Were the rules of motion in our 3D universe predetermined?

There seems to be mounting evidence that the rules of motion within our 3D universe have been predetermined.

The universe is quantum space foam (space foam). This is in accordance with my Awareness model of reality. This concept of reality has been tested and is supported by an experiment.The Awareness model is an informational process model that is both pre-geometric as well as a describable matrix of process information. This holistic reality process is patterns and structures of self referential information that mean something. This is as though reality is both aware of itself as well as has its own inherent energy processes  to influence itself to expand in the manner that it continually does. It can be seen as though it were a neural network. In other words reality (embracing our universe) can think and influence itself. In this sense reality is a network from which patterns of waves emerge that mean something not only unto itself but also our universe and all ‘things’ and events entangled within it. This is as though reality has its own mind. For these reasons the geometric rules of motion (rules of nature) in respect to our 3D reality universe  were predetermined before the Big Bang and these rules will continue to be influence until the end of clock time. The Cahill Process and Hiley-Bohm Holomovement physics models are also informational process models.

The following quote from a Quanta magazine article seems to confirm my conceptual science position.

Quote:

“…Either we close the loophole more and more, and we’re more confident in quantum theory, or we see something that could point toward new physics…” [This means new science modelling that formally embraces entanglement such as my Awareness model.]

“…But given the choice between quantum entanglement and superdeterminism, most scientists favour entanglement — and with it, freedom. “If the correlations are indeed set, everything is preordained,” Larsson said. “I find it a boring worldview. I cannot believe this would be true…” It is my opinion that the geometric rules of nature as we understand them today were probably determined at that time of the Big Bang and that waves of information (virtual particles) from outside the universe ‘feed’ and influence these rules.

A supporting Dutch experiment can be assessed here

http://hansonlab.tudelft.nl/loophole-free-bell-test/

The Quanta journal article relating to the cosmic movement within the universe may be seen here

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170207-bell-test-quantum-loophole/

Unravelling a difficult physics paradox is not an easy task

About the Tolman paradox and an associated  comparison between Lorentzian Relativity and Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity

Around four years ago I read a physics paper written by Moses Fayngold entitled “A possible resolution of the Tolman Paradox as a Quantum Superposition”. Both the topic as well as the depth of ideas Fayngold employed to assemble his paper fascinated me. I could only understand snippets to what the author was talking about. I then passed the document along to a respected retired scientist  (MFP) to help me to work through and better understand the item.

The paper reference is

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.2531.pdf

(In case the above link is lost The Fayngold essay is also attached to this blog in the pdf file below).

On 7/Jan/2013 I sent an email to MFP regarding this matter. This was his response:

MFP said in response to my email which read was

Quote:

“As a layperson I find this article interesting. Obviously I only understand mere snippets of it but I have zeroed on to the closing sentence that “… QM could be nature’s device against violations of relativistic causality” My question to you is has this author a point?

 

MFP’s response

Quote:

“…thanks. This is very interesting and it is actually a new paper (1104 means 2011 04, ie April 2011).  But his argument is in relationship to the claims of Special Relativity. For the benefit of both of us I will try to explain.

Prior to Special Relativity, people assumed that light waves traveled through a medium (eg ether, or Cahill’s dynamical 3-space) at a fixed speed ‘c’. That implied that if you were moving through the medium at say speed v, then the speed of light waves relative to yourself would be c + v if you were headed into the waves, or c-v if you were headed away and being overtaken by the waves.

This in turn implied that people could determine the speed of the earth through the “ether” by measuring the speed of light in different directions. If they got a maximum speed say of c+v in one direction, and a minimum of c-v in the opposite direction, then the earth would have a speed of v relative to the ether.

Such an experiment was done by Michelson and Morley in 1887, however it gave a value for v of only about 8 km/s. Now since the earth was known to have an orbital speed around the sun of about 30 km/s, its speed through the ether would have to be at least as fast as that, so something appeared to be wrong.

In response to this, a theory was developed that motion through the ether caused matter to contract along its direction of motion and caused its internal physical processes to slow down, in such a way as to cause laboratory instruments to always measure the speed of light as being equal c, even if in reality it differed from c. This became known as Lorentzian Relativity Theory and it implied that it might be completely impossible to experimentally detect motion of matter relative to ether.

