every particle back in the direction they came. These particles are all the particles that the universe displaces into deep space. The box is massless. The center of the box coincide with an observer seeing the simultaneity of all particle collisions. Momentum is constant. The box would be so shaped that it reflects all the particles without changing its momentum or the momentum of the universe. The reflection would occur some time in the distant future. The concept is that at some time in even more distant future, particle could go back to a previous position. What would this thought experiment mean for the entropy of the universe. However, this thought experiment does not change the arrow of time.


    Regarding the Infational theory, is it safe to assume that the universe is infinite, because if it was not infinite, what is the to prevent another universe, outside our universe, to then expand and meet our universe. Then what would happen when to two universe meet.

    In the Big Crunch theory, entropy would decrease.

    Any angle that I look, I do not see a decent mapping of the arrow of time with change in entropy. Even though it seems convenient most of the time in or daily lives.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Applied General Relativity (continued…)

    I have not figured it out as yet, but my intuition tells me that “bending” spacetime moves matter, and “moving” matter bends spacetime, but they are the same. In my intuition, nothing moves without spacetime first bending. So every force that is created is just a creation of the bending of spacetime. If I throw a rock, then I interact with the molecules on the surface of the rock. A force exists between the molecule in my hand and the molecule of the rock, that creates a slight bending around that molecule in the rock in the vector of the force. That bending causes the molecule to move accordingly. The force created between the molecules cause more bend for the next molecule and so on. Also the bending travels with the molecule as it causes the motion.
    (Remember a rotating planet drags spacetime as it spins. Or, could it be that a “seemingly dragging” spacetime causes a planet to rotate.) The effects of the dragged spacetime can be felt in orbit (the observation of the Gravity Probe B experiment) This could imply that some component of the bending exists outside of the direction vector of bending causing the particle to move. It could be related inversely proportional to the ratio of velocity of particle to the speed of light minus one. I really don’t know. I cant solve GR equation as I am bad at calculus even for student level, and I would have to be professor level good. I don’t even try. (Assuming a vector bending on each atom in the rotating Earth, calculate that component at z distance perpendicular to each particle, and its sum, as measured in orbit by Gravity Probe B)

    The size of the bending would be proportional to the fundamental component of mass.
    The gradient of the bending would be proportional to the speed.
    Maximum gradient would be speed of light

    I imagine the “bending” is positioned so that the “gradient of the bending” is across the molecule. That is: a differential exist across the molecule (Replace molecule with the most fundamental particles of matter) I have not gotten this intuition to work with photons. And I cannot figure what happens at the singularity (Intuition tells me the bending should be continuous but I have no solution yet). Photons may have 0 component perpendicular, maybe not. (I will eventually upload pictures for some Tesla superposition of Einsteins spacetime bending in 1d )

    The Boss said to think of space and time as a single construct. So forget about space and forget about time for a second and imagine a new parameter name spacetime. Now you can have a variation of spacetime in the familiar x direction. (A simplified 1d concept)

    Edwin Hubble showed Einstein his findings on galaxy red shifts. Then the Boss agreed that the universe was expanding. More research was done by later scientists and the Cosmic Inflation of the Universe was born. Later observations suggested that the expansion was accelerating.

    Inflational thought: what if something happens to light that cause it to loose energy when it travels in space. If so then that would imply that the universe is not expanding. Acceleration thought: If the earth (the solar system, the milky way) is falling into a gravity well then we may not notice it. Our clocks would tick slower, we would not notice it, but everything else would seem to go faster, and the same observations we make of distant galaxies may get blue shift when we measure them yearly. On the other hand, it we are decelerating, then our clocks would speed up. We would not notice, but distant galaxies would seem to slow. And if we measure their spectrum over time, they would show more red shift than initially observed. I wonder if I got that last part correct in GR. This would give the impression the the universe expansion is accelerating or decelerating, when it is our clocks which are changing, and maybe the expansion is constant. Perhaps there is even more to light propagation over large distances, so light from things that are further away are more red-shifted than light from things that are closer by. I do not know.

    When I say decelerate above, I am talking in the context of “relative to absolute space”. Maybe I should say, a frame at absolute rest, rather than absolute space. Consider below:

