well, I gotta go teach my physics lab. We're investigating the equivalence of electrical energy and thermal energy by heating a quantity of water with a resistor. also, we're dropping a magnet through a coil to observe the induced EMF

Dear Dan

You can take it up with TruthorFiction.com too.

TruthOrFiction.com







View Stories By Subject

Search
New or Updated
Anatomy of a Rumor
Contact Us
About Us

Animals
Attack On America
Aviation-Space
Celebrities
Education
Food-Drink
Government
Household
Humorous Stories
Insects-Reptiles
Inspirational
Internet-Computers
Medical
Military
Miscellaneous
Missing Persons
Pleas for Help
Politics-Politicians
Prayer Requests
Promises
Religious-Spiritual
Viruses
Warnings
War in Iraq

Site Notice
Privacy Notice
Copyright © 1998-2004
TruthOrFiction.com
All rights reserved
"The Eye of God" Picture From Space by the Hubble Telescope-Truth!






Summary of the eRumor
A beautiful picture of a nebula said to have been taken by NASA and the space-based Hubbell telescope.
The eRumor says the scientists call it "The Eye of God."


The Truth
In doing research on this story, we found that there are numerous pictures of space objects that are nicknamed "The Eye of God."

According to the Hubbel Telescope site, this particular picture if of the HELIX NEBULA, which is about 650 light years from earth.

More for Dan - who should teach his students about Hutchison and the effect rather than the supercilious experiment he talks about.

Jan. 17, 2004: PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary Daily Update # 01·· ™©·2004··
Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040131.htm#20040117-01.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert)

·

Bush's directive for NASA to resume lunar exploration will shorten the Hubbell Telescope's lifespan.·

To implement Bush's directive to reallocate spending toward resuming manned exploration of the Moon, establishing a base on the Moon and sending a manned mission to Mars, NASA has cancelled plans for using the Space Shuttle to maintain the Hubbell Telescope. The Hubbell ranks as one of our greatest scientific achievements. Even more so was the stunning mission in orbit with astronauts replacing the nearsighted mirror to enable Hubbell to perform the mission for which it was designed. Equally stunning was the later mission in orbit with astronauts upgrading computers and other equipment on the Hubbell.

One wishes we could proceed with the new directives without abandoning the Hubbell, which, according to NASA, is not likely to continue functioning many years beyond 2007. (Canceling the Shuttle mission now scheduled for 2006 to service Hubbell reduces the chances that it will continue functioning until 2011 when it's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope is scheduled for launch.) However, to foreswear resumption of lunar exploration (where abundant Helium 3 offers the potential for nearly limitless, environmentally friendly energy on what could become very cost-effective) and expansion of manned exploration to include Mars in order to continue servicing the Hubbell

The "H" word is spelled three different ways on this page:

http://truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/eyeofgod.htm

Dear Rick

That is the page I put some of here. 'H' word - LOL!

Enki

You reap what you sow.

I know Robert, I know.

Wikipedia - yes - great source. NO it is not credible and if truthorfiction, Bush and NASA are not good enough for you - I can assume we all should know you are the (!!!!) authority. And yes, I agree it should be Hubble but it is not just that. SO as I originally pointed to the site that had the two spellings I rest my case or should I say - I retire and bow to your greatness (HA). Language growth and etymology often has the vernacular supercede the correct.

Robert,

We All are sons and daughters of the God, [but some do not know] and All people are created equal.

One thing I don't do (like YOU) is take one part of all the evidence and then say it is ALL the evidence.

It changes world, so it works!
Mechanisms are of the secondary importance.

it works anyway.

So Dan did you read the truthorfiction link Rick and I put here or the other infomation with the Bush plan? Or did that escape you?

Can you read or is this kinda like you being a physicist?