However, Cahill argues that if laboratory instruments get distorted by motion through ether, then to get the true value of v, one needs to multiply the experimentally determined value of 8 km/s by a scale factor, which then gives a value of about 400 km/s, which accounts for the orbital velocity of the earth plus the velocity of the sun as it orbits our galaxy etc. See:

The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174

However, if one assumes, as most physicists came to do, that motion of matter relative ether can not be experimentally detected, then it should be possible to make the same predictions as Lorentzian Relativity, using simpler equations that don’t include terms related to velocity through ether.

That is, it should be possible to develop a mathematically simpler alternative to Lorentzian Relativity that would work just as well for practical purposes.

This was achieved by Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity, which became popular because of its greater simplicity.

However, by leaving out the ether, Special Relativity allows paradoxes to arise such as Tolman’s paradox, which I will try to illustrate in a simple way.

Suppose we have observers A and B each with physically identical clocks.

And suppose A is at rest in ether and that B brushes past A and then away from A at a speed through the ether that causes B’s clock to run at half speed.

Then according to Lorentzian Relativity, A can say that the motion of B through the ether causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock and B can agree that this is so.

However, for the same situation Special Relativity asserts that A can say that the motion of B relative to A causes B’s clock to run at half speed relative to A’s clock but that since there is no ether, B has an equal right to say that the motion of A relative to B causes A’s clock to run at half speed relative to B’s clock.

At first sight this appears a ridiculous contradiction, but in practice, it is not possible for A and B to compare the times shown by their clocks without sending signals to each other and it turns out that if the signals do not exceed the speed of light, inconsistencies do not arise when comparisons are made. So because we currently have no way to send signals faster than light,  A and B are each entitled to claim that his own clock is running normally and that it is the clock of the other that is slow and there is no practical way to prove that either is wrong.

But, suppose it was possible for each observer to remotely stop the clock of the other using a signal of infinite speed?

Eg suppose at the instant that B brushes past A, A and B zero their clocks, and then after two seconds A stopped B’s clock and then in response B stopped A’s clock. What would be the result?

Lorentzian Relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. And when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will  be showing a time of two seconds, because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at twice the speed of B’s clock.  This is also what A would expect, because it would take zero time for a signals of infinite speed to travel from A to B and back to A again. So A would expect his clock to stop as soon as he stops B’s clock.

So Lorentzian Relativity predicts a logically consistent result.

In contrast…

Special relativity theory predicts that when A stops B’s clock, B’s clock will only be showing a time of one second because it runs at half  the rate of A’s clock. But when B stops A’s clock in response to that, A’s clock will only be showing a time of half of a second because from B’s point of view, A’s clock runs at half the speed of B’s clock.

But if A’s clock stops when it is showing only half a second, it could never get to two seconds to allow A to send the signal to stop B’s clock !

So in this example, Special Relativity results in paradox if we consider signals that travel at infinite speed. (The paradox can also arise if the signal speed is less than infinite but greater than the speed of light, but that is more difficult to reason about).

For people who prefer Special Relativity, the usual way to avoid this paradox is to assume that it is impossible for anything to travel faster than light, because if anything could do so, it could be used to send signals between observers such as A and B. That rules out tachyons so far as such people are concerned.

However, the paper you referenced suggests another way to avoid the paradox. The argument seems to be like this.

Suppose we assume that two versions of A (and his clock) can exist in a state of superposition, eg A1 and A2. Then when the clock of A1 shows two seconds, A1 sends a an infinitely fast signal to stop B’s clock. B then sends an infinitely fast signal to stop A’s clock which owing to the claims of Special Relativity arrives when A’s clock shows half a second. This would result in a paradox if it stopped the clock of A1, but thanks to the existence of A2, this signal can stop the clock of A2 rather than the clock of A1.

However, the situation of having two versions of A in superposition cannot continue for ever. At some point, one or other of the states must end up as the one that is observed to be real. If A1 is manifested, then A sent a signal to stop B’s clock, but did not receive a signal back to stop his clock, so that signal was in effect lost in quantum noise. If A2 is manifested, then A received a signal from B to stop his clock, but did not send a signal to stop B’s clock so the signal that stopped B’s clock was in effect spontaneously generated by quantum noise.

So this method of avoiding the paradox allows signals (eg using tachyons) that are faster than light, but does not allow such signals to be used for reliable communication.

On the other hand, as illustrated above, Lorentzian Relativity does not result in paradoxes when we consider signals (eg using tachyons) that move faster then light so adopting Lorentzian Relativity instead of Special Relativity provides a simpler way to avoid the paradox.

