First I decided to put this in the "May Day thread" - but changed my mind.
Moderation is fine as long as it concerns trivial issues like porn, spam, commercials, insults and tracking threads in an off topic way - (unfortunately there have been no sign of moderation concerning insults)
Moderation concerning so called quality of scientific content is much more delicate - (unfortunately there have been sign on such kind of moderation)
It is debatable whether science shall be defined so narrow that it is not allowed to discuss issues that cannot be measured in a physical sense and so narrow that it is not allowed to discus issues that is not part of mainstream.
Now that we are in the Speculation Part allow me to come up with this:
Physical per definition is limited to a certain scale - to a scale that can be interfered with by human physical senses, being in the range of about electron - or Planck - but still BIG when looked at with sub-quantum eyes
I think that we are in a process of paradigm shift towards a broader understanding of physical world, where "ether/medium" is becoming an important part, and to an understanding that information is perhaps one of the key tools to get a better idea of physical, and that it is not possible to construct a physical meaningful picture out from dimensionless points - and that infinity is a very delicate and often misused concept that perhaps cannot be incorporated into a physical context, just like singularity is a physical mis-fit.
The ancient Greek paradoxes of "Achilles and the tortoise" and "Zeno's arrow" are still puzzling and relevant.
That Achilles will not be able to overtake the tortoise is logic - because Achilles is never given the needed "amount" of time to overtake - Achilles is restricted in time - but more important is that Achilles will never REACH the tortoise - because time is quantic - physical is quantic - physical is DISCRETE. We have had these discussions before and I hope that we will have them also in the future.
The other paradox of Zeno's arrow is puzzling because it tells us that nothing can be defined with finite accuracy. Nothing can be said to be into existence with finite accuracy - everything is an approximation. So when Zeno ask where the arrow is between two points - the best answer is that the arrow is NOT into existence at ANY point - the arrow will always exist as an approximation. We have to respect the concept of "Most similar" and that an object has no similar counterpart.
One can also say that super symmetry and dynamic is impossible - (universe would then be an oscillating unchanged existence in-situ) everything is about approximations. Numbers are approximations - and calculus is (among others) about how to define approximations. This is not saying that math is useless - of course not - all applied math and physics works as good as needed - but from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to deal with the concepts of accuracy and infinity and "most similar". 0.9--- is not the same as 1.
And from a philosophical point of view it is interesting to ponder about the ether - to ponder about what a particle is - and what or who is defining the particles - and who is perceiving - who/what is the observer - because on the bottom line it is about how part of universe perceive the surrounding universe - it is about how information observe information.
How can a part of information in a universe of complete entanglement - how can a part isolate itself from the surrounding, and make observations. And making an observation involve a kind of interference that change the next "step" - perhaps the mere act of observation is the symmetry breaking impetus. And in this context it is important to understand "observer" as broad as "any complexion" - human is just one out of infinitely many complexions in universe - is just one out of any and all of the observers - but from a human point of view of course a very important observer
And it is interesting to ponder about the fundamental nature of energy - what is energy apart from something that can be measured and expressed in many physical ways - what is the underlying or better - what is the most fundamental form of energy - from where comes this ability to exert changes - why is it that spacetime cannot sit still.
I have suggested that physical world can be conceptualized out from "object of sameness" as our tool - serving as metric and as the fundamental defining - picturing and communicating tool, and that all physical can be seen as how objects of sameness arrange and re-arrange in space i flash-expressions - and how "universe only exists once". Object of sameness (irrespective of scale - size) contain all the needed information to outfold physical universe, the outfolding is via SHAPE as the organizing factor, everything can be seen as being outfolded via its fundamental shape - as the seeding information. Universe is fractal and holographic, and there is only one universe at a time. And I have suggested that it is not possible to define anything out from dimensionless - information less - shapeless points, and that it takes a 3D to define a 0D - 1D and 2D.
I have suggested that spacetime best can be understood as a nearly solid - with sufficient elasticity to secure delay - inertia - via its discreteness - (Navier Stokes existence and smoothness problem) and at the same time secure absolute accuracy in projections from one scale to another. So motion is an illusion, it is much better to see everything as "RE-ARRANGEMENTS". Our physical world is the scale equivalent to human physical senses - equivalent to the scale of about electron/photon - or slightly smaller - we will never be able to "touch" the true sub-quantum except by our mental power. Our physical world can be seen as the playing of a highly ordered 3D grid of pixels (and pixels are made of pixels and so on - so we are dealing with force-fields). Pixels do not "exist" - just like atoms do not exist.
One of natures well secured secrets is how nature on one hand can be dynamic and on the other hand be extremely accurate - and one way of looking at it is to see object of sameness as something that can be thought as small as needed - it is a simple act of scaling - and everything can be scaled into a point of disappearance, it is just a question about where the observer is placed relative to the observed. At the same time I feel it is necessary to introduce the concept of free void - that there must be something "in between" to separate one object of sameness from another. This is about the duality: that matter cannot exist without the parallel existence of free void. The relative balance between matter and free void is non-interesting.
Because spacetime can be thought scale wise - can be thought how objects of sameness arrange and configure in ever increasingly bigger and bigger stable repetitive patterns - it is possible to freely translate free void into relative vacuum, and I have suggested how such relative vacuum fluctuates over the Universe - and that relative vacuum is the "energy source". One can also say that universe strive for the most optimal "FIT" of objects of sameness - that universe in each and every scale constantly strive after the most optimal fit between objects of sameness - so as to get the most even distribution of free void all over universe. So as to get the most even or the smallest gradient of relative vacuum - so as to get the smallest gradient exerting change - and this is how entropy can be seen.
All main streamers of this Forum will probably get nauseated by reading the above - and I am confident that only a very few main streamers if any will get to these last lines - but I shall welcome any constructive comment - and I will try to explain to the best of my limited capacity, and I promise there will be no math involved.
