RealityCheck
Hi-Ho guys and gals!

This thread is for discussing the nature etc. of Energy, Matter and Mass in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.

RealityCheck.
.
Confused2
Please check everything - I make mistakes!

Units

Mass (kg) .. that which curves space .. there is a standard kilogram somewhere (Paris?)

Force (Newtons) .. 1 Newton is the force required to accelerate a mass of 1kg by 1 m s^-2 Dimensions m kg s^-2

Work (J) .. 1 Joule is the work done when a force of 1N is maintained for a distance of 1m Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2

Energy (J) also Joules .. that which is gained or lost when work is done
Dimensions m^2 kg s^-2 (same as work)

[Original.. 1 Joule is also the energy contained in 1/c^2 kg of any mass. .. 'contained in' is unhelpful]

Replace with
1 Joule is also the energy that would be liberated if 1/c^2 kg of any mass were converted entirely into energy.

(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)

---------------------------------------------------------

The electron volt is a common unit of energy

1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 Joules

Matter .. that which has mass

There is a problem with 'Dark matter' which needs to be resolved at some point

As many of the above are contraversial I would suggest picking one and sticking with the first post until Reality_Check moves us on - I hope that seems OK.

All comments/corrections/suggestions greatly appreciated. Please PM me with anything in the early stages - after that we're stuck with this for the benefit of newcomers...

Edit list..
24/01/06 Dimensions of force etc have been broken dow to fundamentals
24/01/06 Update to 1/(c^2) definition of Joule

-C2
WaterBreath
I hope my contributions aren't unwelcome here, and that I haven't misconstrued the purpose of this thread. But I thought some things I've been contemplating lately might be somewhat relevant.

We know by experiment that the Einstein (rest) mass and energy relation E = mc^2 is darn accurate. So while it may be "just" a mathematical model, whatever fundamental theories we develope should produce this relation. If we assume that it is not just an approximation of reality under special conditions, like Newton's gravity was, then I wonder if we may not be able to derive some insight by looking at the units involved in the relation.

I had some thoughts--actually they are more just questions and seeds of thoughts--on the matter that I will post if this is deemed a worthwhile exercise.
WaterBreath
Well, I got a request to post my thoughts/questions.... So here goes.

They were inspired partly by Confused2's discussion of units...

QUOTE (Confused2+ Posted on Jan 6 2006, 05:09 PM)
1 Joule is also the energy contained in 1/c^2 kg of any mass.
(To be determined .. the energy may be 'stored' in the curvature of space or it may be in the mass itself - or somewhere else)

I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.

The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.

So I propose some things to ponder...

* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?

There may be other ways to break down this unit so that it has different meanings...

* Example: (m/s)^2 = m/(s^2) * m ... This seems to indicate an acceleration, spread across a linear distance. What would it mean, physically, to divide by such a unit? I suppose we could look at it from a propogation-delay standpoint...
* Example: (s/m)^2 = [(s / m) / m] * s ... A propogation delay, changing over a linear distance, spread across a period of time.
* Example: (m/s)^2 = [(m^2) / s] / s ... The m^2 term refers to an area. Dividing by time would indicate a change in area. Dividing by time again would refer to a changing change in area... Or an accelerated expansion or contraction of a 2D region.

Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?

Certainly there are more possible interpretations of these units. I would be curious to see what others can come up with if they take these ideas further than I have so far been able to. None of my points are necessarily meant to be formal suggestions. I'm just hoping to spur some new thought beyond my own.
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Jan 7 2006, 08:49 PM)

* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?

Energy can be thought of as photons and mass particles. I view these two things like water and ice, two different states of the same thing.

Image mass is represented as a cube of ice...if this ice were to turn to water it would form a large puddle. What I've just stated is dimensional collapse of one thing into another.