Regards…”

tachyons and superposition pdf

A light hearted way of understanding the theory of relativity

This is a dated comic strip [probably from sometime before the 1960’s] that I feel  does a good job in explaining the effects of relativity

Readers should note that the cartoon was produced before the discovery of the lighting effects that occur near to the speed of light.

Quote:

“When Albert Einstein advanced his special theory of relativity in 1905, he turned upside down everything that common sense and science had established about time. He said that time is not absolute, but is a relative quantity that could show one value to one observer while seeming different to a second viewer. The whole thing seemed preposterous.”

References:

http://kvpy2005.blogspot.com.au/2006/09/great-relativity-bomb-plot.html

http://www.willemsplanet.com/2015/05/09/friday-the-relativity-express/

It is against this background that I recommend that you read the attached pdf file.

relativity express.pdf

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement

Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they seem to have the first experimental results to prove it

The foregoing words were selectively copied and pasted from the url link cited below.

In my Awareness model Primordial-Awareness (PA) is the natural continuum of informational reality.  PA is without time and is an implicit and non reducible matrix of pixels (virtual particles). These virtual particles are foundational particles from which preons, gluons and quarks informationally emerge. These three elementary particles hold the universe together. PA is entangled with explicit information in Einstein’s relativity models that I refer to as explicit space foam. It is quantum entanglement that allows us to suggest that reality is a singular and describable holistic matrix  of information that both means something as well as being physical possibilities to do something. This is why this experiment is so scientifically important.

 

Quantum Experiment Shows How Time ‘Emerges’ from Entanglement.pdf

A debate about nothingness

A blog created by deep thinkers

As you probably know by now my concept of a matrix of reality [some may see as infinity] is the analogical foundation stone pertinent to my beliefs relating to my Awareness model of physics. In this instance the word reality means my concept of primordial awareness.

It is for this reason I have incorporated this quote into my website. In other words I am suggesting that you image the participants are debating the blog are reflecting upon a nothingness that is akin to my idea of a primordial reality. I feel quite certain that you will find the blog will intellectually challenge you at nearly every point of the way. I see the blog as being a very honest and open document.

Quote:

“I would agree with that. We have to now what “sameness” or “identity” is in order to make distinctions between things that don’t have “sameness”. Seems pretty common sense to me.

Yes, I tend to think that with out a concept of zero difference we would not be able to recognise actual differences.

And yes it is common sense….or more to the point basic or fundamental to how we view the world.
As Android has suggested it is from a vew point of nothingness that somethingness exists….

Another example:
When we state we are moving at 5 kmh we are by default making reference to zero kmh…..so that all measurements are relative to zero, in fact all observations are relative to zero is my contention….

Question:
How do we know we have been unconscious? [Either asleep or under anaethesia]

I once considered it from this POV
Absolutly nothing is entirely dependent on everything being absolutely dependent on everything”
To explain:
If we accept that every thing is in somesort of relationship with every thing then and only then can nothing not exist.

If everything is dependent on everything for it’s existence then nothing can not exist.

It isn’t easy to descibe the non-value of nothingness except by referring to the absolute value of everthingness……hmmmmm…..yet the absolute value of everythingness is absolutely dependent on the non value of nothingness.

Yes. There are no absolute measures of distance or time. They are completely variable dependent on your state of relative motion wrt some other object.

Well that’s my point. A culture without ‘zero’ has no idea of ‘nothingness’. Although it would be nice if you could tell us what you mean by ‘nothingness’..

Nothing differs from zero in the way that zero is something, a finite amount which is defined. While nothing overlaps the quantity zero, in the way that it also is, when finitely defined, zero, it differs in the way that it has no specific basis like zero does in numbers.
– Wikipedia

I don’t think the concept of nothing is at all important or necessary to us. We don’t think of nothing or feel nothing or talk about nothing. There are some uses in the language which can be of interest:

Q: What did you do at school today Timmy?
A: Nothing.

(Let us assume Timmy ditched school, so that the statement seems to be true; if he had been to school, then the response is false. But the real problem when the statement seems to be true is that the original question commits the fallacy of question begging; it is akin to asking, “have you stopped beating your wife?” This seems to point toward the conclusion that breakdowns in logic, such as this one, where premises are false can only lead to further problems. ‘Nothing’ is not something you can do – obviously – and therefore we see that the answer too is flawed whether or not Timmy went to school.

