Maryjane

Yes creation seeking to fill all that is, like water seeking to fill a sinking ship.


http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html

Maryjane

Did this thread die to? To bad it was a good topic.
I have done allot of research and reading in the field of astrophysics and archiology of ancient structures and other artifacts. Possible origins theoretically and about myths which I believe that in very myth there is a grain of truth in it's origine. At least something big enough to put down on a record where some time later stories and folklore is woven around that unusual event. Burried to near obscurity within a legend but still there if one looks carefully enough. How did some ideas in the ancient days make their way all around the world? Stuff like that and I believe that's what this post was fore. Science combined with your own imagination and your conclusion and the sharing of your own conclusion. Give it a shot, you don't get graded for a score or anything just some fun exploring different possibileties and potentialeties. See ya. I hope.


http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html







http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html

aftermath

Hello again sorry.. i havent had time of lately to write a good reply.

Well, for this myth idea, there are quite a few common ones between different cultures. Some need say this means that the event may have actually happened. Others say aliens told them to all the cultures of hte world as they helped us evolve. I think the reason behind the similar myth's is because the cultures were all trying to explain how things worked. And it often broken down into the simplest idea. But there is the fact that some of these myths aren't simple and are every similar with other. But they can be explained by early trading between countries and cultures. It is believed that ppl from south america were the first to cross the atlantica ocean, 100's of years before columbus. This is thought because in anceint egypt, many of the mummies have tobacco(if i recall correctly) emtombed with them. At that time period, the only place to find tobacco was south america.... so, it proves that there was trading between cultures a hell of a lot sooner then ppl orginally thought, and that could explain why the myths are you similar. It all could have started with one crazy guy spinning tales about how thigns were created and ppl liked the idea. 'aliens' from another country come to trade, hear the myth, get home with it slightly changed and you know how the cycle goes.

Maryjane

Ya I do. Like I trip on the sidewalk and by the time it gets to the other end of town by way of telephonitis I was drunk and got picked up stagering on the street and fighting with the cops don't ya know. People love telling stories and embelish it to get more entertainment out of it and that hasn't changed in the past thousands of years excpet they didn't have any telephones back then but the gossip got passed around quite well from one farm pasture ot another between viligaes imbeleshing the story even more in the process of course. Something big would create an even biger fable. But it's amazing to find what is at the core sometimes. There is no definitive answers to the othentisit to most myths they may be just that but some have a clear indication of something big having transpired. Even many artifacts have been found that are supposed to be indicative of what is told in the myths. It's what had been observed at the begining that left such an impression in peoples minds but probably get mured through time by the reteling of natural and not so natural phenomena's. Like the symbolism used in the bibble the thing is to do a little detective work breaking it down into their different components before you are able to asses what could have been. A shepard sees a great ball of fire in the sky and calls it a fiery chariot. North Amarican natives talked about thunderbirds, Large birds that made sounds like thunder that shook the ground. And Hang gliders in India back some 3000 years ago. What of the beasts with many eyes they talk about in Revelations. When I saw a Startreck starship sitting iddly in space one night while watching TV all the little windows in the starship reminded me of the beasts with many eyes in the bibble. Will our last confrontation be with huge starships, man declaring war with the heavens. Either a star ship or a real beast with many eyes I don't think one would want to mess with one either way if you can help it. And the description of Babylone sounds verry much like a very large space station doing trade with the kings of the earth. By this time earth has been so decimated by the pluages and what not that the people are totally dependant on the harlot that is the queen of the station. Allot of fantasy in what I said, but what if?


http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html

aftermath

Ever hear of the chariot of the gods by erich vondakien, but it takes a bunch of ancient myths and explains them. He also explains parts of the bible, and different structures and natural land formations arcoss the world. I believe it was written in the 70's or 80's. It's pretty good. I'd suggest looking into.


As for the bible, I'm not going to start with that.

Maryjane

I know Erik Vondakien, he came out with several books in the seventies and a couple of comentaries on TV in the early 80's. Not sure but I heard he had to back out of what he was doing for a while because of a threatened twentieth century witch burning. Stepped on to many good christians toes I guess. But he did bring forward allot of good possibileties, he just laked solid or tangible proof. Solid tangible proof in science is about as elusive as trying to catch invisible butter flies with a holly net. I like to stick with what Einsteins said, imagination goes exponetially further then fact and knowledge, most inventions were born out of imagination. There is no real solid tangibilety to the elements in this realety, these energy and mass particles are in constant motion or in a constant flux or change, from subatomic particles to massive in size. Mass is still made up of trillions of compacted submicroscopic particles. We think we have all the moves on the chess board all figured out till someone moves one of the pieces when your not watching then you're whole prior stratogy has to be changed to acomodate this new combination in the new layout of the individual components. See how a researcher can get headaches? Like more holes in the bottom of your canoe then your fingers and toes can cover. Many new elements discovered recently can't even be detected by our most sofisticated aparatus. The only indication that such an anomely is out there is by the displacement of normal space. You can see the track left behind but not the critter that made them. Some of these energies if they have a powerfull enough gravitational field they can even displace time as well as space. Like cosmic strings we know of their presance and how they affect the universe but can't actually observe one, they are like tiny streams of energy or oscilations in the harmonics of the fabric of space itself. Like electro magnetic waves around the earth will terminate or start at the polls and even follow certain paterns on it's journy around the globe so are the cosmic string to black holes. I had already typed all this out once and clicked the wrong button and lost it all. I will beat myself over the head with a limp sucker fish If I do that again. I personally believe that science is a progressive thing like evolution of the species. How long does one evolve before you reach the final product, same with science.


http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html

TGirlPaula

The more we see the more there is to see.

