Saturday Morning Physics | 10/19/24 | J. Alex Halderman

J. Alex Halderman
Bredt Family Professor of Computer Science and Engineering and Director, Center for Computer Security and Society
University of Michigan

The Science of Election Security

[charlesbrightman]

U of M: QUESTIONS:
1. Is our spiral shaped galaxy collapsing in on itself?
2. Do all galaxies collapse in on themselves?

a. Modern science claims that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime. Modern science also claims that matter can attract other matter.
b. There is a lot of matter in a galaxy which would put a huge dent in spacetime as well as a lot of matter possibly attracting other matter in a galaxy.
c. How could a galaxy not collapse in upon itself if space and time were warped to make it so as well as possibly matter attracting other matter in a galaxy?
d. Or, is modern science wrong as to what 'gravity' truly is?
e. And what exactly is 'space' that it can be warped?
f. And what exactly is 'time' that it can be warped?

g. Modern science claims that from nebula clouds in this universe that new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy can form.
h. Modern science claims that nebula clouds come from supernova'd stars.
i. It must have been a huge star that supernova'd so as to be able to generate a nebula cloud large enough to generate more stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy.
j. Or, is modern science wrong about how all nebula clouds form?
k. Is it at least possible that galaxies collapse in upon themselves, go supernova, thereby generating enough matter and energy so as to be able to generate new stars, planets, moons, solar systems and a new galaxy?
l. Galaxy -> Collapses in upon itself -> Supernova's -> Huge nebula cloud forms -> New galaxy eventually forms.

m. Possibly been going on throughout all of eternity past, is going on today, and possibly will be going on throughout all of future eternity?
n. Possibly also why there are so many unanswered questions concerning the singular big bang theory, because the singular big bang theory is not really true?
o. The universe always existed in some form, never had a beginning, and might possibly never have an end? No Creator necessary? Is that even why in part some cling to a singular big bang theory so as to be able to still in part be able to justify a Creator God existing (which probably does not actually exist in actual reality)?

p. For those who claim that galaxies do not collapse in on themselves due to the rotational velocity of galaxies and things like dark matter (dark matter not being found to actually exist yet) which counteract gravity, consider the progression of galaxies:
Huge nebula cloud of particles and energy -> Stars, planets, moons, solar systems eventually form -> Many galaxies flatten out (how could a large nebula cloud flatten out if only gravity were acting on the whole cloud? Surely other forces like electrical and/or magnetic forces must be involved as well.) -> Many galaxies then become spiral shaped (of which here again, how could a galaxy become spiral shaped if only gravity were acting on the whole galaxy?) -> The natural progression of a galaxy would be to become smaller and smaller (huge nebula cloud -> to eventual spiral shaped galaxy). In other words, the huge nebula cloud would be collapsing in on itself.

q. For those who consider a cycling universe: Which is more probable?
1. Cycling an entire universe.
2. Cycling a galaxy.

r. Modern science claims that an expanding 'space' of this existence will end in a 'big freeze' (although modern science does not say what 'space' actually is nor how space could actually expand nor where the energy comes from or goes to due to that expansion). But is it more correct that this existence will not end in a big freeze but just that galaxies and life just come and go in this eternal existence? Life just has to find a way to stay alive in outer space with galaxies that come and go, otherwise life ends one day from something, including possibly a collapsing galaxy? And 'if' all of life itself is no more one day, would it even ultimately matter that life itself even ever existed at all in the first place much less however it existed while it existed? Who too? Who and/or what would be left to care? And care throughout all of it's eternal existence throughout all the rest of future eternity? And 'if' so, how would it stay alive throughout all of future eternity while others cannot? Future eternity being a really, really long time, endless even.

[charlesbrightman]

U of M: QUESTIONS:
IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING:
It seems to me that ANY theory of everything idea should be able to answer the below items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. If that idea does not, then is it truly a theory of everything?

a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. Surely the very nature of reality has to allow numbers and mathematical constants to actually exist for math to do what math does in this existence.

b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually warp and expand.

c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually warp and vary.

d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. And for those who claim that 'gravity' is matter warping the fabric of spacetime, see 'b' and 'c' above.

e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also warp, expand and vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can warp, expand and vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could warp, expand and vary in actual reality?

f. Photons: A photon swirls with the 'e' and 'm' energy fields 90 degrees to each other. A photon is also considered massless. What keeps the 'e' and 'm' energy fields together across the vast universe for billions of light years? And why doesn't the momentum of the 'e' and 'm' energy fields as they swirl about not fling them away from the central area of the photon? And why aren't photons that go across the vast universe torn apart by other photons, including photons with the exact same energy frequency, and/or by matter, matter being made up of quarks, electrons and interacting energy, quarks and electrons being considered charged particles, each with their respective magnetic field with them?

Electricity is electricity and magnetism is magnetism varying possibly only in energy modality, energy density and energy frequency. So why doesn't the 'e' and 'm' of other photons and of matter basically tear apart a photon going across the vast universe?

Also, 'if' a photon actually red shifts, where does the red shifted energy go and why does the photon red shift? And for those who claim space expanding causes a photon to red shift, see 'b' above.

Why does radio 'em' (large 'em' waves) have low energy and gamma 'em' (small 'em' waves) have high energy? And for those who say E = hf; see also 'b' and 'c' above. (f = frequency, cycles per second. But modern science claims space can warp and expand and time can warp and vary. If 'space' warps and expands and/or 'time' warps and varies, what does that do to 'E'? And why doesn't 'E' keep space from expanding and time from varying?).

g. Energy: Modern science claims that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it's one of the foundations of physics. Hence, energy is either truly a finite amount and eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. First Law Of Thermodynamics: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." How exactly is 'energy' eternally existent?

h. Existence and Non-Existence side by side throughout all of eternity. How?

* NOTE: Even General Relativity and the Standard Model of Particle Physics cannot answer these items in a logical, coherent, inter-related way. Shouldn't these above items also require accurate answers?