But if ‘nothing’ is not something you can do then it seems that ‘nothing’ is something you can’t do.. but that conclusion also makes no sense to us.

Maybe I have totally missed the point of the thread but I was going to write something along these lines later

Unfortunately when discussing the abstraction of nothingness it is easy to mix context’s.
In you example of Timmy his answer was “nothing” but implied “nothing special”

And thus it is a true statement and not false. To answer nothing in fact means to imply that whilst he went to school [what did you do at school] he did nothing that he would consider of value.
By switching context we also establish a logical falacy.

For an atheist there is nothingness after we die. The definition of nothingness is implied in the statement.
no life, no movement, no existence, no consciousness, unconsciousness in absolutum.

Of course a relatively non sentient being such as a slug , ant or worm is incapable of conceptualising nothingness…. this seems to be the main ownership of sentience.

“If I switch of my monitor there is nothing on it to see” of course we still have a blank screen but this would be a shift in context and intent.
A longing for sleep is also a longing for nothingness – unconsciousness.

My radio is currently switched off and I can hear nothing coming from it [ context is – audible sound.]

It could be contended that nothing is our most important life [ existence ]aspect, if maintaining my current line of reasoning.

I disagree. Zero is a mathmatical concept useful in computations. Nothing (or nothingness) is a description of reality as in NO – THING.

Nothing is the absence of an act or thing that otherwise has some standalone reality. Zero is a mathmatical abstraction that has meaning only when placed in some context.

Examples:
A. I did nothing to stop the fire.
B. I have nothing to offer you.
C. 1390.
D. 48022.
Zero is an important concept indeed.

It is this zero that gives the concept of {1} and {-1} meaning.

Zero is as much a positive idea as a negative one. It is the starting point of all ideas.
It is the void from which all sprouts forth and all eventually returns. It is beginning and end it is God and nothingness it is the great mystery.

Zero is the focal point for all reality, the center of the event horizon, the essence of all being, the underlying fabric upon which numerical reality is spread across to give consciousness a purpose.
It is a mathematical concept representing an unimaginable reality.

there is nothig after death, there is nothing, but hthere is everyhting
i dont know….. what im tlaknig aobut
*walks down a country road looknig at the courntry sceanory….*
agian i dotn know hwta im tlkaing aobut
thats my 2 marbles….
no i lsot al lym maebles

Satyr , this may come as a surprise to you but I actually agree with the above post……ha after all what is the duration of the moment between past and future…..?> What do we see around us? That moment…yes? zero

There is no moment, really.
None that is accessible to human consciousness, at least.
All there is, is past and future.

+1 or -1.

0 is that hypothetical starting point; that “I think therefore…”, the transcending lost in the infinite.

But why would I be surprised with you agreeing with me?

and zero or nothing is the origin of consciousness and awareness. “From a vantage point of nothingness I see something”

The only thing we are conscious of is in fact an event of zero duration…..thus the moment is nothing yet we percieve it as something. Thus the universe exists totally in a moment of nothingness.

That is why Self can never be truly known but only known as self.

The great ‘I’ that hides the secret of free-will and which makes humanity so absurd.

The event of zero duration can only be perceived in hindsight or in foresight, as a positive or negative and so nothingness is given a value in relation to it.

Consciousness is the perception of zero after the fact or before the fact. An endless speculation/expectation or retrospection/ reminiscence.

thus existence is an effect and not a cause
Yes.

But does an effect become a cause once it perceives itself?
Does zero gain value once it is deciphered?

in the context of my last post there is no cause…..just effects effecting effects.
For example:
Gravity is an effect IMO and not caused. As nothingness [higgs] is the non-cause of gravity. IN someways it is every-thing that causes gravity by the fact of being a “thing”…. thus nothing ness is a default outcome of everything else. BY default, meaning that it….hmmmmmm……has non-existence except by the existence of every-thing.

The reason it is soooo difficult to describe some thing as a non-something is due to our preoccupation with “things’ as you would expect given that we are essentially nothing looking at something.
However in answer to your last questions, yes ….IMO if one can truely percieve themselves then they can become the non-cause of everything else.

