I think that any belief is wrong. Think about it. I believe in a personal god, or the statement that I believe there isn't a personal god. Both say that their conviction is right. If one is presented with an idea of explanation, a religious idea, and takes it in, or says, no, that is absurd, both use the facilty of picking a side without really ever knowing. That's what belief means, right? that one doesn't know, but thinks so anyway. So I think the I don't know mentality is the most honest and down to earth. If someone admits that they know nothing at all, which anyone bound to serious reflection after a time will give, and it is true, even in science, a deep pain emerges. It a a chasm that only the will to know can fill. Then one begins searching. If enough stones are upturned and there is a trend, one will have formualted for themselves a path that points to a direction or doesn't. Their new beliefs will at least be personally founded, and tried to some extent. A belief that can never be made to fall is likely not worth maintaining.

If you want something that is technical, with some science and maths, but also easily scannable for general concepts, you could try Relativistic Astrophysics, 2: The Structure and Evolution of the Universe.

It's probably in a library or on amazon.

I don't think that the U.S. is really far behind all nations in education. It is about 20th maybe in science and maths? One could google that easily...

I would say that ignorance is accustomed to habit, or a way of doing things that ignores other factors that might deter it. It is isolation from a thinking comunity that is some threat to the mind set of a person. So they sit, do what they do, and are in most repects out of the loop of themselves and others.

What is wrong with the culture of the U.S.?
Well it could look inwards more. We think about technology alot, because the people good at producing it. I think that the country stills has the most Nobel Laureates, so we have some good grad schools and technical fields with educational opportunities. There are also good science facilties. So technology and progress i that sense is stressed, but the human mind still processes more data than any of our chips do in a second. The best machine on the planet is the human body. Why is it neglected?

Another downer on U.S. culture is that it has a bad healthcare system and diet. Most people are well off enough to eat decent, but simply don't. The declining health of the state is going to be a big concern with everyone in another 10-15 years. How much of an edge do you expect to have with bad fuel? Also, there is the notion of healthy practices in lifestyle, of wellbeing, that are barely understood, if at all implemented in the lives of the county's inhabitants. A life without adressing the whole person, the spiritual side and munching both, degrades culture and value of education. The school's could worry less about getting the best deals and more about what is best for the students at lunch time. I heard a school went organic and tried to be more healthy, and had an IQ raise of a few points within either a semester or academic year. Local business could be incorporated into these endeavors.

Some smart young people look on success as a bad thing. They see people who have it all turning out to be miserable when they die in big mansions and the like. Or they are bombarded with atheletes on shows who spend 400, 000 USD on their bodies. But anyone with half a brain can see that the people have empty lives besides their extravagent care. Such media braodcasts put the word success into a bad category for many youths. This is something that needs worked on. More proper examples of people that have made it should be shown. Greed is often seen in bad light as well. But if one doesn't have enough money to have well being, then that harms everyone. The self could be more stressed in our society, the idea that good business helps both parties and that what is good for oneself is in the interest of everyone.

The U.S. is stable Enough, but it is just out of whack. The main problem I see is kids and young people growing up that forget themselves when they are told to get a job and buy an ipod or new game sytem. What is that? If the thought more centered on themselves, they would save, invest, do some small holiday traveling with friends, you know, experience life a little. I did this for a stent of a year or so. A few weeks ago I went to a bridge and threw my ipod off of it. It was a hassel and had drugged music on it anyways (about sex, drugs and a following use of success and money, which is another problem). We could use some good music, and it would benifit many people. That is something that song writers can keep in mind.

Politics are in a hype and frezy now. It is tense. The more the public gives in to this 'reality show,' the more ignorance will blosom, and culture decline. I have noted my view on what ignorance is and some problems and suggestions on U.S. culture.

I know that in some more secluded 'tribal' cultures that the males will dress as womenkind when a new life is had in the village community. Also, most guys ffeel very much more nurturing after the birth of their kid, so that it is not far off to say that there may be in the mind of guys something of a feminine personality, sometimes borught out more.

Most animals don't pay any attention to sex differentiation until mating season, when hormones are clear beacons. In the majority of the time, the animals would have a similar mental habit or behavoir, I would imagine. I think that if humans where less pocessed of the ailment of thinking about body parts all of the time, they too would share a more common personality, and then it might not be so odd for traits to be either masculine or feminine, whereas now there is quite the (uncalled for) distinction.

The creative note I'd agree with. I doubt, however, that there are really layers to the mind between sub or uncounsious mind to normal thinking states. I notice that I have control over what is in my mind and the line between the two. If i have a bad week or two, so spell of time will be apparent when ideas and thoughts when I have to really try to keep them down under. But my point is that by one's actions habits and daily doings, the threshold can be adjusted, and one is responsible for his own sub or uncounscious mind.

