Mr Stay Puft

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mr Stay Puft

  • Rank
    Senior Psychonaut

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Previous Fields

  • Climate or location
  1. Howdy, chasing reishi cultures or spawn please. May be interested in other medicinal cultures that people may have available. Don't have much to trade but willing to part with some dollars. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
  2. actually, i have very limited number of planthelper open pollinated seeds (white, narrow and other planthelpers were flowering at the same time)... willing to part with 5 seed lots for edible cultures... as i said unfortunately very limited supply... and cash still... thanks
  3. Howdy, Chasing edible mushroom cultures (oyster, shitake, enoki, shimeji, anything else), preferably plates but slants, spawn, whatever is available, not too fussed... Only have cash, not much to trade... Thanks
  4. Hey, I have seen a massively productive avacado in Airport West... Used to work at Bunnings, seen their trees, may grab one off them for now but not expecting to see fruit for a long time off that and really have no good place to plant atm... more interested in the fruit at this point for some reseach...
  5. Hey people, long time no post, chasing fruit of the Boab Tree, and a plant if peeps have one, have cacti, poppy seed, and few other things to trade, or money if it comes to that! Thanks!
  6. i would love some! Pm'ed
  7. After 'tender cactus' or Nopalea grande propagation material... Trade or sale, pm me!
  8. will have some fat blue peru pollen too pretty soon... keen to trade crosses would be excellent!
  9. there is a paradox in all of the rambling of mine... try this 'E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 where E = energy, m = mass, c = speed of light in vacuum, and p = momentum. If the object is massless, like the photon, then the equation just reduces to E = pc. A particle doesn't necessarily have to have mass to have momentum. No contradictions there.' if E=pc where p can also = mv and mass = 0 then wouldn't E=(0*v)c which would = 0 regardless of the values of v (velocity of said particle) or c(the 'so called' speed of light)...
  10. So this is from a debate i have been having with a theoretical physicist... i have been trying to poke holes in physical theory based on the fact that time and distance are fixed (ie a meter is a meter anywhere in the universe, just as a second is a second... in my opinion, to argue otherwise discounts the credibility of said measurements, which in turn pokes the biggest holes in all scientific measurements anyway... therefore i also do not believe the speed of light to be a constant, also not too sure about it being the maximum either (think black hole for instance.... it obviously accelerates 'light' to a speed faster than 'the speed of light' therefore light 'falls' back into it... anyway the numbered points are by the physicist, my rebuttal's under them... Okay the first point I would like to make goes back to one of my rebuttal’s from before… ie that distance and time are fixed, I will submit my ruler and watch as evidence… now remember that I said I do not trust the electronics within my watch… well it’s this point that I would like to elaborate on… oh and just momentarily I would like to point out that I still think that temperature (especially when regards to a so called vacuum) cannot be measured accurately… the reason for this, if I am not mistaken temperature is essentially the internal kinetic energy of an object (how fast things are vibrating)… now, if as physics suggests, all of these ‘particles’ that are actually only just field excitations, don’t really exist then it would be very difficult to test the temperature of a space containing only said particles… Before I go on I need to reiterate that I do not believe that space is just space, it is a medium, and considering our current existence, it pretty much has to exist infinitely (I also have an inkling that it is of infinite size too, but that is another topic)… So let’s discuss relativity, and get back to those clocks I mentioned way back… So if space is a medium, and it has varying densities (affected by the amounts and types of matter energy at certain points) then the variation in density will also affect the operation of all other energy and matter at that point… so my hypothesis for why the discrepancy in times between the clocks… they were operating in space of different density. The space close to a celestial body is denser than space further away from said celestial body (there is a reason for this I may try explain later)… Now if this is the case all the components of the clocks (now these even include the electrons, protons and all subatomic particles that are components of the components) are exposed to different amounts of ‘friction’ (from the obstructions I mentioned way back a few posts ago)… therefore the clock further from earth was able to count time faster dude to less friction on all the internal components of it… For any non physicists who have enough time on their hands to still be reading this like 8or so day old post I will repeat the above in a visual way… say we have two clocks… massive ones… with second minute and hour hands meters long… one clock operates in air (very little friction to interfere with the movement of the hands… the other in a very viscous liquid (could be water, but the higher the viscosity the greater the effect)… the clock operating in the liquid is experiencing more friction, which will impede its ability to keep time accurately… I bet that after a certain amount of time, due to the differences in friction experienced by each clock there would be a discrepancy in time… ****light travels from one point in space to another via a straight path. The only way light could curve is if the space co-ordinates the light was traveling with respect to are curved themselves. This was predicted by einstein and proven by astronomical observations making einstein instantly famous. Now the reason this discrepancy assumed a value that supported einsteins claim is that in my opinion gravity is mostly responsible for the variation in density through space… Now if we take a few steps back I suggested earlier that light is not curving in space due to ‘co-ordinates being curved themselves’ but due to the diffraction caused by light traveling through a medium (space) of altering densities… this is all I have had the time to get down so far... the next part is about optics and diffraction, but I have to brush up on that before I start theorizing… I’d love to catch up for a chat over a beer with you Christopher and anyone else who has the theoretical physics itch… In no way am I questioning your description of the universe (in fact it was pretty damn thorough)… just giving my opinion… 1. the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, maxwell's equations show this. Still not convinced a true vacuum can exist… I will try to elaborate on this… 2. a vacuum is defined as devoid of matter such as gases, solids, liquids, and plasmas etc, quantum fields and virtual particles are by definition part of the vacuum and do not have their own inherent energy because they use the uncertainty principle to borrow energy from literally nothing to come into existence for a fleeting moment before returning to the vacuum. The point to make here is that ‘they do exist’ even if it is just for a moment… now we could also