Today I read an article about what it is that binds the nucleus of an atom together.

First we were told that the nucleus contained only protons, neutrons, and electrons. Now we find so much more in there.

No one has ever seen a neutrino but evidence of its existence has been seen, the track it makes when it hits a deuterium molecule in Antarctic ice.

We ain't seen nothin' yet!

Paula

Maryjane

Here is the article. Interesting.


By DENNIS OVERBYE





Three Americans who helped describe the force that binds
together the atomic nucleus were named winners of the Nobel
Prize in Physics yesterday. They are Dr. David J. Gross of
the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the
University of California at Santa Barbara; Dr. Frank
Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and
Dr. H. David Politzer of the California Institute of
Technology.

In two papers published in 1973, one by Drd. Gross and
Wilczek and the other by Dr. Politzer, they explained why
quarks, the theoretical constituents of the neutrons and
protons that make up the nucleus, could never be seen apart
from one another. Their work paved the way for a theory
known by the fanciful-sounding name quantum chromodynamics,
part of a suite of theories known as the Standard Model
that explains all the forces of nature except gravity. It
also raised hopes that physicists might yet find a single
unified theory of nature. They will each get a third of the
$1.3 million prize.

The award had long been anticipated by the scientific
community. Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, an astrophysicist at
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said it was
long overdue, adding, "How often do you get to explain one
of the four fundamental forces of nature?"

In a press conference at M.I.T., Dr. Wilczek said the award
was welcome recognition for the endeavor of trying to
understand nature. "It is one of the real gems of our
culture," he said, "that we can understand nature in this
way and that you find beautiful things."

The award harks back to what now seems like a golden age of
particle physics that lasted from the end of World War II
to the 1980's. In a spurt of feverish activity at particle
accelerators and at the blackboards of theorists, physics
arrived at an understanding of the three fundamental forces
in nature besides gravity: electromagnetism, which is
responsible for light and chemistry; the so-called weak
force, responsible for some kinds of radioactive decay; and
the strong force, which holds together atomic nuclei.

According to quantum mechanics, the paradoxical lingua
franca of the atomic world, the forces between particles
are transmitted in a kind of game of catch by little
bundles of energy. For electromagnetism, the force carriers
are bits of light known as photons. For the weak force,
they are the W and Z bosons, which are brothers, of a sort,
of the photon.

By the 1970's, the situation with regard to the strong
force was considerably murkier than for the other forces.
In 1964, the theorists Dr. Murray Gell-Mann of Caltech and
Dr. George Zweig of Harvard each independently suggested
that protons and neutrons, the constituents of atomic
nuclei, were not elementary but were themselves composites,
made up of smaller particles that Dr. Gell-Mann called
quarks.

But quarks were never seen in isolation, suggesting that
the force binding them together was extremely powerful.
Meanwhile, experiments at particle accelerators indicated
that quarks inside protons seemed to act as if there was no
force on them at all. How could that be?

"At first, it seemed like a contradiction," said Dr.
Wilczek.

Or as Dr. Robert L. Jaffe of M.I.T. put it: "It was just
viewed as absurd that nature was made of something that was
never seen. How could the quarks not get out? It was upside
down to everything we had seen before."

The 1973 papers, Dr. Jaffe said, "translated absurdity into
order," using the theory of quantum chromodynamics. In the
modern version of this theory, quarks come in six types -
fancifully named up, down, strange, charmed, top and bottom
- and three "colors," named red, green and blue. The colors
are like electrical charges that interact by exchanging
bundles of energy called gluons, just as electrical charges
attract or repel by exchanging photons.

In contrast to electromagnetism, however, the gluons
themselves have a color charge - thus the name
chromodynamics - and interact with one another. In a
breakthrough calculation, Dr. Gross, then an assistant
professor at Princeton, and Dr. Wilczek, his graduate
student, found that the force between two quarks would
increase with distance and turn off as they grew closer. It
would be as if the quarks were tied together by a rubber
band that pulled tauter and tauter as they separated, but
went slack when they came together, a notion known as
asymptotic freedom.

They soon learned that Dr. Politzer, then a graduate
student at Harvard, had done the same thing.

Dr. Gross, 63, was born in Washington. Dr. Politzer, 55,
and Dr. Wilczek, 53, were both born in New York City.

Noting that several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work
on unifying the weak and electromagnetic forces, Dr. Gross
said that he was happy and proud that work on the strong
force was being recognized.