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

i have been trying to follow along as best i could, but check me on this:

if there is only now, does it follow that there is only here,
and if there is only here and now is it not true that there can be only one?

therefore as night follows day, if this is the place and now is the time and i am the one,
then tonites the nite im gonna partay like its 1999

Dear Rick

Interesting evaluation of the statements of Dan. I doubt you are in complete agreement on the ethical issues that he derives from the Hobbesian hierarchy based on Might is Right or what is oft called or Neo-Platonic thought. But on the matter of time not existing you would need to define what it is that we measure as time and why physics has determined there are different Event Horizons in other parts of the universe I suspect. Also it can be said that because Time does not 'exist' as a physicality (I presume you are saying) that we can more easily view it and be part of what travels energy makes to or through it.

Dr Kozyrev posited that time is a co-efficient n E=mc2 and Einstein was (Godel his friend even more so) aware time is not linear.

My take on it - In order to have time travel as shown in some movies one would have to accept that alternative universes exist and are of a dimensional nature - for the future. Thus the 'possibilities' or 'templates' (see Teilhard and Bucky Fuller) that 'could be' viewed are not yet real or physical.

Then there is the idea proposed in Rees' recent book about other parts of universe that are affinitely connected and dopplegangers of our existence exist. This would suggest that universe is designed with a high degree of thought being its basic ingredient which both you and Dan seem to think applies (if I interpret you correctly) when you say.

All such extension exists only in the mind of the thinker who is 'remembering' or 'predicting'. It also seems clear to me that the universe has instantaneous multifaceted structure, from which one may be able to define 'distance' in terms of the relations of such facets.


For the past I can see little likelihood of anything but information transfer.

The speed of light does seem to affect how a travelling piece of energy, data or even matter might experience time according to the articles addressing supraluminal reality.

Time

In basic thinking about time I start with the fact that events occur.
Each event is caused by previous events[s] and become[s] a cause of consequential events.
Having 'time' allows us to allocate a unique sequence marker for events in order to identify causes and effects.

It is essential for survival to know the relationship between cause and effect [man tackle elephant with stick alone cause man to die].

Each event is caused by and consequential to previous events [1 to infinity] preceding events.
Each event has a number of effects [1 to infinity [including 0 possibly, but not certainly]].

Because of that, anything that has not yet happened will be a consequence of what has already happened.
{I have been trying to think of something that might happen in the future which is not preceded by causes and failed for 6 months}

Conclusions:

There was never a first event! Cyclicity or foreverness is necessary [maybe both - I suspect cyclicity because of its prevalence in Nature: how many Big Bangs have there been?].

In the absence of 'time' we would need another marker.

It is impossible to go back in time to Event [Number]because it is not possible to remove [erase] all the events that have happened since Event[Number]. If such events are not removed you have not gone back in time. A similar argument holds for travelling forwards in time.
It seems to me that 'other universes' make no difference to these thoughts because even they are enmeshed in the sequence of events that proceed ad hoc.

Of course, this browse around my brain does not prove that time does not exist, but if it doesn't we definitely need another 'something'.
I am always fascinated when observing the sky at night to realise that I am viewing 'history' not 'the now'. Of course that is all we can ever do because of the 'time' it takes for signals to pass around our brains.

From Dan (I think it was - who has not read it).

We have the issue of how QM is not possible in CEM or science and yet it works.

In this excerpt I see they understand what Fuller called 'creative realization' or Teilhard called 'templates'.

Closed quantum worlds and their partitions. Guenter Mahler <mahler@theo1.physik.uni-stuttgart.de> (Institute of Theoretical Physics I University of Stuttgart).

Quantum mechanics is often believed to be counter-intuitive if not mysterious. At the same time this theory has met with unprecedented success, from Planck's explanation of the blackbody radiation to present day nano-technology experiments. But how can the familiar classical and the unfamiliar quantum features be reconciled? How does our classical world emerge from its quantum substrate?

I will show that the well-known thermal equilibrium emerges as a typical "local" property of closed quantum systems partitioned into parts: It derives from entanglement between the system of interest and its quantum environment. While "entangled states" (a generalization of superposition states to composite systems) abound on the level of the total system, these strange quantum states just give rise to that fairly classical appearance of our physical world, to which we have no access other than via some of its parts! The huge space of correlations associated with any entanglement does not show up locally. (Neither does the ability to support massive quantum computation.)

