J. J. Lodder wrote:

> jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> > On 04/04/24 17:37, bertietaylor wrote:
>> >> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> >>> His starting point is that the equations of General Relativity
>> >>> work equally well with time running forwards or backwards. So far,
>> >>> that's in agreement with mainstream thinking. But from this he
>> >>> creates a scenario where matter that falls into a black hole can
>> >>> get close to the singularity, in a region where General Relativity
>> >>> does not hold, and then be time-reversed and bounce back out as the
>> >>> product of a white hole.
>> >>
>> >>> [My immediate reaction: if a time-reversed object travels out of
>> >>> the hole, then those of us who live forward in time will see it as
>> >>> falling into the hole. But maybe I've missed his point.]
>> >>
>> >>> What is the reason such a bounce is possible? Well, Dante
>> >>> explained that. You can travel down to the innermost part of Hell,
>> >>> and there you will find ... not a singularity, but a way to exit
>> >>> from Hell. QED.
>> >>
>> >>> Have I missed seeing something important?
>> >>
>> >> Gravitons!
>> >>
>> >> They are the basic to quantum entanglement. In a quantum entangled
>> >> world, one can assume that gravitons fill the void called space, with
>> >> instantaneous communication from any point to the other. The ancient
>> >> "action at a distance" principle for gravity remains valid!!!!!
>>
>> > Traditional action at a distance has a time delay. For example, if an
>> > electron suddenly came into existence, the resulting change in the
>> > electric field would propagate outwards at the speed of light. The
>> > concept of quantum entanglement is upsetting because it suggests that
>> > information can be communicated at greater than the speed of light.
>>
>> That's one way to approach it, but not popular among physicists at all,
>> I believe.

> Why not? That's just what is predcted, and seen to happen.
> If you create an electron-positron pair for example
> the resulting electromagnetic dipole fields wil propagate away at c.

>> > That, in turn, says that Special Relativity is wrong. Which brings a
>> > whole lot of theory tumbling down ... is Arindam reading this?
>>
>> There are no problems with SR, as I understand it. If any information
>> is being communicated faster than c, you can't use it to send
>> messages.

> Eh, you may want to rethink this, at least the formulation.

I'm talking about non-local hidden-variable interpretations. At least in the
Transactional Interpretation (Cramer and later Kastner), information is
communicated backwards in time by the advanced wave, but you can't
use it to send messages. Are pilot-wave interpretations causal?

>> > Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>> > so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>> > entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>> > paradox is avoided.
>>
>> >> It is charming to bring in an ancient poet to a modern physics
>> >> discussion. What wonderful insights great poets have!
>>
>> > Charming? From an artistic viewpoint, yes. But I reject the suggestion
>> > that Dante's opinions had any relationship to reality.
>>
>> Well, I have sometimes suggested to my students that the gravitational
>> attraction between two bodies is l'amor che move il sol e' l'altre stelle.

> Se non è vero è bene trovato,

Appropriately put.

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/04/24 21:47, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >> On 04/04/2024 23:04, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >>> He is using NemoWeb, like many other Google escapees,
> >>> Used to post to sci.physics, but that group has been taken over
> >>> completely by Russian trolls, so he has moved to sci.physics.relativity.
> >>> The content remains unchanged,
>
> >> 'Russian trolls'? Are these anything like Russian dolls? You peel away
> >> one layer, and there is another one inside ?
> >
> > Quite the opposite. They never post more than once,
> > and have a new name with each new posting.
>
> That suggests to me a single troll who keeps changing his name.

Yes, possibly, probably a small group.

Easily filtered on, since they insist on cross-posting to three groups,

Jan

Rich Ulrich wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
> (bertietaylor) wrote:

>>I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj.
>>And yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
>>That was interesting!
>>I take it that Arindam may have some background in electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on relativity theories.
>>

> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and
> refused to grant him a Ph.D.

> He was probably specific about what was in the thesis,
> but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites by
> people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing
> by eyeball.

This is an english usage group, so what was he doing here?
Puzzling!
bt

On 06/04/24 06:14, jerryfriedman wrote:

> I'm talking about non-local hidden-variable interpretations. At
> least in the Transactional Interpretation (Cramer and later
> Kastner), information is communicated backwards in time by the
> advanced wave, but you can't use it to send messages. Are
> pilot-wave interpretations causal?

The "advanced wave" concept illustrates a surprising difference between
the way engineers and (some) physicists look at electromagnetic waves.