"In many ways, I regard it as the most beautiful part of
the Standard Model, the hardest to put together and the
most exciting," he said.

Dr. Politzer was described by Caltech officials as shy, and
he declined to be interviewed yesterday or to attend a news
conference. But, he is not completely unused to the
spotlight. Caltech said he played a physicist in the 1989
Paul Newman movie "Fat Man and Little Boy," about the
building of the atomic bomb.

By DENNIS OVERBYE





Three Americans who helped describe the force that binds
together the atomic nucleus were named winners of the Nobel
Prize in Physics yesterday. They are Dr. David J. Gross of
the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the
University of California at Santa Barbara; Dr. Frank
Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and
Dr. H. David Politzer of the California Institute of
Technology.

In two papers published in 1973, one by Drd. Gross and
Wilczek and the other by Dr. Politzer, they explained why
quarks, the theoretical constituents of the neutrons and
protons that make up the nucleus, could never be seen apart
from one another. Their work paved the way for a theory
known by the fanciful-sounding name quantum chromodynamics,
part of a suite of theories known as the Standard Model
that explains all the forces of nature except gravity. It
also raised hopes that physicists might yet find a single
unified theory of nature. They will each get a third of the
$1.3 million prize.

The award had long been anticipated by the scientific
community. Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, an astrophysicist at
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said it was
long overdue, adding, "How often do you get to explain one
of the four fundamental forces of nature?"

In a press conference at M.I.T., Dr. Wilczek said the award
was welcome recognition for the endeavor of trying to
understand nature. "It is one of the real gems of our
culture," he said, "that we can understand nature in this
way and that you find beautiful things."

The award harks back to what now seems like a golden age of
particle physics that lasted from the end of World War II
to the 1980's. In a spurt of feverish activity at particle
accelerators and at the blackboards of theorists, physics
arrived at an understanding of the three fundamental forces
in nature besides gravity: electromagnetism, which is
responsible for light and chemistry; the so-called weak
force, responsible for some kinds of radioactive decay; and
the strong force, which holds together atomic nuclei.

According to quantum mechanics, the paradoxical lingua
franca of the atomic world, the forces between particles
are transmitted in a kind of game of catch by little
bundles of energy. For electromagnetism, the force carriers
are bits of light known as photons. For the weak force,
they are the W and Z bosons, which are brothers, of a sort,
of the photon.

By the 1970's, the situation with regard to the strong
force was considerably murkier than for the other forces.
In 1964, the theorists Dr. Murray Gell-Mann of Caltech and
Dr. George Zweig of Harvard each independently suggested
that protons and neutrons, the constituents of atomic
nuclei, were not elementary but were themselves composites,
made up of smaller particles that Dr. Gell-Mann called
quarks.

But quarks were never seen in isolation, suggesting that
the force binding them together was extremely powerful.
Meanwhile, experiments at particle accelerators indicated
that quarks inside protons seemed to act as if there was no
force on them at all. How could that be?

"At first, it seemed like a contradiction," said Dr.
Wilczek.

Or as Dr. Robert L. Jaffe of M.I.T. put it: "It was just
viewed as absurd that nature was made of something that was
never seen. How could the quarks not get out? It was upside
down to everything we had seen before."

The 1973 papers, Dr. Jaffe said, "translated absurdity into
order," using the theory of quantum chromodynamics. In the
modern version of this theory, quarks come in six types -
fancifully named up, down, strange, charmed, top and bottom
- and three "colors," named red, green and blue. The colors
are like electrical charges that interact by exchanging
bundles of energy called gluons, just as electrical charges
attract or repel by exchanging photons.

In contrast to electromagnetism, however, the gluons
themselves have a color charge - thus the name
chromodynamics - and interact with one another. In a
breakthrough calculation, Dr. Gross, then an assistant
professor at Princeton, and Dr. Wilczek, his graduate
student, found that the force between two quarks would
increase with distance and turn off as they grew closer. It
would be as if the quarks were tied together by a rubber
band that pulled tauter and tauter as they separated, but
went slack when they came together, a notion known as
asymptotic freedom.

They soon learned that Dr. Politzer, then a graduate
student at Harvard, had done the same thing.

Dr. Gross, 63, was born in Washington. Dr. Politzer, 55,
and Dr. Wilczek, 53, were both born in New York City.

Noting that several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work
on unifying the weak and electromagnetic forces, Dr. Gross
said that he was happy and proud that work on the strong
force was being recognized.

"In many ways, I regard it as the most beautiful part of
the Standard Model, the hardest to put together and the
most exciting," he said.

Dr. Politzer was described by Caltech officials as shy, and
he declined to be interviewed yesterday or to attend a news
conference. But, he is not completely unused to the
spotlight. Caltech said he played a physicist in the 1989
Paul Newman movie "Fat Man and Little Boy," about the
building of the atomic bomb.


http://www.webspawner.com/users/cindy1945/index.html

Maryjane

Maryjane

Finally got my pic server back working. Here is the rock they speak of