In the classical domain partitions are not fundamental; they often are a matter of convenience. {Me-Too tenured thinking to meet theories not actually real.) In quantum mechanics the partitions define the pertinent "perspective", a kind of generalized reference frame, without which we cannot even formulate "elements of reality" (just as you cannot define an angle without referring to a given direction). In a theoretical simulation of a closed quantum world one can easily change partitions and thus "change reality" {'creative realization'}, without even touching the underlying total quantum state at all. {The future of it is changed perhaps.}

in literal fact, the light you are viewing from the cosmos is not actually 'looking back in time' because you are simply absorbing photons that exist at the moment that you absorb them. It is human mind that 'reconstructs' a history out of these photons under the assumptions of regularity in trajectory and energy content. Thus, 'seeing the big bang' is not literally to see a past event, it is simply to reconstruct in our minds that past event using the information that has been preserved according to the photons themselves and our assumptions about their history.

Dan says

We do not see reality but 'construct' it or assume it. Interesting and possibly true and verymuch in line with 'creative realization'. These words create dissonance for me however.

to reconstruct in our minds that past event using the information that has been preserved according to the photons themselves

Is that not what we do in the present as photons 'themselves' deliver what their energy has encoded?

If there are sources (eg photons) that are information of "past" events and such sources are available "now", then does this not provide a reason to assume that all "time" (at least all "past" "time") is occuring at once, or is still here? Then "time" travel would be available , but essentially it would be equivalent to passing an information barrier and not anything to do with "speed" or "time". Neither would you need to use dimensions to explain time travel.

The photons we see now from Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, were created there 20 years ago. However, that past is not some "place" that one can travel to.

That past Sirius is constructed like this: we see the photons, we know the speed of light, we know the distance to Sirius, we compute the knowledge "that's what Sirius looked like 20 years ago." If we didn't know the distance to Sirius (as the ancients didn't) we would say "look at Sirius now."

Suppose Sirius were to explode tonight. We would see the explosion in 20 years. The present time at exploding Sirius is unavailable to us because of the great distance.

Neither is the future available to us. We can speculate about future events, but to "go" there we must merely wait long enough. We can speed the "passage" of time by becoming unconscious while we wait, or we can use relativity to dilate time (very hard), but undergoing the passage of "time" is the only way to "travel" along that "dimension."

Ok, so there is a "time" gap due to the speed of light. But apart from that gap, most of history is available to us now. The future, well that's another story. Perhaps all of the "anti" things could help out here. You know, like antigravity, antimatter, aunty Kath.

Also, we don't have to "be anywhere" to experience the past. The information is enough. From that we can construct the place, the time. Well in the future we will be able to anyway. Like holographic reality or similar. "We" might be part of that construct now.

Future is like past:
At some point will have occurred
But not at present

Exactly, and hence:
Behold the illusion of
Time as dimension

You dropped something?

The solution to
Infinite energy goal:
Man turns into God

©2004 Hey Hey

Now it has 7! Nice counting there.

Man turns into bar,
Downs a few and a few more:
Delusions of god.

Man downs a few gods;
God points his finger from above:
Man turns into bar

Dear Dan

I find parts of what you say agreeable but other parts seem fanciful. And the funny thing is the fancy makes more sense than the agreeable.

The photons do have information and there is other information as well. Non force info packets are one of those forces that we have yet to more fully understand. But in the matter of astrophysical evaluation of the information encoded in the energy of photons still reaching us for purposes of calculations we have the red shift and what they are able to ascertain from wobble measured in the astronomer's art as I understand it.