WATER = ICE X AREA OF PUDDLE.

jal
Hi!...WaterBreath!
I hope you have read the following two threads because they both deal with what you are saying. Your approach is different and yet similar.
Inverse Square Law
and
Unified Geometry:Overlooked SymmetriesOf Spacetime
jal
antpin
At every level of energy where negative and positive energy particles are present or exist neutral particles are needed to maintain order, organization, stability and leverage between the negatives and positives. And with certainty I can say this is true in atoms. In atoms electrons (the negatives), protons (the positives), and neutrons (the neutrals) all exist together and are maintained in the proper order and balance. Neutrons are needed in atoms to keep them stable, without the right amount of neutral the electrons and protons cannot work together and will not remain in the proper balance. If a positive or negative particle were removed from the atom, the atom would remain relatively the same. But if a neutral particle (a neutron) was removed from the atom the proper order could not be maintained and the entire atom could become disorganized and unstable and it will start to breakdown, splitting itself into pieces releasing an immense amount of energy until the pieces it has split into become stable again, with the proper balance between neutrons, protons and electrons. In an atom like a uranium atom the bonds within the atom between the electrons and protons would or could only remain together or in proper order in the presents of the right amount of neutrons. If a neutron is removed the bonds between the electrons and protons would become unstable and the atom would split releasing an immense amount of energy.
In the randomness of decay, of atoms or elements there is also evidence of the need for neutral particles in the atom. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus at random or at any time. And without the right balance of neutrons in the atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will now start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus effectively turning itself into another atom or element.

Back to the simple and pure energy, which were present in universe, these were the negative, positive and neutral energy particles that created the particles that will create the particle that make up neutrons and protons, and electrons. The high concentration of these simple and pure negative positive and neutral energy particles in the infinite universe over a period of time each type started colliding into each other and attaching to each other becoming permanently fused together and started to form more complex energy particles (those that make up protons and neutrons, and electrons).

Over a period of time the complex energy particles were in a higher concentration than the simple and pure energy particles and the complex one along with the simple ones started to attract each other, colliding and fusing together to create in a proportionally balance and organized way neutrons, electrons and protons and immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the bond would not and could not stay together until a neutron also took part in the bond. The bonding between the electrons, protons and neutrons in an organized 1:1:1 ratio all over the universe started to create simple atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and stable particles in the infinite universe.

With the creation of hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition in the history of the endless universe was made pure energy (electrons, protons and neutrons) now started working together in an organized to create the simple atom / hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity. And with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and becoming more active.

With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms now present in the universe and because of the presence of gravitational forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create hydrogen cluster, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds. An infinite amount of these millions of light-years stretching hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, revealing the vacuum of space between them.

These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to attract the atoms within it, thus contracting, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each of them. The massive gas clouds then started to become more organized, then started to have an energy and pressure build up in their innermost layer or massive tens of light-years in diameter atom fusing cores.

The cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a large scale. The massive clouds can now be called massive stars (massive energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 200,800,000,000,000 km). Over a period of time the massive star continued to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their core cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to a massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space. The scattered matter and energy the formed massive clusters and fragments of star dust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy were now forming massive expanding galaxies. Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes, shape such as spiral shapes, etc. over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in a deadly, high explosive but organized way within the galaxies, and even life was created in some of the galaxies.

The universe is now a endless/ infinite vacuum in every direction plane and dimension filled with an infinite amount of energy filled expanding galaxies. And with the galaxies within the universe expanding they will not remain organized forever.
Tor
Antpin,

This quote has appeared on different forums and it has been reviewed and torne apart. Please consider these rejections
Excal
QUOTE ("WaterBreath"+)
I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.

The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.

This is a very good observation. The kg is an arbitrary value that is based on a physical object kept in Paris. If the dimensions of mass are (s/m)^3, then the dimensions of energy are

E = mc^2 = (s/m)^3 x (m/s)^2 = s/m.

Thus, given that the dimensions of mass, energy and velocity are all expressable in units of time and length (space), this implies that the fundamental entities are time and space.

QUOTE
So I propose some things to ponder...

* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?

The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.

However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.

The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:

1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,

to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,

(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,

to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,

(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.

However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:

to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,

(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,

to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,

(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,

E = hv,

where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,

s/m = h (m/s),

which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving

s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).

Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.

Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE So I propose some things to ponder...* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?

The unit s/m is called a propagation delay, because it is the inverse of velocity and can therefore express the conductivity, sigma, of a conductor, but as we see, s/m are also the dimensions of energy, so the significance of the squared velocity is that energy and velocity are inverses. Since rest, or inertial, mass is a 3D resistance to velocity, with dimensions, (s/m)^3, the square of velocity, with dimensions (m/s)^2, reduces these dimensions to the dimensions of energy, s/m.