For those who don't know the background: if you solve Maxwell's
equations for a wave travelling in one direction (e.g. a plane wave in
free space, or a wave travelling along a coaxial cable), you get the
solution
E = f(z-ct) + g(z+ct)
where f and g are functions of one variable. The first term describes a
wave travelling at speed c. The second term is a wave travelling at
speed -c. The total solution is the superposition of the two.

Now, some sources say that the g term is a wave travelling backwards in
time. Electrical engineering sources always call it a wave travelling
backwards in space.

Consider what happens on a power line after a lightning space. A voltage
wave travels along the line until it hits a discontinuity, then a
reflection occurs, so you get another wave travelling in the opposite
direction. But there is no causality violation, because the backwards
wave doesn't exist until the reflection happens.

I guess engineers have a mindset where every physical process must be
causal, while physicists are more open to the possibility of magic
happening.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/24 00:18, bertietaylor wrote:

> I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and
> relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was
> branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And
> yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps
> that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity. That
> was interesting! I take it that Arindam may have some background in
> electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on
> relativity theories.

He does apparently have an EE degree, and I believe he worked as an
engineer, designing antennas IIRC.

I'm an EE, and my undergraduate studies included special relativity. I
would imagine that the same is true at IIT, although I don't really
know. Anyway, anyone working with antennas would have to know about
electromagnetic fields.

On the other hand, Arindam himself has said that he got his original
degree despite not studying his subjects.

On the gripping hand, don't trust anything said by Jai Maharaj, aka Jay
Stevens. It's been quite a few years since he last infested AUE, but he
was a far worse troll and pest than Arindam ever was.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:

> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.

How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
exist.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 06/04/24 00:18, bertietaylor wrote:

>> I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and
>> relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was
>> branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And
>> yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps
>> that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity. That
>> was interesting! I take it that Arindam may have some background in
>> electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on
>> relativity theories.

> He does apparently have an EE degree, and I believe he worked as an
> engineer, designing antennas IIRC.

> I'm an EE, and my undergraduate studies included special relativity. I
> would imagine that the same is true at IIT, although I don't really
> know. Anyway, anyone working with antennas would have to know about
> electromagnetic fields.

> On the other hand, Arindam himself has said that he got his original
> degree despite not studying his subjects.

> On the gripping hand, don't trust anything said by Jai Maharaj, aka Jay
> Stevens. It's been quite a few years since he last infested AUE, but he
> was a far worse troll and pest than Arindam ever was.

Given the interest about him here, I followed his recent postings in some
newsgroups. I am quoting from some of his writings, hoping he won't mind.

AB: Those really into physics better study my videos and texts relating to
physics. The US Navy, I find, has appropriated my new design rail gun
for their ships. The Chinese are using a version of that to launch their
Warplanes from Navy Carriers. Facebook is so useful, to present new
discoveries and inventions, and see how they get stolen.
You invented the railgun???
AB: Yes, I invented a new design railgun, where the bullet is heavy,
perpendicular to the rails, and the voltage is low. Overall, this design
is 10-100 more efficient than the earlier rail guns of the US as shown
in their pre 2015 videos. So it is practical and has been known since my
first paper on it in 2013. I showed that to my PhD supervisor in 2015,
and I suspect that it was transmitted to the relevant people from that
Time. In 2017 I published the details of the invention in a series of
YouTube videos.
My idea behind my PhD work (btw I am not a PhD as in the final viva they
said I had not made a working model of a rail gun, which was not what my
supervisor had been saying) was to show that the Lorentz force
accelerating the bullet had no ELECTRICAL reaction. (Since I have used
a rolling bullet/armature in my videos, there is apparently some
reaction but that is mechanical, due to the treadmill effect.) My
Detailed analysis shows inertia violation.

In the same post, Arindam provides links related to above. They are in the quote below, where he is replying to criticism that he did not invent a railgun.