The part of your piece that is reminiscent of Uncertainty and other quantum observations like the enigmatic cat is this -

'seeing reality' is a matter of interpreting our perceptions

And this is certainly true as I included in the illustration from Bucky Fuller in the story about the airplane propeller (or is that propellor). But the mathematical analysis of reed shift is not an issue of what our senses perceive and many other analyses as well. In fact we are not considering brain function here at all. But you might be addressing that when you say this and I would like to read more about what you mean by these words.

provide the basis from which the mental apparatus projects a meaningful pattern into perception.

But I do not wish to throw water on your 'imagination' and its imagineering because I sense there is something valid or useful in them as I see you say this -

'real' perceptions become indistinguishable from internally originating 'imagination' perceptions, our capacity to 'see reality' is no longer guaranteed.

... most of history is available to us now.

“Not true. Most of history will be forever unavailable. While it is easier to reconstruct the past than it is to predict the future, reconstructing past events perfectly is impossible, and for reasons very similar to the reasons for the difficulty of future prediction.�

Yes, true. That it is available but cannot be interpreted or utilised is a better description. There will be impressions of all “past� events somewhere in the universe (whether it be escaped photons, energy level enhanced electrons in atoms due to energy uptake, X-rays, particle streams, plasmas etc, or macroscopic artefacts such as black holes, stars, planets, beings etc). These impressions can be the resulting changes in interacting sinks of the past (includes almost everything).

Yes, reconstruction could be easier than prediction. I think that “perfection� is a term to avoid as it will fog the issue. We all understand that nothing is perfect; rather, we should strive towards perfection.

“To understand the difficulty of past reconstruction, first consider the computational difficulty of future prediction. The current instant in time has a very large number of possible future instants. Each of those possible states has a correspondingly large branching factor of possible future states. This complexity explosion is the reason why weather prediction beyond a few days will always be out of reach.�

Predicting the future. Hum, not quite the same thing, as the idea in quantum physics of statistical something from nowhere brings in the “chance� of an unpredictable event. OK chaos theories indicate some witchcraft-like predictability, but this is largely predicting that chaotic disorder will rule; no help then. Part of this problem is that as we have now shown (above) that time does not exist, but rather, events will just occur with some sort of sequentiality, it is not the future that we would predict - it is the outcome of reactions that will be predicted. If there is an “quantum unknown reactant� in the reaction then of course the prediction could be flawed. But this "future" diversion is unhelpful due to random not-yet- or even not ever-events. The past DID have events and we have to try and recreate them (not necessarily literally, but via a model).

“Past reconstruction is a religious desire described in physics professor (Tulane University) Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality. In this book, Tipler describes a possible future computer with infinite computational power that could resurrect all people and simulate them in a heaven-like existence. However, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that even infinite power is unable to fully reconstruct the past.

Now consider the archaeologist's problem of past reconstruction. Suppose we take a document written on a sheet of paper and burn it. We have a pile of ashes. There are millions of different documents that could have been burned to create that pile of ashes, and there is no way of telling which one it was. Thus, the backtracking problem in time is just as difficult (if not more so) than forward prediction.
But, it might be argued, infinite power is unlimited, so it should be able to do anything! For future prediction that might be true if ranomness of future states can be ruled out. However, for past reconstruction, knowing which document produced the pile of ashes is indeterminant. The irresistable force has met the immovable object. Something has to give, and unfortunately, it turns out to be our wishful thinking that must go.�

Maybe not infinite power, but even a good tank full, will permit the computation of the potential configurations of the “burnt papers� of the past. The extent of this will be determined by the will and need to do it and the passing of time (!). Which configuration of a single piece of “burnt paper� that actually existed will be determined from the knock-on influence that the paper had on the universe. Tbis could include the photons (! again) reflected/absorbed, the results of the story told on the paper (magna carta) and so on. What you (Rick) have implied, is that when “physical� evidence is destroyed, all evidence is unavailable. It doesn't need the sword to conclude that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death. The complexity arises due to the number of Julius Caesars in the universe and when Apple will incorporate the G6 chip in the next iMac.

I think what we are talking about here is the future philosophy and science of cosmological archaeology and I imagine that it will use better tools than spades and picks.