there's absolutely no 'need' for super-luminal stuff... all that's necessary is
to know what =can= be happening at spatially-separated locals.
then, any 'information' with respect to what is actually happening at the
spatially-separated locales can be used to calculate, to a degree that's
commensurate with the quantity of such 'information', regardless of its
'quality' with respect to what =can= be happening at spatially-separated
locales, what actually happened at the spatially-separated locales. so-called
'secrets' cannot, in actuality, be 'hidden'... they just declare themselves to
the degree of their 'absence' within the 'information' set.
this seemingly-'strange' stuff can be accomplished because the one-way flow of
energy from order to disorder that is What's Described By 2nd Thermo (wdb2t)
constitutes a universal 'map' of Truth within physical reality.
'super-luminal' stuff just isn't necessary... all that's necessary is
'being-everywhere', simultaneously. to the degree of such, one can calculate at
one's leisure.
again, this seems 'strange', but, in actuality, isn't 'strange' at all.
for example, consider the case in which one, for instance, does work to keep-up
with international news. in this way, one can, at one's leisure, calculate back
to 'simultaneity', and See how it was the case that spatially-separated
'events' 'effect' each other.
there's nothing 'super-luminal' in-there, 'just' a degree of 'being'
everywhere, simultaneously.
all that's entailed, as i've continually discussed in various online 'places'
over the course of the last decade, is knowing the one-'map' of Truth that is
wdb2t, and 'following' it to Truth.
of course, because it determines the quantity of 'information' that enters into
the calculation, the degree of Being everywhere, simultaneously, impacts the
overall quality of the calculation.
Although i cannot 'explain', it's my Belief that God does such Perfectly.
we can only work at it to the degree that we are able, and willing, to do
work... but the one-'map' never fails to Reward our work, if only we do, in
fact, work.
Love Truth, and Truth Loves one right-back.
it's Exact and Deterministic, which is why i 'dare' to see the 'Hand of God'
in-it.
K. P. Collins
>Subject: Re: SV: Capacity of the brain
>From: "Bill Todd" billtodd at foo.mv.com>Date: Sun, 24 October 1999 04:15 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7uvp71$hgj$1 at pyrite.mv.net>
>>I already expressed the opinion that propagation faster than c was unlikely.
>However, propagation at close to c seems more reasonable: my distinct
>impression is that thinking of molecules 'bouncing against' other molecules
>as opposed to interacting with them via their associated (EM, gravitic,
>etc.) fields may be naive - and while the fields interact more strongly as
>the molecules get closer together (causing their relative speed and
>separation to affect the *amount* of heat transferred), they *begin* to
>interact as soon as the molecules move at all (or, in the extreme, the
>farthest molecule *begins* to be affected - minutely, certainly
>indetectibly, but affected, at least via classical ED, though perhaps QED
>may cloud the issue - as soon as the first molecule starts to move, plus a
>c-imposed delay).
>>- bill
>>Brian Inglis <Brian.dot.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:5HASOHZAgVLBVaW0NUFxy4Jisy6L at 4ax.com...>> Think physics and reality. Temperature is just a measure of heat,
>> which is a result of molecular motion. Applying energy to some
>> substances causes the molecules to bounce around more: we
>> perceive this as heat and measure it as temperature.
>>>> Heat propagates as molecules transmit energy to other molecules
>> by bouncing against them, so heat conduction is limited by the
>> speed at which these molecules can bounce, and transmit energy to
>> adjacent molecules.
>>>> It's a lot slower and less efficient than shipping the energy
>> around as E-M radiation, to affect the target molecules directly.
>>>>>> Apply too much energy to any real substance and you don't get
>> heat transfer, you get a change in the substance: a chemical
>> reaction, an absorption of energy, not heat transfer.
>>>> Theoretically, you can calculate anything, but if you don't take
>> into account the limitations of some conductive substance, it
>> probably isn't heat transfer that you're calculating, just some
>> ideal mathematical construct unrelated to reality.
>>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 16:31:28 -0400, "Bill Todd"
>> <billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>>>> >I'm not sure that's relevant: the *degree* to which the top-side of the
>> >frying pan heats up is related to the heat capacity (if I recall the term
>> >correctly - or perhaps it's specific heat?) of the frying pan - i.e., the
>> >more heat it can absorb per unit volume for a given temperature rise, the
>> >slower the temperature of a portion far from the heat source will rise.
>But
>> >that doesn't prohibit instantaneous propagation (which would mean that
>the
>> >far portion's temperature rise would *begin* immediately, regardless of
>how
>> >slow it was).
>> >
>> >- bill
>> >
>> >Steven Vogel <spamvogel at iconn.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38112AAB.1E02 at iconn.net...>> >> Naturally, you're correct. As an experiment to prove your point, you
>> >> could turn the burner on your stove on high. After ten minutes, put a
>> >> cast iron pan on the burner and put your hand on the top of pan right
>> >> away for ten seconds. After ten minutes, have the poster that said
>that
>> >> heat travels faster than the speed of light put their hand on the top
>of
>> >> the pan for ten seconds.
>> >>
>> >> The person who doesn't scream has the better grasp of reality.
>> >>
>> >> Bill Todd wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If heat in a substance does in fact propagate via the interaction of
>> >> > particles and EM fields, it's hard to see how it could do so at a
>speed
>> >> > faster than c.
>> >> >
>> >> > - bill
>> >> >
>> >> > Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:3810DBC3.3463B0BB at alcyone.com...>> >> > > Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Well actually I am, but the equation is faulty. It is only a good
>> >> > > > approximative model
>> >> > > > of the physic characteristics of heat, not an exact description
>of.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Well, no kidding.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Examine function describing heat distribution along the string.
>> >> > > > Examine value of this function at t=epsilon (epsilon approaching
>0)
>> >> > > > especially "interesting" are the values of this function
>infinitely
>> >> > > > far
>> >> > > > from
>> >> > > > point p. It is small but non-zero.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This is doing the equation, not doing the physics.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email
>max at alcyone.com>> >> > > Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web
>> >http://www.alcyone.com/max/>> >> > > San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
>> >> > > USA | Fri 1999 Oct 22 (43%/950) | &tSftDotIotE
>> >> > > __
>> >> > > / \ Do not seek death. Death will find you.
>> >> > > \__/ Dag Hammarskjold
>> >
>>>> Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>> --
>>Brian_Inglis at CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
>> use address above to reply