I don't know enough of the energy levels or astronomy that you're talking about here. It is an interesting question as to whether there was always some mix of dark and not energies. It would be a sight to see!

I would really suggest looking into Lee Smolins work, and particulary his popular book called The Life of the Cosmos, where he talks about universes that reproduce through black holes, so proposes a new birth at each shrink and expansion. He also employs an Ancestry principle, which simply states that if a universe exists, the one it came from was fertile, i.e. favorable to the formation of black holes.

It does seem to be kind of odd that the universe would have a short history before the singularity where is contracted to that fine point, if that's what your saying. It would seem more natural if that condition was erased, or at least it seems out of consistency to say that there is a singularity, yet it is only a point in a segment that actually goes a certain stretch of time before it. I would say that there seems to have been some historic interest in describing a physics without the use of boundaries or singularities, which also makes sense if science is to extend our knowledge further still, as it must to be of function.

What I see, without math coming to mind, is a casual behavoir coming out of the caldera, and something like time and remnants coming through the area in mind. But this hardly suffices as hard science, and it's so abract that I don't know how to phrase my own thoughts. Black holes do offer the oppurtunity to consider a point where the laws of nature reset, and perhaps then this adds favor to an idea of minute black hole physics at the particle level, as it may be deemed satisfying to think of two scales as part of the same scheme. This is in a way what you suggest when compare black holes to the big bang.

The multi-universe idea with many universes acting collectively may be some part of distance science, but right now I think that it is completely off course if it proposes that there is different behavoir, laws or mechanisms for the different univierse. A collective whole may be advantagious to comtemplate, and the time before the big bang is very important to think about. But the route that I would take would be to try to accurately depict the behovoir of black holes first, and then see what the hell this has to do with a big crunch or other universes.

I'm trying now to think about these matters with the emphasis that time is real, and a starting point, and that from it spacetime emerges. But it's just thinking right now. L. Smolins most recent paper, that you can find through his website, talks about this, but through the eyes of quantum gravity, yet background independence is used. Really, all things in science might be able to be considered relationally, including mass-energy. Such would be a challenge to physical law, but once done, may shine new light on the whys previously shunned.

A singularity is tough to define. In gr, the theory breaks down there at those points, where the theory is said not to be applicable. It's not really that they say that black holes exist, but when matter gets dense enough in this regime, infinities become apparent in the equations. When dealing with gravitation fields, this means that the light reaches a point where it can't escape, but this is a conclusion from the result of calculations that are the weak points of the thoery from a mathermatical-modeling point. The same thing happens in sr when a body is not able to reach the speed of light; a body gains more and more mass, and resists acceleration more and more, so that as it approaches, but never reaches, c, and as it does so time grinds to a halt, just like a black hole, and sr is just a special case of the general theory. So one could also say that black holes are entities that the theory of relativity just doesn't know about, doesn't talk about, and hardly concerns itself with. But that the point that these solutions are valid in the fact that they predict what we see in nature, to a degree, can be seen as experimental confirmation. In nature there appear to be these regions that have behavior like the things we don't know about in our leading gravitional theory.

Your expample of a sewer drain is very interesting, mostly because the water does go somewhere. Inforamtion is expressed as staying on the surface of a black hole, but the commonly held opnion is that things of matter do actually fall into a bb, and when they do they increase it's mass and behave like normal systems. They have heat content, and also radiate energy. The most interesting thing, I think, about bb's is that the possibility, in thought at least, of them having two sides is now on the dabating table. They could be periods of time in which the laws of nature re-adjust. One option espoused by physists is that quantum fluctuations bounce the or a universe at each contraction and expansion event. This has math and is in the literature. Another possible option is that the blackholes are naturally selected. That is, in a given universe, only such and such conditions allow for bb's to form, and the only thing taken from evolution in this scheme is that universes that have batter conditions for having more bb's will have come from one that had a lot in it too. This actually limits the size of bb to about two solar masses, a result that has not been contridicted by experiment.

But what is so bad about speculation. Where math is absent, and no one is talking about the math or landscape of the area inside a black hole yet, there is plenty of room for thinking about new options. One could say one hasn't seen an atom yet either, though I think I remember a blurry picture that was color treated to show some blurry and bumpy regions that was a photograph at atomic level. Black holes are established enough as an identity, if a bit of unknown one or enigma, that science must begin to offer more satisfactory grounds for their explanation. An idea that avoided singularities or horizons or boundaries would be most appealing! But as yet such is not present, so thinking caps must be dawned.