"a new design railgun is not the invention of a railgun."
AB: I did not claim to invent what someone else did, long ago, very inefficiently. wiki gives details. It was your idea that I had invented the railgun, not mine.
Mine is a new invention, which is what I claimed. It follows the basic theory of the earlier railgun designs, but the construction is different, so a light version was indeed possible, to investigate whether or not it had reaction like normal guns. The answer is no, it does not have any electrical reaction, but there are mechanical reaction effects due to the rolling treadmill effect.
Indeed, it is very different to the kind of rail gun which was in vogue around the time I made my invention (the first working model in 2015, then improved in 2017 with full explanations. Latest in 2023.
It uses low voltage, heavy armature and most importantly the bullet is perpendicular to the rails.
Now that new design of mine, which was a working model but as I said with full theory and experiment given in the 2017 videos, has been appropriated by the US Navy and shown in a facebook post. Good.
https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359/posts/pfbid02NPjtVodQnUvrB8NW6Tj2cbstBpNAVgK25fPWmW6YKZXVdSj7h3EqaL6B7HJvscwal?comment_id=1357162701648909&notif_id=1711981440917123&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
See if you can get the link above, and check out the comments. See the shape of the barrel.
It is some 100 times better than the one used before. Much less power consumption, far more force on the bullet which could be a guided missile at hypersonic speeds.
As for my gun, check out
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/VtFeGAkIABg/m/CLPzLRElAwAJ
Follow the link to the 2-sec video.

end AB quote
Certainly Arindam does not like modern physics!

To the statement:
"and trying to connect QM and GR is... apples and oranges."

he grandly replies:
AB: Both are nonsense to me.
When inertia is busted, entropy and relativity and quantum are also busted.
Aether is back, filling the infinite universe.

Hmm.
Entropy does not mean much in an era where heat engines are getting obsolete. It is nothing physical, only a mathematical term relating to the efficiency of the steam engine, starting from the Carnot cycle. Lower the entropy, greater the heat converted into work. It is difficult to see what solar cells, wind turbines, etc. have to do with entropy.
If aether is upgraded using gravitons as fundamental particles acting as say elements that transmit force instantaneously (that is, irrespective of distance between source and sink) there could be ways of better understanding the phenomenon of gravity.

bt

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:37:30 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 12:20:32 -0400
>Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>>
>> >On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>> >> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>> >> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>> >> paradox is avoided.
>> >
>> >Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
>> >quad) of entangled photons (say).
>> >
>> >I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
>> >they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
>> >computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
>> >sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.
>>
>> Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
>> impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.
>>
>> SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
>> "Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."
>>
>> Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
>> 15 seconds.
>>
>Well, that's getting better; in AD200x I had a (looks it up:Asus EEE PC
>901) laptop (with 4G? SSD) that could boot to a cutdown linux+firefox
>(xpud) in 10s.

That much SSD, that long ago? Expensive, wasn't it?

At one time, I had a fully configured printer/copier/fax
(using an included diskette) which, all by itself, added 30
seconds to every startup time. (I deleted those drivers
and let Windows add a minimum set for printing.)

--
Rich Ulrich

On 2024-04-06 00:17:55 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 06/04/24 00:18, bertietaylor wrote:
>
>> I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and
>> relativity in Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was
>> branded a fraud and shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And
>> yes I found in sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps
>> that person quoting Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity. That
>> was interesting! I take it that Arindam may have some background in
>> electrical engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on
>> relativity theories.
>
> He does apparently have an EE degree, and I believe he worked as an
> engineer, designing antennas IIRC.
>
> I'm an EE, and my undergraduate studies included special relativity. I
> would imagine that the same is true at IIT, although I don't really
> know. Anyway, anyone working with antennas would have to know about
> electromagnetic fields.
>
> On the other hand, Arindam himself has said that he got his original
> degree despite not studying his subjects.

Well of course: what's the point of studying when you already know it
all? More than your teachers, anyway.
>
> On the gripping hand, don't trust anything said by Jai Maharaj, aka Jay
> Stevens. It's been quite a few years since he last infested AUE, but he
> was a far worse troll and pest than Arindam ever was.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

bertietaylor wrote:

> Given the interest about him here, I followed his recent postings in some
> newsgroups. I am quoting from some of his writings, hoping he won't mind.

This was written by the same guy who in another message wrote:

This is an english usage group, so what was he doing here?
Puzzling!

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> On the other hand, Arindam himself has said that he got his original
>> degree despite not studying his subjects.
>
> Well of course: what's the point of studying when you already know it
> all? More than your teachers, anyway.

To get a proof of your knowledge.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 06/04/24 16:19, bertietaylor wrote:

> Entropy does not mean much in an era where heat engines are getting
> obsolete. It is nothing physical, only a mathematical term relating
> to the efficiency of the steam engine, starting from the Carnot
> cycle. Lower the entropy, greater the heat converted into work. It is
> difficult to see what solar cells, wind turbines, etc. have to do
> with entropy.

Is that your comment, or Arindam's?

