OT: astronomical distances quantized? Was Re: [XCSSA] Legos and Dark Matter

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

On 9/19/06, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org <xcssa-admin@xcssa.org> wrote:
> (Based on
> visible mass, we would have expected the outer portion to rotate much
> slower than the inner, but instead the rotation is more uniform.)

In Feyman's Physics lectures, he mentions that the equations for
galaxy-shaped things haven't been worked out yet, if I had a math and
astronomy bent that'd be an interesting project.

In one of Sagan's books, he said that, bizarrely, it appears as though
the distance to visible galaxies is _quantized_, that they occur at
regular intervals.  It's odd that it's a quantization but it's
appearing at the astronomical level, instead of sub-atomic.  I wonder
if this is still believed to be true, and what the explanations for it
are.

> astronomer Halton Arp, who have alternative interpretations of nearly
> everything you've heard, including the red shift itself and the
> cosmological background radiation.)

Is that "tired light"?

That reminds me, I read that 1% of the energy in static signals on an
untuned TV are thought to be background radiation...the remaining 99%
is apparently, unknown.  That's pretty weird.

> have two very well established (and useful) theories in Physics, General
> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and at certain key points they give
> different predictions.  For example, Black Holes are not consistent with
> the standard model of Quantum Physics.  The two theories just don't fit
> together in a lot of ways, and lots of scientists now are trying to find
> a new theory to replace both, just as Einstein failed to do in the last
> decades of his life.

I'm not sure I really believe in it, but the simulation argument puts
things in a unique light:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

It seems to me that EPR pairs (quantum particle pairs produced
symmetrically), whose states are complements but a superposition of
both values until one is "read", at which point the other's wave
function collapses and it has a specific value.  That sounds a lot
like "lazy eval", where an expression isn't evaluated until its result
is needed, and a number of similar issues in processor design (branch
prediction, register renaming), if you're better with hardware
metaphors.
-- 
"It's not like I'm encrypting... it's just that my communications
developed a massive entropy deficiency." -><-
<URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/>
GPG fingerprint: 9D3F 395A DAC5 5CCC 9066  151D 0A6B 4098 0C55 1484