Bb's represent in my mind an occurence when the development of physical laws change more rapidly than otherwise. I see a region before our big bang, but it is not one readily expressible in maths or even a quantitative way common of thinking scientifically. If laws develop and are set into place in condensed gravity situations, there should then be some trace to follow. Perhaps mass changes with time, and then the optical effects of excited electrons would show different intesities if they had different orbital properties, or tests such as that which look for things being different in the past that are still observable today.

The main problem with black holes is that our current science views them as curious anomalies. When we understand spacetime better, which I think should be done away with, I'd imagine that blackholes will have been explained in a new light as well. But they do offer a class of new thinkers a very intriguing opportunity for new ideas, which must also bear the weight of experimental testing. You could try to do away with black holes, prove them impossible, but what would that really say, that things which we have good evidence and reason to believe are in reality are not explained by our current qm theory? The whole issue of the singularity and gravitational collapse beckons at one thing, and that is a deeper underatanding of fundamental physics.

A superstition is not factual, it is merely a belief. It is quite like a hypothesis or guess, but one that can't be tested. The facts are that there is no solid evidence, and if there was it would not be superstition, it would be science. But since there aren't ways of telling whether it is just make believe or not, it can't be regarded as having truth. I think it is just a left over trait in the human brain that makes wrong connections, and never reaches maturity to come to real tests. Perhaps superstition lead to the first sciences, when some being dedicided to test whether what they heard their uncles say about walking under certain tree branches, or eating shells that have spots that look like other organisms, and the like.

I agree with you in that the use of chemical agents as medication should be avoided, Modern medicine is designed from a historic system of fighting infectious disease, and obesity is not (at least directly) contagious. So the main issue that is most implentable and affordable is modicfication of lifestyle. I thnk that a good diet that prevents malnutrition is the best option. It may be said that such a small measure has to have the backing of politics and curbing big food industries taht produce unnutritious food, but if people start be conscientious about what they eat and it's nutrition content, the food industry will have to adjust, and political need will be felt.

Well, the energy and mass equivalence is not a theory, it just says that the totality of energy is one whole, and that it can be converted by a conversion factor involving the very important number c. And what scientist or paper are you refering to? It sounds like something I would like to read. I don't think constants are constants, but I am not really sure yet. Neat post, but I'm not really sure what you mean by working backwards. Perhaps energy is not conserved? I know for certain that in gr that the conservation of mass is no longer upheld formally.

I've always thought that combining folding art with drawing on it would be a cool combo. I never use a oragami book, but sometimes if i'm idle for a few moments and have a paper and pen around, I try to make something. It's usually graphic gibberish though!

Being completely alone, it comes with a sense of power. Yes, what is perhaps a emotioanlly trying event or phase is tough, it gets to the sanest of isolated persons. Yet, it is what we are entitled to, the ability to be alone, it's what a person has to work with. Those thoughts, which are just yours, allow one to change themselves, to develop in a different direction, it's a type of responsibilty. Being normal takes time, sometimes it is not limited to one person's lifetime, but must be achieved in the long run through the effects a person has on others and their environments. That last bit is my own view, but nothing is normal or odd when it comes to the brain. Some curses exist, but I don't think loniness and being overwhelmed is one of them. It changes with time.

Does anybody know music that helps one be productive? Most music is about sex and money and drugs, and is not pleasing to the ear. So I'm looking for new music with good messages and vibes.

M. moe,
Mond is interesting, and it attempts to go in the right direction by proposing a new law that may make predictions, but from the wikipedia article I read it seems to be limited to astronomical data and not really be a theory, so to say. The main problem is that bodies in the galaxy, when the rotate further out from the center of a galaxy, do so at about the same speed as bodies close in. SO that goes against the experience of Newton's gravity as observed by planets in the solar sytem slowing down as they are further away from the sun. Perhaps this could be because the galactic disc, the plate where all the stars are, is rotating as a whole, something akin to frame dragging. But I would be really surprised if astronomers, who are quite capable of using relativty theory, did not check for this. Another idea is that mass-gravity interaction is different (what MOND type ideas propose), or that there is missing matter, so that we just have the quantity game mixed up. What is more interesting to me is that the quality of mass changes with time. I see where you are coming from about our galaxy not having collided with another being supported by this modification, but I can't say that this is the exact right formulation of that likely trend. The constant, which may be called R, that he produces is also of interest. I sometimes think that it sets a resonable explanation on the upper limit of light speed. What is most exciting about MOND is that at some levels it specks of the possibility of non-classical acceleration.
Torgo, Gravity doesn't suck, just imagine being in free fall and you'll see that it is completely weightless. It is the force of the earth pushing up on us and resisting gravity that is the common burden.
Penny, It is odd that physicists don't talk about elctromagnetism at long ranges, besides light being a common discussion point. One would think that it would be stronger and than the weak gravitation at distances.
Jean, that article you refferenced first was interesting. I'm sure that Ein would have liked that it is simple to read and shows the philosophical ideas bare. I'm not sure that the wave-mechanical model is valid anymore for a foundation of physics, however much of a part the successes of relativity that use it will have to be included in any new ideas or fundations taht scientists cook up. I think Original's pressure thinking could be seen as a very local Mach's principle, which is always something neat to think about.