I will concede that in my student days, most of what I learnt about
entropy was in the context of heat engines. (I can remember lab work on
a Volkswagen petrol engine, and having to do diagrams of entropy vs
enthalpy.) But it's not just about heat engines. One of the most
important laws of thermodynamics is about entropy, and it applies to all
physical systems, including many that have nothing to do with steam engines.

Note also that entropy is used heavily in information theory, which is
largely about how we can carry data efficiently from place to place.
Without having to shovel coal into the burner.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 06/04/24 19:35, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>> On the other hand, Arindam himself has said that he got his original
>>> degree despite not studying his subjects.
>>
>> Well of course: what's the point of studying when you already know it
>> all? More than your teachers, anyway.
>
> To get a proof of your knowledge.

I think he's tried that, and discovered that the whole world is out of
step except him.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On 05/04/2024 18:20, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
>
>> On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
>>> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
>>> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
>>> paradox is avoided.
>>
>> Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
>> quad) of entangled photons (say).
>>
>> I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
>> they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
>> computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
>> sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.
>
> Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
> impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.
>
> SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
> "Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."
>
> Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
> 15 seconds.
>

Thank you for missing my point. You're thinking evolution, I'm thinking
revolution.

(P.S. Yes I do have an SSD.)

On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>
>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>
> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
> exist.
>

Please explain.

13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
as we know it.

Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous explosion.

My original question - why have there not been other similar
spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space? By that I
mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?

(Back to my coffee.)

occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>
>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>
>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
>> exist.
>>
>
> Please explain.
>
> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
> as we know it.
>
> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous explosion.
>
> My original question - why have there not been other similar
> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space? By that I
> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>
> (Back to my coffee.)

"why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when
you don't know anything about the unknown universe?

By the way, multiple bangs is usually discussed by
archaeoastrophysicists as the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry
will likely correct me by providing the usual term. I think it is
often considered one version of myriad "multiverse" conjectures.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 02:50:42 -0400
Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:37:30 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 12:20:32 -0400
> >Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >> >> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a time delay,
> >> >> so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I understand it, quantum
> >> >> entanglement does not allow any information transfer, and that's how a
> >> >> paradox is avoided.
> >> >
> >> >Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be triad (or
> >> >quad) of entangled photons (say).
> >> >
> >> >I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today, given that
> >> >they will have to be revises soon. However I understand that quantum
> >> >computing depends on QE, superposition, and other magic. And I do
> >> >sincerely wish my next laptop to be a _lot_ faster.
> >>
> >> Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
> >> impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.
> >>
> >> SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
> >> "Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."
> >>
> >> Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
> >> 15 seconds.
> >>
> >Well, that's getting better; in AD200x I had a (looks it up:Asus EEE PC
> >901) laptop (with 4G? SSD) that could boot to a cutdown linux+firefox
> >(xpud) in 10s.
>
> That much SSD, that long ago? Expensive, wasn't it?
>
Yes, it seems it had 2 SSD 'disk's with 4G and 8G of storage; possibly
1G of memory. The year was 2008. Probably later - I bought it 2nd hand.
Not expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eee_pc#History
see
Other Eee 90x models

> At one time, I had a fully configured printer/copier/fax
> (using an included diskette) which, all by itself, added 30
> seconds to every startup time. (I deleted those drivers
> and let Windows add a minimum set for printing.)
>
> --
> Rich Ulrich

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> Well of course: what's the point of studying when you already know it
>>> all? More than your teachers, anyway.
>>
>> To get a proof of your knowledge.
>
> I think he's tried that, and discovered that the whole world is out of
> step except him.

I may have told this before, but here goes:

A man is driving along the highway when he hears a traffic message over
the radio:

Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
highway between London and Southhampton.

- One? There are hundreds!