However, the significance of this fact can only be truly appreciated, when it is realized that the velocity of light, c speed, is the datum of reference for these space/time magnitudes. In other words, since space is the reciprocal of time in the equation of motion, then the unit value, c = m/s = 1/1 is the pivot point between velocity, m/s = 1/n and energy, s/m = 1/n, just as 0 is the pivot point between -1 and +1.

The ratio equivalents to the integers -1, 0 and +1, are 1/2, 1/1 and 2/1. If we don't invert the dimensions of velocity to s/m, we can see that the dimensions of energy are equivalent to m/s = 2/1, from the point of view of velocity and vice-versa; that is, from the perspective of -1, + 1 is two units away and vice-versa. Therefore, to get from the energy side to the velocity side of 0 (which is not zero, but c-speed, 1/1) requires two multiplications: the first gets us to unity, the second to one unit away from unity. I'll try to illustrate what I mean to make it clearer:

1/2, 1/1, 2/1 = -1, 0, +1,

to get from -1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of velocity,

(1/2) * (2/1) = 2/2 = 1/1. Then,

to get from 0 to +1, we multiply once more by the inverse of velocity,

(1/1) * (2/1) = 2/1, which takes us to the positive side of 0.

However, mass is the resistance to velocity and, thus, has the inverse dimensions of energy, so we need to go the other way:

to get from +1 to 0, we multiply once by the inverse of energy,

(2/1) * (1/2) = 1/1. Then,

to get from 0 to -1, we multiply once more by the inverse of energy,

(1/1) * (1/2) = 1/2, which takes us to the negative side, or velocity side, of the equation of motion. Hence, it takes a velocity times a velocity, (m/s)^2, or an energy times an energy, (s/m)^2, to convert from one side of c-speed speed to the reciprocal side. We see the same thing in the other energy conversion equation,

E = hv,

where h is Planck's constant, and v is nu, the frequency of radiation. Only, here, it's not generally recognized that nu, a frequency, expressed in terms of cycles per second, is actually a velocity as well, since the cycles are units tracking the traversing of the same unit of length repeatedly, a vibration. Therefore, the actual dimensions of the equation are,

s/m = h (m/s),

which means that the dimensions of h are really (s/m)^2, giving

s/m = (s/m)^2 * (m/s).

Showing, that all we are doing, with the square of velocity and the square of energy, is going from +1 to 0 to -1, or from -1 to 0 to +1, in the equation of motion, because, energy is the inverse of velocity.

Now, we are going to have someone cry foul because of the m/s = 2/1 aspect of this, but we have to remember that, once we cross 0, or unity 1/1 (c-speed), the equation is no longer expressing a velocity, but an energy, so we haven't broken the "speed limit" of the universe!

Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?

WaterBreath, you are a man after my own heart, in spite of that handle. I would like to know where you got those ideas, because they are right on in my opinion. The dimensions of a vibrating volume of space/time would be (m/s)^3. Resistance to this motion in any direction, would then have to be (s/m)^3, as any vacant dimension would offer no resistance.

Again, the only reason we divide by (m/s)^2 is to get to the other side of the equation. Remember, the quantum of energy, h, is the inverse of c^2. Thus c^2 and h (e^2) are the dimensions of the conversion constants to turn c^3 (which is the motion measured as mass) and e^3 (the inverse of c^3) into the dimensions of E and V:

E = s/m and V = m/s.

How and why these dimensions are of unit value equal to c is a wonderful mystery too, but I better stop for now.

Regards,

Excal

TRoc
Excal, WaterBreath, 5d0nut, C2, ...

I finally understand your idea Excal (from our original talk in "philosophical implications..numbers..TOE). We were very close to the same wavelength after all !

You were using zero as the "equilibrium point", correct? (not as an ending measurement) In the sense of "energy" being no resistance to velocity, and mass being the opposite, I would certainly agree.

We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.

Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.

The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.

I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.

+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__

Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)

I'd like to add a couple of questions to Waterbreaths' quote:

What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?

TRoc

WaterBreath
QUOTE (Excal+Jan 23 2006, 04:39 PM)
WaterBreath, you are a man after my own heart, in spite of that handle.  I would like to know where you got those ideas, because they are right on in my opinion.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. The ideas I posted, I am proud to say, are some of the few that I have come to largely by my own ruminations.

I am not sure I understand all of your post, but I do find it intriguing, so I will try re-reading until it makes sense. I was especially intrigued by your proposal that mass have units of (s/m)^3 because it is a measurement of resistance to movement. I am not sure I agree at this point with the precise unit you've assigned to it, but I think that your inspiration for it is definitely worth pondering.