    The Twin Paradox explained in Layman terms: There are two twins. One stays on the earth. The other one goes into a rocket ship and travels extremely fast. He travels away from earth to a very distant star, and returns back to earth. When he return, he is younger than his twin (As given by Special Relativity). However, every frame can be consider as being correct. The twin on the rocket can consider himself to be stationary, and the twin that was on the earth was the one that was moving away at a high speed. Thus the twin on the earth should be younger. Thus the paradox. (The Boss explained this paradox in terms of Gravitational Time Dilation using accelerating frames as gravity can be considered an acceleration and vice versa, and also using General Relativity GR.) In my Layman explanation: we can give spacetime a value. A moving body (on a per particle basis) has a lower value for spacetime in front it and a higher value behind it (this causes it to move)(imagine some geometry like a v shaped well) and the particle is in this well. The value of spacetime at this particle is related to how fast time travels. The gradient of the spacetime across the particle is related to its speed. (Just like how GR shows that time moves slower for people on the surface of the earth as opposed to people on the surface of the moon, just because difference in the gravitational force. Even if the people are considered to be at rest.) The Boss also said that you can consider the gravitational bending of spacetime by a planet to be like placing a bowling ball onto a stretch sheet. The sheet would bend down where the ball rest. Let the level of the sheet be a value for spacetime. Far away from the ball there is a higher value of spacetime and closer to the ball there is a low value. Also this is proportional to how fast a clock would tick (Its a suggestion, I could be wrong). Imagine something free falls from the edge of the sheet. As it free-falls and moves on the sheet, the velocity could be related to the gradient of the sheet. (I think it is a little more involved than this… where the spacetime bending from the free falling object is superimposed on the sheet, but ignore that for simplicity) Basically, the speed could be the gradient in that direction. And the change in gradient is the acceleration in that direction, aka, value for gravity.
    Now apply the bending of the sheet to a particle that is moving. The particle would follow the bending. Imaging that you have a marble on the sheet, and you press your finger near the marble and move your finger. The marble would follow your finger.
    Now consider two bowling balls on the sheet. And the bowling balls are an increment away from each other. Most likely they are rotating around each other to prevent from colliding. Now consider the incremental space that is exactly between the two bowling balls. It would be nearly flat. And a particle there would not move. But it is still in a gravitational well… so its clock would tick slower than a particle at the edge of the sheet. Furthermore, an entire universe could exist on this small spot. And if the bowling balls move apart, or come together, the section in the middle would rise or fall. Observers in the universe in between may not be aware of any changes in their clocks. Furthermore, in that universe, there may be another (smaller) sheet with its own bowling balls. So the concept of absolute rest is more difficult to use than the concept of relativity. Thus the Layman explanation for the twin paradox is: the twin that was in the rocket was in a lower spacetime well than the twin that was on the earth. And that was the difference between the two twins. And no Paradox (This is similar to the explanation where the acceleration/gravity for the moving twin is different from the twin on the earth) However, I am still trying to work out how to figure out this difference. Or how to determine the relative spacetime value. I am having difficulties using the analogy above in different case scenarios, thus somethings are not quit right. Further more, it is odd how a vector gravity affects a scalar time. Even in the analogy above, the value for space time is pictured to be a vector. Something still not right at all.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,785
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    A little bit more on the weirdness of QM:

    The Casimir Effect. I’ll rant on this another time, but basically this is one experiment and there are a million reasons why 2 thin metal plates can come together in a vacuum, and, this does not prove particles pop in and out of existence randomly and non-deterministic-ally. I am not saying that particles do not exist. I am just saying it is quite possible that many smaller particles exit that we do not know about, and they interact deterministic-ally to form unstable approximations of lager particles that we do know about. It is recent, 1930, that Wolfgang Pauli speculated about the existence of the neutrino. Later it was found, and before that speculation, we thought that there was nothing else. Similarly, quarks were discovered to make protons. Maybe, we have found them all OR maybe more exists. I would rather one of my million dumb explanation, rather that a non-deterministic explanation.



    * Quantum entanglement experiment: Another modification is that the wavelength of the light in the experiment should be a few centimeters

    Scientist should not try to use science to prove religion. 1 Our physical world is completely different from the spiritual world of good and evil. 2. Even if thing are deterministic in a physical world, that has nothing to do with me doing a task A from being good or being bad, whether it is inevitable that I will do task A. It is not determined that I may do good or bad. 3 The existence of our spiritual soul is proof. 4. The physics of this world could be cooked in many different way, and the master, but only the spiritual world matters. 5. Scientist have continually fail from the beginning of science and religion. 6 Our spirits being here in this world could simply be a dream, the world may not be real, at least it may not matter, just the good and bad that our souls perceive. Thus, the spiritual vibes we get from it is definitely real. 7. The Master invented Science. We are just learning it. Any proof, we would have learnt by now. Is not that a pattern. Scientifical proof of religion may not be necessary.


    Youtube learning rocks!
    I did Special Relativity in school and I do not get the calculations at all. I was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of Jamaicans that got that privilege. It ridiculous! I don’t know if there was a General Relativity course, but if there was, then it would be an even smaller fraction of a fraction that would get to do it at postgrad level. I am sure more Jamaicans could understand GR if they had the chance. And I am sure they would understand it better than me.
    Its a horrible inherited culture we have, where only the privilege of the privilege get that level of schooling. The fees alone is an obvious filter. Any ways, thanks to Youtube, I can learn and contribute my two cents to the progress of the world. Youtube and Google is how I am learning GR.
    Music, Games, Dancing enhance the Fun Algorithm. The Fun Algorithm can be used to hack the Caring Algorithm. Children should have fun, and watch Sofia the First. Receiving Care develops care. Having fun makes it easier to give care.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •