What Intuitive Should Mean
There seems to be some confusion about the word, intuitive. It looks as though people consider it intuitive to think those in another race are inferior. Or rather, would it be intuitive to think, based on lots of observations and many good reasons, that people in other races are equal to us? That sometimes people in one group have fallen behind those in another group, but since they are essentially equal they can always catch up?
An intuitive interpretation can of course be wrong, too, which testing it well enough should reveal. But an intuitive hypothesis should arise from what are constantly repeated observations and experiences, which the tenor of those, or their nature, should carry over into other areas. That's what the word, intuitive, should mean to us. And what's intuitive to us will gradually change as well.
For example, some may have once considered offering sacrifices to something that may or may not preside over humans on Earth—as a way to improve crops and ward off various potential disasters—to be an intuitive and well reasoned practice, sort of like covering your bases when you're not yet sure how things really work. But it's intuitive now, given the large amount of data that's been gathered and carefully reviewed about this, that such efforts have nothing to do with successful crops or the occurrence of natural disasters.
Here are some more examples of what an intuitive hypothesis should look like:
It should be intuitive that death is final for each human like it is for all other living things on Earth.
It's intuitive that sunlight bounces from the moon; meanwhile sunlight does bounce from the moon.
A round, not flat, Earth would be intuitive by extrapolating from how the moon is round.
It's intuitive that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, that some had personal reasons to say he did.
It's long been intuitive to humans that fog is water vapor, even before more scientific proof came along to explain that.
It's intuitive that each fundamental particle has mass and can't share its occupied volume with another.
That gravity is an attraction arising from matter, not from the space that surrounds it, is intuitive.
It's intuitive that time passes at the same rate across the entire universe.
No shortcuts existing, which are less than the distance of a straight line drawn between two objects, is intuitive.
Collided particles breaking into smaller pieces, instead of being annihilated from existence, is intuitive.
It's intuitive that gravity from a central collection speeds up galaxies, i.e. galaxies w/ angular tracks, not dark energy.
Endlessly Cycling Universe Returns to Each Particle Having Zero Charge
The only way I can see to get an eternal cycling universe back to a state of having all uncharged photons once again is by many more times the mass than what's presently located in this area of galaxies eventually coming in to add their mass. For me, there would have to be a finite number of photons out there or else not even... one could be a unique individual—an individual by not being able to share the exact same volume of space with another one simultaneously. Other than that they would be identical in their uncharged state.
Let's say that over time more and more photons, photons that are very far away right now, show up and donate their mass to the cycle here. If so the frequency of eruptions would greatly increase. Then gradually explosions, instead of periodic binary eruptions, would occur. Explosions would send out uncharged particles—uncharged from having been in such a collection's outer layers for a long enough time; as the required time to uncharge them decreases when the collection becomes exceedingly large. Explosions would send uncharged particles far away, while those able to regroup soon after would tend to uncharge as they collect again. For if such a rebuilding collection is massive enough still, which it should be, instead of gradually recharging its layers (which takes a lot of time) they only flex in a bit (however, many times more of them than what's in the collection right now) without accruing any lasting charge; then flex back out simultaneously, this time exploding them all outward without having accrued any charge... so that the system would need to begin again from scratch. It's sort of like the chicken before the egg question. (2/17/15)
You can claim anything is verified if you look long enough and hard enough trying to make it so. Just like the Higgs Boson. It's supposed to appear in a collider, as if colliding things is like massless stuff expanding (when massless stuff is an oxymoron), at 114 Gev. So CERN found a spike in photon emissions, at least what are thought or interpreted to be photon emissions, at 125 Gev. That spike means things without mass are being created at 125 Gev. Therefore the Higgs Boson has just been confirmed.
Numerical values that happen to work when broadly applied are too often linked to wrong ideas, as if those proven numerical values also prove those ideas. It's similar the king of Spain once speaking with a lisp and soon the entire country thought the lisp was part of the proper pronunciation. (2/10/15)
Celestial Body Interior Warming is Typical w/ No Tides Required
What causes Enceladus, moon of Saturn, to spew jets of warm water into space? So what's warming its watery interior? Is the cause gravitational tides? Or is it highly compressed atoms/molecules, surrounded by other atoms (that form molecules), residing inside a celestial body with enough mass, therefore gravity, to produce that effe...ct? The reason is the same as why the Earth's center is hot enough to be molten: Compression.
Compress a gas into a liquid and it will heat up. Why? It's due to compression of radio particles and beta type electrons (when beta types, which are larger, are also present in larger atoms). Electrons and radio particles should and would behave much the same: They are attracted to a nucleus while their surfaces repel one another. For if their surfaces didn't repel one another they would keep attaching and making larger and larger composite particles. Therefore, since their surfaces mutually repel they try to avoid one another when compressed, which results in higher speed orbiting (sometimes just more vibrating of hovering particles since both orbiting and hovering occur in warming and/or heating depending upon the structural situation), as higher speed orbiting is one form or way to raise temperature, since temperature is the activity/friction experienced between particles, which typically propagates heating out toward other things in the form of outward spraying particles. Since gases like hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, and oxygen, when those are compressed into liquids, aren't compressed anywhere close to the extreme levels that some atoms would be within a star, they regain an equilibrium in their liquid form inside
their containers, as the energy levels of atmospheric gas atoms moderate their temperature by convecting their energy level through the container's walls so that those liquids, even though they remain under the compression level that causes them to be liquids, take on the ambient/surrounding temperature of the atmosphere's gas atoms/molecules. Meanwhile, the extreme compression inside stars won't allow that kind of cooling down.
Ocean tides/waves on the Earth is a rather mild effect exerted on a material subjected to very low pressure, i.e. a material that isn't being held down under lots of weight and unable to move. Tectonic plates do slide and can cause some melting of rock through friction, therefore many of the world's volcanoes, yet certainly wasn't the cause of the Siberian Traps which continued for a million years and covered a massive region across Asia. The Earth's deep interior is molten due to highly compressed atoms. Star interiors
are hot for the same reason. That looks fairly obvious and straightforward to me. (2/7/15)