In Buddhism it is the quest to percieve the absolute nothingness of who we are that is the quest for godhood or nirvana….to break down the illusion of suffering [existence which is suffering] To find the truth of our origins which is nothing…..[Nirvana]

Okay, I have to step in to this river of nothing. Hmm….a river…of nothing….Let us refer to the physicist David Bohm’s concept of the Implicate Order and the Explicate Order. The Implicate Order is that into which everything is “enfolded.” It has no form. Things emerge into the Explicate Order, giving us form. Yet there is this constant flow between the two that Bohm called the holomovement. And this is the basic substance. In his view. Now, this “substance” has no form; it is just movement. So since it is without form, it is like “nothing.” Yet it is everything.

Similarly, the concept of the Tao. The Tao is also completely empty, yet everything is made of it. It is like the substance is the very “vesselness” that permits flow, which gives rise to form, yet within the form, there is only ‘vesselness,” which is emptiness. But not just emptiness; emptiness that permits emptiness to flow. And emptiness-in-motion gives us form. And voila, matter. Something from nothing.

So the cosmos, by extension, is absolutely full. And absolutely empty. Thing and NoThing. At the same time. We live with one foot in each mode of perception, and cannot shift into one of the other – for we are the observers of form, and thus we are the creators of form, and thus we are the bridge. The holomovement personified.

Just another perspective…
Onefinity, can I ask if you personally agree with what you have posted. possibly you hold it as a hypothetical or abstraction that requires neither agreement of disagreement?
BTW I found your post fascinating
Perhaps it is part of the Implicate Order, or perhaps the most basic dimension. If so, then this dimension isn’t constucted of things, isn’t constructed at all, but is simply is. We would refer to such a dimension as containing no-thing, but the possibility for every-thing.

Zero is correspondent to this dimension. Mathematics is a way of describing the world about us. It is no surprise that we should find a correspondence between zero and nothing, even though zero can correspond to any crux of a scale. The reason that zero corresponds to nothing is that zero represents the point of non-movement. Whenever you speak of a number, or a point on a scale, what you’re speaking of is a movement either toward or away from a specific point on the scale. + if it’s away from that point, – if it’s toward that point. You cannot subtract from a point of non-movement, you can only move away from it, which means addition. Subtraction from movement will only move you toward that point of non-movement. The number line in mathematics is a fallacy when talking about the real wolrd. You cannot move in a negative direction from a point of zero-value in reality.

Suffice it to say, zero can, and does, correspond to no-thing, even though zero can also correspond to other things. *sigh* I think I’ve said enough on the subject.

Interesting post BTAS….
as an example in relevance to your post if we take a tennis ball an throw it upwards at som epoint it will cease moving upwards and at this point it is neither moving upwards or downwards it is teetering with zero momentum but heaps of potential.

At that very point it has nothing but potential.

That zero duration moment like an infinitely sharp knife edge is a moment of transition from it’s propelled state to it’s freefall state.

Thus all movement has potential from nothing to something.
so the object always exists in a zero moment yet it moves……

hmmmm…sorry …a bit abstract….

I don’t know if this is a Deleuzian perspective but there seems to be some truth to the idea of the non-existence of a present but only a ceaseless relation between the past and future.

There is no Being but only a Becoming that relates to itself through memory of a past event or in expectation of a future one.
There is no self but only a long string of selves connected through memory, which we call consciousness.
We cannot define a present nor can we define a self but only determine its borders, its starting and ending points, while it, itself, – also from a Kantian perspective – remains forever unknowable.

From this we could assume that there is no Zero or that it isn’t accessible to us, but only an infinite progression of values into the positive and negative with no definite starting point and no end.
Zero is defined as being encapsulated between -1 and +1 but its precise definition is inaccessible since it would acquire a numerical value if it were accessible. The event horizon would shift and 0 would be redefined

This linear movement backwards and forwards is what causes perception and creates the possibility for consciousness. A consciousness that is forever recreating itself and unable to comprehend or to imagine its real essence of nothingness or Zero or inertia because, even though this is its underlying essence, it, itself, is only possible due to change/time, movement.
Time is the definitive character of life or reality, as Heidegger stated.
It is both our foe and the thing that makes us possible; the concept which both condemns us and blesses us.

Now here’s the contradiction: If all of the above is true then Zero [the concept of inertia or non-being/non-becoming] or nothingness is all that there really is, even if it might be indefinable and unapproachable to a mind in constant reinvention. This thin veneer of Something, of Reality, of Becoming is what springs from the nothingness, due to time/change and looks at itself….but cannot see it.

Something is Nothingness moving – given Time – or repeating itself and in this repetition reinventing its essence.