What I think about gravity is that as our understanding of physcis from a theoretical view is cleaned up, when we can talk about qm and relativity and why laws are what they are, then the gravity at expanded or far away scales will fall into place. Why is generally not talked about traditionally in the sciences, but it must if a new, deeper understanding is to come about. The results of astronomy are remarkable, and they can help guide our philosophy, but a new view of matter and physics in general, if it's right, will have to include everything, small and large and close and far away. I don't think that it is too far of a stretch to say that the age of the universe will someday be equivalent to the statement of "when the laws currently observed took their recognized form."

It could work. I think any religious attitude that incorporates facts and an awe for nature is what needs to take place as far as a new religion is concerned. Being open minded has to help with that.
If you haven't looked into the Cosmic Religious feeling I would recommend reading the part of "The Quotable Einstein" that deals with religion, or Carl Sagens idea of the cosmic perspective, or finding our place in the universe. One can also google or youtube search the Overview Effect, which is a religious feeling stemming from the realization of Earth's and Humanity's fraility that is perhaps best espoused by atronauts who go up into space and see how small of a world it is.

I think that they are fine. I really like poetic tattos, or any of the Salvador Dali ones out there. Reason or no reason, I don't really see how it matters in the big scheme of things. It's some ink on a person that lives on earth which is on the solar system and... So as long as it does no harm or targets people.

I'm not an art teacher or student, so this is just by experience. I would really recommend drawing on whatever you have for about thirty minutes everyday when you get up or some other time, not worrying about technique, but still trying to get the result visually right. I think this helps keep the ability of the human to invent new styles and techniques fresh. After a few moths or so, you'll notice different ways of shading or curvatures that just seem to emerge and which you can use further or discard. It's all about becoming consious of what your hands are doing all of the time anyways, and this is more apparent when you let your hands do absolutely whatever.

Both, with a waffle on the side!

Has anybody read this new book that came out this year? It says that time is fundamental, that it has been more important in our laws than we usually regard it as. The laws of physics say that things are timeless, and that if we do some hard calculations correctly, say with all the forces and masses of particles known that the future would be predicted for all time perfectly. But if time comes first as a 'force to reckon with' then new events happen, and laws actually change throughout history. I thought the book was very engaging, and it talked about economics some and the issues with theoretical physics in this day. A good, lively read, which I would recommend definitely!

One might note first that the idea of an empty space in both metric theories (like gr spacetime) and qm, the void there actually contains enormous amounts of energy. This is what renormalizition is all about, getting physics back to a normal way of dealing with empty space in those theories. So it might not be too far of a stretch to say that that which we call the void or space currently is actually more important, more substantial empirically as measured by a possible experiment, than what ordinary matter-energy is. Matter and energy icludes practically everything dealt with in classic physics, the elastic energy, nuclear forces, repulasion, radiation, gravity or tenstion, most everything we think about! So continueing this trait into modern times, it's really no wonder that physicists are having a time with defining nothingness.
Another point is that the absence of perpetual motion means that energy cannot be made from nothing or no source of power. It also means that energy is not conserved, in a vague analogy in mechanics where the loss of energy to heat shows no perpetual motion, and also no total conservation. One may say heat is energy, yes, but it is not reversible, that is able to go back into work for the machine.
So combining these two simple statements, that the void really has enormous energy, and that energy is not conserved, one arrives at a view where a state of begining is not neccessary. Things like matter and the space we consider familiar to the mind, may have been selections through time, picked because at whatever moment they just seemed to work at the time. There may not have been a great emptyness at the begining of the universe, or existence. The nothing in this sense would never occur, because matter-energy and spacetime will have been a product of a development where the contridiction of having nothing and the a quantity of something is not important when conservation laws are not valid for the whole picture.
I don't think it satisfies the mind to say that a lack of awareness is nothing. Objects like the toaster in the cabinet in your parents home that you've never seen still exist.