Some Information about books

Mary Gentle's Ash is a great read about a female mercenary captain. I am also hearing good things about her new tome 1610, but that is still sitting in my to-read pile. Ash is all about gritty realism, even though great magic and miracles are present in the world during the later parts of the novel. Ash can is found as either a single, massive book or as three separate novels.

If you do not mind fantasy/alternate history crossovers, you might enjoy Kim Newman's Anno Dracula and follow-ups such as The Bloody Red Barron.
Also Paula Volsky's Illusion if you want an extremely-alternate and fantastic take on the French Revolution.

I found Kim Stanley Robinson's Years of Rice and Salt quite a let down. It had so much potential, but even though you keep coming to points in the story where you think things are going to turn around and actually become interesting, the thread is lost and you find yourself reading about some useless piece of trivia and still not caring about the story or the characters. It is a great concept but failed utterly on execution, which is a shame because I think he can do much better.

Missing the Fantasy Classics

You know I miss the fantasy classics when fantasy was simple but sweet. When people would write not to extend their series to ten books but for the sheer love of the art. I've read some of the current fantasy stuff like Robert Jordan, Martin but for some reason it doesn't compare to some of the stuff I read when I was a kid likes for instance, Lloyd Alexander's Prydain series, Susan Cooper's the dark is rising, Zilphia Snyder's "Below the root", the Narnia Chronicles by Lewis and even The sword of Shannara series and Thomas Covenant. There is something simple yet sweet about those classics. Maybe I have not found the latest great author yet but I miss those books still.

To summarize what I'm getting at

Banach-Tarski describes a way of breaking apart an object into several pieces, and re-assembling them in a way which does not preserve mass in this simple mass-preservation model. Thus, a process analogous to this is not possible in this matter preservation model.

The immediate consequence is that the matter preservation model I have described is not a viable mathematical model of physics in which some sort of "Banach-Tarski process" is possible; and equivalently, in any world which is described by matter preservation, there cannot be any process resembling what is described by the Banach-Tarski theorem.

Could it be that there is a matter-preservation model in which Banach-Tarski is possible -- for instance, if point masses are possible? Maybe; but then what's the point of talking about tearing apart the empty space in between into unmeasurable sets and re-assembling them? You take apart mostly empty space, and re-assemble it into mostly empty space; whoop-de-doo.

So, with respect to simple models of matter conservation, Banach-Tarski seems at best peurile and utterly uninteresting; and at worst, utterly unrealistic because a re-assembly process analogous to the Banach-Tarski would not perserve mass.


Now, matter is not actually conserved in our world, but matter with energy seems to be conserved. Perhaps tearing apart a sphere into immeasurable pieces requires a large amount of energy: but we don't have a good model for this, and making models of the world for the sake of theorems instead of observed data is not good science. It is in principle an interesting way of building world-models, but it is not clear that this is how science should work.

This is the basis of my argument in the other thread. I was working with an intuitive model of matter preservation, which can be formalized into what I have described above.Also fdaware.com.

Man Landing in Moon

Man never landed on the moon! It was the biggest lie of the 20th century. Americans did it because of the cold war between them and the Russians. The 1960's American newspapers were dominated by the threats that Russians are going to land on the moon before them and there they would set a nuclear base, seems funny but its true!, they were threatened. Americans tried it many times but there shuttles or rockets hardly even left the ground. Meanwhile the Russians sent the first satellite in space, which again challenged the Americans. As a result, they came up with this fraud. When they were successful to launch some of their rockets in 1969-72, they really orbited around the earth while the astronauts were playing on the American land. Before, the Russians had sent a dog in space, it died immediately as the rocket crossed the earth’s magnetic field because of the immense radiation. They concluded that no man could ever reach the moon unless he is protected by 6-foot thick lead sheet all the time. The suits that they wore barely had a 1-inch thick aluminum protection.

About Big Bang Theory

The Big bang is one of the theories developed to explain the origin of universe. According to it the universe starts from a big hot ball which is million million times hotter than the sun. The particles are in the state of plasma where there are no atoms. The burst of this hot ball lead to the formation of universe. But this does not explain all the phenomena in the universe it's just a good attempt to explain the formation of universe. No one knows what is before the Big bang as all the law of physics General Law of relativity itself fails in the singularity of the Big Bang (Its theory of relativity which predicted the Big Bang)