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Snidely blurted out:
> occam explained on 4/6/2024 :
>> On 06/04/2024 02:23, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 05/04/24 23:59, occam wrote:
>>>
>>>> My main scepticism of the 'Big Bang' theory is that it has only occurred
>>>> once (as far as we know). Whatever the initial conditions, what is it
>>>> stopping it happening again? Imagine the interference patterns that
>>>> would result with two (or more) Big Bangs.
>>>
>>> How would we know? If it happened again, this newsgroup would no longer
>>> exist.
>>>
>>
>> Please explain.
>>
>> 13.8 billion years ago there was nothing. No mass, no energy, no time -
>> as we know it.
>>
>> Then the universe spontaneously exploded into existence through an
>> instability ('Big Bang') due to some unknown initial conditions. I
>> appreciate we _think_ we understand the first milliseconds of the
>> process. But we do not know what caused the initial spontaneous explosion.
>>
>> My original question - why have there not been other similar
>> spontaneous explosions elsewhere in the vastness of space? By that I
>> mean parts of the unknown universe we have not yet expanded into?
>>
>> (Back to my coffee.)
>
> "why have there not been .. [in] the unknown universe?"
> Why do you speak of something not being in the unknown universe, when you
> don't know anything about the unknown universe?
>
> By the way, multiple bangs is usually discussed by archaeoastrophysicists as
> the "many bubbles" concept, although Jerry will likely correct me by
> providing the usual term. I think it is often considered one version of
> myriad "multiverse" conjectures.
>
> /dps

<URL:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQPYXPtzUCw>
(astrophysicist off-duty; includes sponsor msg)

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

Bertel Lund Hansen:
> I may have told this before, but here goes:
>
> A man is driving along the highway when he hears a traffic message over
> the radio:
>
> Here is a warning: A ghost driver is currently driving on the
> highway between London and Southhampton.
>
> - One? There are hundreds!

I believe you mean "There is currently a driver using the wrong side of
the road between London and Southhampton."
--
Mark Brader "You can stop laughing now.
Toronto Well, maybe you *can't*, but you *may*."
msb@vex.net -- Rick Burger

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 06/04/24 16:19, bertietaylor wrote:

>> Entropy does not mean much in an era where heat engines are getting
>> obsolete. It is nothing physical, only a mathematical term relating
>> to the efficiency of the steam engine, starting from the Carnot
>> cycle. Lower the entropy, greater the heat converted into work. It is
>> difficult to see what solar cells, wind turbines, etc. have to do
>> with entropy.

> Is that your comment, or Arindam's?

Mine.

> I will concede that in my stud@ent days, most of what I learnt about
> entropy was in the context of heat engines. (I can remember lab work on
> a Volkswagen petrol engine, and having to do diagrams of entropy vs
> enthalpy.) But it's not just about heat engines. One of the most
> important laws of thermodynamics is about entropy, and it applies to all
> physical systems, including many that have
nothing to do with steam engines.

True, for all systems that finally turn to heat that is radiated. Unless all the heat is converted to work which is practically impossible. If with wind power you mill wheat there will be with the grinding heat involved or increase in entropy.

> Note also that entropy is used heavily in information theory, which is
> largely about how we can carry data efficiently

In the 80s this was a big topic about the heat involved in data storage. Especially in disk drives.

from place to place.
> Without having to shovel coal into the burner.

bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertietaylor) wrote or quoted:
>In the 80s this was a big topic about the heat involved in data storage. Especially in disk drives.

Let me tell ya about this whole business of deleting bits of
information. See, there are these fundamental laws of physics
that say whenever you go and erase one of those little digital
bits, a certain amount of heat has to be generated. That's just
the way it is - it's what they call "Landauer's Principle."

But let me tell you, the amount of waste heat that's produced
by our current information technology, that's a whole other
story. It just dwarfs this theoretical minimum that the laws
of physics demand. I mean, these computers and gadgets we got
these days, they're just guzzling up energy left and right, and
spitting out way more heat than they ought to be. It's really
quite remarkable when you think about it.

Now, I know the engineers and scientists are always working to
improve the efficiency of these devices. But we've still got a long
way to go before we're anywhere close to that theoretical minimum.
It's just the nature of the beast, I suppose. Progress always comes
with its own set of challenges. But hey, that's the price we pay for
all the marvelous technology we get to enjoy these days, am I right?