discuss the ‘borrowing energy from literally nothing’ but that is a whole other discussion… So if ‘virtual particles’ borrow energy to ‘temporarily exist’, and energy and mass are interchangeable, it would make sense that at that exact point in ‘space’ (I think we need to define space mind you), even if just momentarily, an ‘obstruction’ may exist… (now this is one reason why I do not believe a vacuum can really exist) it’s important when discussing physics as these obstructions may inhibit the flow of, say a photon, and therefore interfere with the observed speed (and direction) of said object through said ‘vacuum’… 3. energy and mass are interchangeable because mass is a condensed form of energy, sort of like chemical potential energy. I’m pretty sure I was getting at this earlier… I will elaborate later maybe… 4. it isn't necessarily true that wherever there is energy, there is mass. E=mc^2 tells us how mass and energy are related but not why. For that we must turn to quantum field theory. Energy is condensed into mass via interaction with the Higgs field. Between time=0 and 10^-12s after the big bang the energy density of the universe was huge, and it was so hot that the Higgs field couldn't interact with any particles so at that point in time mass didn't exist. I don’t have the energy to even consider discussing this one at this point in time… ironic? 5. einstein's general theory of relativity shows that time and space aren't just convenient ways of measuring distance or time intervals, they are real, physical, alterable quantities just like energy. Einstein clearly showed that gravity was a consequence of space and time warping due to the presence of a large amount of mass/energy. Also in quantum field theory space-time is hypothetically composed of massless particles called gravitons. So this part I would slightly agree with… I do not agree that time and space are alterable attributes… I quote my ruler and watch as a reference… although I do not trust the electronics that operate my watch… I believe that making both distance and time (both components of speed) variable was an ingenious way to create a universal constant that would help describe many other things… I never said that the speed of light constant has not been a useful tool… but I did question the reality of the situation… 6. light travels from one point in space to another via a straight path. The only way light could curve is if the space co-ordinates the light was travelling with respect to are curved themselves. This was predicted by einstein and proven by astronomical observations making einstein instantly famous. Define space… how can we assume that space is even just space… refer to point 9… now if as I suggest ‘obstructions’ may ‘temporarily’ exist in space then it isn’t really just space now is it? My suggestion would be that space is not just space but a medium of varying densities, and this variation in density is what is responsible for the ‘diffraction’ of light we observe due to gravity (this brings up another point but it will probably over complicate the situation at the moment)… 7. relativity shows that momentum is just another form of energy. E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 where E = energy, m = mass, c = speed of light in vacuum, and p = momentum. If the object is massless, like the photon, then the equation just reduces to E = pc. A particle doesn't necessarily have to have mass to have momentum. No contradictions there. Good to see the maths works here although I do not agree the speed of light is truly a constant… which may have some effects on the accuracy of some of these equations… especially when talking about some very small numbers… 8. the EM spectrum is not infinite because there is an upper limit to the energy a photon can have before it collapses into a black hole. This energy is associated with the Planck mass which is the upper limit a particle's mass can be before it collapses into a black hole. That being said though the upper limit to the energy is huge. Define a black hole… and then explain the hawking paradox… Is it mathematically or physically proven that an upper limit to the amount of energy a particle can have exists? and how about the lower limit… that is essentially infinite then is it not? The point I would like to make here is that I believe there is energy that is not being accounted for… In regions of the EM spectrum that we do not even have the technology to measure… or maybe we are just looking in the wrong places… I would suggest that gravity may fit into this category… 9. we know the vacuum of space isn't devoid of energy because it has a measurable temperature of about 2-3 kelvin. The majority of the energy that contributes to this temperature is in the form of photons, so why is there no mass in empty space even though there is energy and even a measurable temperature? It's because the energy is manifested as massless photons The only point I would make here is that I question the accuracy of our temperature measurements… and the amount of true measurements that have been made, rather than predicted from ‘radio data’… it is a big universe and we have only just left our little rock in the last 60 or so years... statistically we have only physically tested the temperature of space in a very small region of a very big place… I do not disagree that the maths works and is useful… but I do disagree with its definition of space and time…
  11. i have to agree with you in principle... if every particle is radiating at all times then every particle must also be absorbing radiation at all times... i would suggest that (quantitatively) what is radiated must also be received or everything would 'evaporate'... interesting concept... so then it comes to balance, densities and decay... and the desire of a system for uniformity, or at least equilibrium... which brings up the concept of universe and finite and infinite... logically a finite universe would have found itself in dynamic equilibrium by now, have ended (evaporated or collapsed) (don't believe there is an end or why would it still be going?), or be in an infinite loop cycle (i guess you could call that dynamic equilibrium and could involve both evaporation and collapses)... which has some profound consequences... brings up the question of free will... if we are indeed in a closed system (finite universe with a 'field' of space time permeating throughout) then shouldn't the particles just react the way they 'logically' should act around other particles and in the presence of fields and quanta... the lack of an 'outside' influence means things will just follow the course they are 'destined' so to speak... why i prefer the notion of an infinite universe... space is space (but never truly so)... no warping of distance and time (kinda defeats the purpose of them if they are not 'fixed'), just variation of density... it also 'enables' free will so to speak... it allows us to deviate from the 'destined' path as in an infinite system the only thing that is assured is chaos...
  12. in my experience pardoxes or conundrums are caused by short commings of the english language... or assumptions made by science...
  13. more paradoxes or conundrums? i can never work out the difference...
  14. mind you i totaly disagree with realitivty... it is a misobservation... or misunderstanding... i can never work out which... the speed of light is not constant (ever) as there is no such thing as a 'true vacuum' in the known universe...