S.S.T. Reply. - an Astronomy Net Blackholes Forum Message

Blackholes Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| Blackholes I \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

S.S.T. Reply.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Keith N. Tullis on May 30, 2004 22:05:27 UTC

Let me get to my books. I need to make sure I'm explaining things correctly. I do remember a couple prdictions that are on the horizon I've read about. I review what they are. SuperString Theory,"Fully" operational- - no, not yet. This theory has persisted for 20 years now and can't be sturck down either. Other theorys have come and gone, several.
Could you rephrase please what you ment about "the nothing" again. It relyed on point particle theory didn't it? And involved infinitys? If I'm not misunderstanding you then here again I recomend brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe".
I'll discuss "the nothing" with you soon. But since I've converted to the S.S.T. I really have lost my perception that infinitys exist. Perhaps your nothing is really an energy point. Energy=mass you know, therefore a dense enough energy field can exhibit the gravitational charicteristics of mass. ---- Wow!
Hope to hear back soon.
L8R
--"After all is said and done, "Gravity Rules".--

Follow Ups:

The meaning of nothing - qazws - May 31, 2004 - 09:35 UTC
- Infinity is a mathematical being - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 14:16 UTC
  - The concept of rules - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 19:55 UTC
    - The most fundamental rule of physics - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 14:11 UTC
      - What?!! - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 16:00 UTC
        
        GR is limited to cases of spherical symmetry - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 19:04 UTC
        
        The GR theory - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 13:45 UTC
        
        I agree with Richard - secretary - June 3, 2004 - 19:18 UTC
        
        The right question - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 20:42 UTC
        
        Because infinity cannot happen - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 01:22 UTC
        
        Congratulations - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 09:05 UTC
        
        All theories are incomplete - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 16:16 UTC
        
        Singularities can exist - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 19:08 UTC
        
        The infinite part of GR has never been tested - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:44 UTC
        
        WHY? - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 09:22 UTC
        
        Several reasons why - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 12:41 UTC
        
        My reply-the complete concept - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 18:11 UTC
        
        You might read up on the work of Fred Hoyle - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:52 UTC
        
        A few questions - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 21:38 UTC
        
        I never have heard of it - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:30 UTC
        
        I don't know - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 08:43 UTC
        
        Google search for singularity, nothing and rules - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:36 UTC
        
        A quote from Kurtzweil's article - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:39 UTC
        
        I'm still waiting... - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 16:47 UTC
- A singularity or a nothing - any difference? - peterw - September 22, 2004 - 12:58 UTC
  - It does a lot - qazws - October 31, 2004 - 09:58 UTC
Actually SST has been struck down - wandaqueen - May 31, 2004 - 12:02 UTC
- Un resolved. - bettysfetish - May 31, 2004 - 15:55 UTC
  - I knew Brian Greene - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 00:43 UTC
    - Can someone explain me...? - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 09:27 UTC
      - I will try - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 14:04 UTC
        
        The Big Question - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 20:10 UTC
        
        No such thing as infinity - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 23:07 UTC
        
        A reply - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 09:47 UTC
        
        I can - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 12:58 UTC
        
        Never say never - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 13:33 UTC
        
        Infinity cannot be observed - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 14:13 UTC
        
        A naked singularity - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 16:31 UTC
        
        Here is obsrvable evidence that GR is incorrect - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 19:15 UTC
        
        That is observable evidence that you... - bruce - June 3, 2004 - 05:53 UTC
        
        An acquaintance of mine says the samething - secretary - June 3, 2004 - 19:27 UTC
        
        They don't have a clue... - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:25 UTC
        
        Kerr may just be a non-symmetric solution - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 16:32 UTC
        
        Nobody is interested in cahill's work for a good reason. - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 21:43 UTC
        
        Put up or shut up - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:46 UTC
        
        A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:57 UTC
        
        Stuff it... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 01:23 UTC
        
        Why are you not answering him - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:33 UTC
        
        I did answer him... - bruce - June 6, 2004 - 09:01 UTC
        
        Neither SST nor LQG is complete yet - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 14:02 UTC
        
        GR is not complete - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 01:23 UTC
        
        Does QM provides a mechanism to stop the collapse of matter? - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 09:17 UTC
        
        Yes- It's in Brain Greene's book - wandaqueen - June 4, 2004 - 10:39 UTC
        
        A full cicrcle - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 14:01 UTC
        
        The GUT theory is extant - wandaqueen - June 4, 2004 - 16:08 UTC
        
        Thank you very much - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 17:03 UTC
        
        GR doesn't have a version of the.... - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:36 UTC
        
        general relativistic effects on a quantum field. - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:50 UTC
        
        Quantum mechanics isn't the.. - bruce - June 4, 2004 - 14:31 UTC
        
        A theory is complete if it includes all domains - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 12:49 UTC
        
        Puzzled about your use of the word complete. - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 20:42 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2025 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins