<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Aristotle May Provide the Key to Quantum Gravity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/aristotle-may-provide-the-key-to-quantum-gravity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/aristotle-may-provide-the-key-to-quantum-gravity/</link>
	<description>The Blog of Cambridge University Press, North America</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:55:51 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rick Minutillo</title>
		<link>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/aristotle-may-provide-the-key-to-quantum-gravity/comment-page-1/#comment-1680</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Minutillo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1246#comment-1680</guid>
		<description>Hello Mr. Majid,

I have been troubled by the concept of Gravity since I was a young boy. The thought of Gravity as a substance has always appeared illogical to me. According to Newton&#039;s first law, all objects that exert a force, have an egual force exerted upon them. So, what is the force exerted upon light as it traverses through space? After years of thought and logical deduction, I can only come to the conclusion that gravity is not a substance, but a &quot;hole&quot; that occupies the space before and after the energy that is acted upon it, or in other words, gravity is the &quot;absence of energy&quot;. If this is true, then all mass can be converted into energy and gravity, thus making e=mc^2 a new formula of E/G=MC^2. As matter approaches the speed of light, the gravitation pull (the speed of the &quot;holes&quot; pulled behind the mass) also increases, thus causing the object to never quite reach the speed of light. If gravity is indeed a &quot;hole&quot; then it explains why we have &quot;black holes&quot;. As energy is released by matter, it is replaced with gravity, or the absence of energy. Once the absence &quot;mass&#039; becomes significantly stronger than the energy, the energy can no longer escape. As a star pushes energy out, it in turn forces gravitational holes inward. In a spherical form, all gravitons are forced into the center of the mass. The star needs enough energy to release outward, as well as to stabalize, or &quot;shift&quot; the holes. After the star has released most of it&#039;s potential energy into kinetic energy it entophies to where it&#039;s remaining energy can no longer control the holes that it has consumed, thus causing the star to implode. This would suggest that black holes are not infinite, but are finite substances that consume energy to fill the void until it consumes enough energy (or mass) to neutralize itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Mr. Majid,</p>
<p>I have been troubled by the concept of Gravity since I was a young boy. The thought of Gravity as a substance has always appeared illogical to me. According to Newton&#8217;s first law, all objects that exert a force, have an egual force exerted upon them. So, what is the force exerted upon light as it traverses through space? After years of thought and logical deduction, I can only come to the conclusion that gravity is not a substance, but a &#8220;hole&#8221; that occupies the space before and after the energy that is acted upon it, or in other words, gravity is the &#8220;absence of energy&#8221;. If this is true, then all mass can be converted into energy and gravity, thus making e=mc^2 a new formula of E/G=MC^2. As matter approaches the speed of light, the gravitation pull (the speed of the &#8220;holes&#8221; pulled behind the mass) also increases, thus causing the object to never quite reach the speed of light. If gravity is indeed a &#8220;hole&#8221; then it explains why we have &#8220;black holes&#8221;. As energy is released by matter, it is replaced with gravity, or the absence of energy. Once the absence &#8220;mass&#8217; becomes significantly stronger than the energy, the energy can no longer escape. As a star pushes energy out, it in turn forces gravitational holes inward. In a spherical form, all gravitons are forced into the center of the mass. The star needs enough energy to release outward, as well as to stabalize, or &#8220;shift&#8221; the holes. After the star has released most of it&#8217;s potential energy into kinetic energy it entophies to where it&#8217;s remaining energy can no longer control the holes that it has consumed, thus causing the star to implode. This would suggest that black holes are not infinite, but are finite substances that consume energy to fill the void until it consumes enough energy (or mass) to neutralize itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shahn Majid</title>
		<link>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/aristotle-may-provide-the-key-to-quantum-gravity/comment-page-1/#comment-1598</link>
		<dc:creator>Shahn Majid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 20:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1246#comment-1598</guid>
		<description>Hi Joseph, that does sound interesting. Bearing in mind that I never did get around to buying your book would you like to elaborate here a bit on what  you have in mind and/or give an external link (you can just paste in an web link into a message).
I looked over on the earlier post and I dont see any new comment there with anymore details, if its already posted there but awaiting moderation it should surface soon. Cheers, Shahn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Joseph, that does sound interesting. Bearing in mind that I never did get around to buying your book would you like to elaborate here a bit on what  you have in mind and/or give an external link (you can just paste in an web link into a message).<br />
I looked over on the earlier post and I dont see any new comment there with anymore details, if its already posted there but awaiting moderation it should surface soon. Cheers, Shahn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JOSEPH BRENNER</title>
		<link>http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/12/aristotle-may-provide-the-key-to-quantum-gravity/comment-page-1/#comment-1595</link>
		<dc:creator>JOSEPH BRENNER</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cambridgeblog.org/?p=1246#comment-1595</guid>
		<description>Hello again, Shahn. Please see my comment about logic and your response in the Truth, Symmetry and Quantum Computer Section. When you talk here about &quot;interplay&quot; between mass/gravity and information, I suggest again that this interplay follows the dialectical principle of dynamic opposition of my logic in reality (LIR). I had suggested earlier that LIR was a potential alternate to the &quot;co-intuitionist&quot;logic you mention above. Finally (just for now, I hope) I pointed out that the values of my non-truth-functional logic are &quot;probability-like&quot;: the actualization of A entails the the potentialization of non-A, reciprocally and alternately, such that neither ever disappears completely (0 &lt; A and non-A &lt; 1). I suggest that the principle fo duality you (we) are looking for will have some such functionality, related to and justified by the self-duality at the &quot;heart&quot; of energy in all its manifestations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello again, Shahn. Please see my comment about logic and your response in the Truth, Symmetry and Quantum Computer Section. When you talk here about &#8220;interplay&#8221; between mass/gravity and information, I suggest again that this interplay follows the dialectical principle of dynamic opposition of my logic in reality (LIR). I had suggested earlier that LIR was a potential alternate to the &#8220;co-intuitionist&#8221;logic you mention above. Finally (just for now, I hope) I pointed out that the values of my non-truth-functional logic are &#8220;probability-like&#8221;: the actualization of A entails the the potentialization of non-A, reciprocally and alternately, such that neither ever disappears completely (0 &lt; A and non-A &lt; 1). I suggest that the principle fo duality you (we) are looking for will have some such functionality, related to and justified by the self-duality at the &#8220;heart&#8221; of energy in all its manifestations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.354 seconds -->