There’s nothing at absolute rest for everything is in motion in the universe. Earth is going over 1 million miles per hour through space therefor a tennis ball never is at 0 speed for it is traveling at 1 million miles per hour (In this orbit, we (and the rest of the Solar System) are traveling at a velocity of about 155 miles/sec (250 km/sec).) So therfore we can never say anything is ever at 0 mpk/kph in reality.

Thanks cosmict, what I was trying to show was that moment when direction changes is an infinitely small moment of nothing or neither direction [up or down]
But I admit my post was vague…..very vague….hmmmm…”

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47781&page=2

Interesting historical trivia

A few interesting facts from history:

WHY:
Why do men’s clothes have buttons on the right while women’s clothes have buttons on the left?

BECAUSE:
When buttons were invented, they were very expensive and worn primarily by the rich. Since most people are right-handed, it is easier to push buttons on the right through holes on the left. Because wealthy women were dressed by maids, dressmakers put the buttons on the maid’s right! And that’s where women’s buttons have remained since.

WHY
Why are zero scores in tennis called ‘love’?

BECAUSE:
In France , where tennis became popular, the round zero on the scoreboard looked like an egg and was called ‘l’oeuf,’ which is French for ‘the egg.’ When tennis was introduced in the US , Americans (mis)pronounced it ‘love.’

WHY:
Why do X’s at the end of a letter signify kisses?

BECAUSE:
In the Middle Ages, when many people were unable to read or write, documents were often signed using an X. Kissing the X represented an oath to fulfil obligations specified in the document. The X and the kiss eventually became synonymous.

WHY:
Why is shifting responsibility to someone else called ‘passing the buck’?

BECAUSE:
A: In card games, it was once customary to pass an item, called a buck, from player to player to indicate whose turn it was to deal. If a player did not wish to assume the responsibility of dealing, he would ‘pass the buck’ to the next player.

WHY:
Why do people clink their glasses before drinking a toast?

BECAUSE:
In early religious times people were indoctrinated to believe that the Devil lurked everywhere. So in order to frighten him away, and any other evil spirits as well, glasses were clinked together to frighten the Devil and Demons away.

WHY:
Why do we “Drink a Toast” to someone we wish to honour?

BECAUSE:
As above, In early religious times when the Devil was thought to lurk in drinks, a small piece of dry bread, like today’s toast, was dipped into the drink to soak up the Devil and other evil spirits so it would not be passed to the person being honoured.  Toasting cups as they were known were multi handled in order to be passed from one person to another and finally the Honoured One for each to sip from. In due course people drank from their own cup or glass.

WHY:
Why are people in the public eye said to be ‘in the limelight’?

BECAUSE:
Invented in 1825, limelight was used in lighthouses and theatres by burning a cylinder of lime which produced a brilliant light. In the theatre, a performer ‘in the limelight’ was the centre of attention.

WHY:
Why is someone who is feeling great ‘on cloud nine’?

BECAUSE
Types of clouds are numbered according to the altitudes they attain, with nine being the highest cloud. If someone is said to be on cloud nine, that person is floating well above worldly cares.

WHY:
In golf, where did the term ‘Caddie’ come from?

BECAUSE:
When Mary Queen of Scots went to France as a young girl, Louis, King of France, learned that she loved the Scots game ‘golf.’ He had the first course outside of Scotland built for her enjoyment. To make sure she was properly chaperoned (and guarded) while she played, Louis hired cadets from a military school to accompany her. Mary liked this a lot and when returned to Scotland (not a very good idea in the long run), she took the practice with her. In French, the word cadet is pronounced ‘ca-day’ and the Scots changed it into ‘caddie.’

WHY:
Why are many coin collection jar
banks shaped like pigs?

BECAUSE:
Long ago, dishes and cookware in Europe were made of a dense orange clay called ‘pygg’. When people saved coins in jars made of this clay, the jars became known as ‘pygg banks.’ When an English potter misunderstood the word, he made a container that resembled a pig. And it caught on.

Have you ever heard of a locality in the U.S.A. called Bohemian Grove?

It seems that there may be such a place and it is possible that some of the most important decisions made in the world are made at this little known locality

If you are interested in the fabled Bohemian Grove you will probably find these two url links of interest. The second item seems to be dated:

1] Washington Post Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bohemian-grove-where-the-rich-and-powerful-go-to-misbehave/2011/06/15/AGPV1sVH_blog.html?utm_term=.b51aca36c97c

2] A website titled “The secrets of Bohemian Grove