On 06 Apr 2024, Rich Ulrich wrote

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 19:37:30 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 12:20:32 -0400
>> Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 14:49:29 +0200, occam <occam@erewhon.nix>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/04/2024 14:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>> Long-distance communication via gravity waves does assume a
>>>>> time delay, so it's not a quantum entanglement effect. As I
>>>>> understand it, quantum entanglement does not allow any
>>>>> information transfer, and that's how a paradox is avoided.
>>>>
>>>> Is quantum entanglement a 'pairs only' thing? Can there be
>>>> triad (or quad) of entangled photons (say).
>>>>
>>>> I normally avoid 'explanations' that Physicists give today,
>>>> given that they will have to be revises soon. However I
>>>> understand that quantum computing depends on QE, superposition,
>>>> and other magic. And I do sincerely wish my next laptop to be a
>>>> _lot_ faster.
>>>
>>> Do you have Solid State Disc? That has been the most
>>> impressive, single-step improvement in my PC-using career.
>>>
>>> SSD reduced my start-up time from 90-120 seconds to
>>> "Open the lid and touch the fingerprint reader."
>>>
>>> Total re-boot -- rare, but it used to be minutes -- is under
>>> 15 seconds.
>>>
>> Well, that's getting better; in AD200x I had a (looks it up:Asus
>> EEE PC 901) laptop (with 4G? SSD) that could boot to a cutdown
>> linux+firefox (xpud) in 10s.
>
> That much SSD, that long ago? Expensive, wasn't it?
>
> At one time, I had a fully configured printer/copier/fax
> (using an included diskette) which, all by itself, added 30
> seconds to every startup time. (I deleted those drivers
> and let Windows add a minimum set for printing.)

That reminds me of the drastic reduction in the time taken to boot
Windows -- 95 I think it was -- that was gained by removing the
majority of Windows fonts that were loaded and simply never used.

IIRC, you had to keep the default system fonts, but aside from those
and a handful of standard fonts that people actually used, stripping
out what felt like the 70-80% of unused fonts made a massive
difference.

I've not done that tweak for some years, and suspect the gain in boot
time wouldn't be as noticeable these days, but in earlier times the
improvement was jaw-droppingly effective.

--
Cheers, Harvey

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 16:41:14 +0100, HVS <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

me >
>> At one time, I had a fully configured printer/copier/fax
>> (using an included diskette) which, all by itself, added 30
>> seconds to every startup time. (I deleted those drivers
>> and let Windows add a minimum set for printing.)

I forgot to say -- that time taken by the printer was apparently
devoted to checking for updates, from a very slow server.

>
>That reminds me of the drastic reduction in the time taken to boot
>Windows -- 95 I think it was -- that was gained by removing the
>majority of Windows fonts that were loaded and simply never used.
>
>IIRC, you had to keep the default system fonts, but aside from those
>and a handful of standard fonts that people actually used, stripping
>out what felt like the 70-80% of unused fonts made a massive
>difference.

I learned early on (1970s) that many programmers and systems
ignored efficiency. I wrote my own file-handling system to work
with my data files in binary after my testing showed that Fortran
formatting made file-reads take 10 times as long. Cutting a 30+
second read time on the mainframe to 3 seconds was especially
valuable because the scheduling algorithm at the Pitt Computer
Center used 30 seconds as a cutoff for the express queue. So,
my jobs got run with far less delay after converting.

I asked the Center for the source code to the BMD (early stat
pack - not-fully--proprietary) program for sorting, so I could adapt
that program to binary. Pitt did have the code because they
re-distributed that package for 36-bit implementations like DEC's.

However, I didn't have to do anything. When Mike M. looked at
the code before letting me have it, he discovered that the
'read-binary-file' provision was already there -- simply, not yet
mentioned in any documentation. Format= "BINARY" in place
of "( ...whatever ... )" . So -- a few people cared, but not many.

--
Rich Ulrich

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:18:38 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
> (bertietaylor) wrote:
>
> >I tried Arindam with some other keywords such as energy and relativity in
> >Google. It did turn up one Arindam Banerjee who was branded a fraud and
> >shame of IIT by someone called Jai Maharaj. And yes I found in
> >sci.physics.relativity a very recent post by perhaps that person quoting
> >Tesla about Tesla's thoughts on relativity.
> >That was interesting!

Summary: Tesla was a brilliant scientist/engineer when young,
and a crackpot in old age.

> >I take it that Arindam may have some background in electrical
> >engineering. Electrical engineers are not always keen on relativity
> >theories.
> >
>
> IIRC, his physics department rejected his thesis and
> refused to grant him a Ph.D.
>
> He was probably specific about what was in the thesis,
> but that detail did not stick. I read him in some cites by
> people who might have had something to say. Kill-filing
> by eyeball.

IIRC same subject: lack of momentum conservation in rail guns.
There have indeed been some controversies about the subject.

Another is that the sbject has to often been dealt with
by, how shall I say it, less than competent people.

Less mildly, a lot of nonsense has been written about.
Summary: Electromagnetic railguns do conserve momentum,
just like everything else.
(but it is not always immediately obvious where the forces act)

Jan

The problem is that at least some of the compoments are heavy,
and need to be bolted down. so the Earth may take up momentum.