It is worthwhile to note that the General Relativity equations can be greatly simplified by unit-manipulation such as what we are playing with. This is done by assuming that time and space should be measured by the same unit, and that "c" is just a conversion factor between them. "G" is decalared a similar conversion factor, and those two constants are taken to be the fundamental units of the theory.

Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrized_unit_system

I would really love to learn some abstract algebra and differential geometry. I think I would then be much better equipped to think about these things. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any books on these subjects that lend themselves well to self-teaching.

QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 23 2006, 08:59 PM)
I'd like to add a couple of questions to Waterbreaths' quote:

What is the significance of the square root of Velocity?
What is the significance of Pi x Wavelength?

Those do seem quite interesting... I don't think I know of any places where those arise in equations, however. Can you cite some examples of where we see those?

I have one thought on the pi * wavelength one.... Since a wavelength is sort of a "diameter" of a sine wave, pi*wavelength would be pi*d, or the "circumference": the actual distance travelled along the curve of the wave. Not sure how this would be significant though. It would depend on the equation it appears in.
TRoc
Excal, WaterBreath, et al..

Let me further explain my last post.

This "model":

+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__

becomes this on reflection:

+1..__..__...| >..-1..__..__
__..__..00...| >..__..00..__
__..-1..__...| >..__..__..+1

Which is the same as:

+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1

spread out over time, incrementally. (a quantum measurement)

+1..__..__+1..__...__+1..__..__+1..__..__+1..__..__
__..__..00__...__..00__..__..00__..__..00__..__..00
__..-1...____..-1..____...-1..____..-1..____..-1..___

basically, a sine wave.

What I want to point out is that, if we take the sq.rt. of velocity, © in this case, we get the value of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 ; that represents the "equilibrium" of the velocity.

We have a wavelength of 17314.515817660047983788339758548 m,
and a frequency of the same quantity in Hz. Their product is 299,792,458 and is completely symmetrical.

Now let's bring in the final number in the set, 2.

If we take a wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7
its' frequency = 5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14
and their product = 2.99792458e+8

Let's find the equilibrium, based on the 2/1 .. 1/2 relationship:

5.1595270633697509765625e-7 * 2^35 = 17728
5.8104639110895919133574007220217e+14 /2^35 = 16910.6756543321299

A clear case of broken symmetry, and showing that IMBALANCE is, indeed, the true seed of symmetrical waveforms. In my opinion, in relativistic / Lorentzian terms, the "mass" of the "photon" does change with frequency, as is implied by E=mc^2. Since we can find no mass in the "photon", we must conclude that the velocities of these photoelectron waves change with frequency. They can not change in any logarithmic fashion, however, because that would result in an obvious significant velocity change in lower energy quantities such as 17314.5 .

The fact that this goes unrecognized in current Scientific theory leads to the philosophical breakdown of the Copenhagen Interpretation: Unconditional surrender of the Scientific Method: we know all that can be known, yet we are not finished! This is the human Ego that is out of control, and throwing a tantrum.

I have devised a system that draws a bigger picture. It allows the mirror / rotational symmetry to exist, and does not change any "fundamental" parts of existing theory - save one: the speed of light IS consistently at 299.7e+8 upon the integral measurement / collapse; but WHILE "in flight" (which we have never seen), travels at doppler shifted velocities ranging from 2.96 to 2.97e+8 m/s. These velocities are consistent with "contraction" based on "mass potential" / kinetic energy. A little Doppler 'll do ya!

In my system, if you start with a single point, or quantity, the mirror symmetry shows itself upon collapse. In this sense, it is predictive, rather than empirical, as the "fixed" equations that we have now are.

The wavelength of 5.1595270633697509765625e-7 would have the frequency of 5.76144092954624e+14, and a velocity of 2.97263104e+8. (in my harmonic system)

These two "inverse", but rotationally symmetrical quantities would meet at the "singularity" of 17728, which is the closest naturally harmonic number to the sq.rt. of ©. A more "intuitive" picture can be seen with my "matrix". LINK

TRoc

Excal
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
You were using zero as the "equilibrium point", correct? (not as an ending measurement) In the sense of "energy" being no resistance to velocity, and mass being the opposite, I would certainly agree.

We seem to differ on the "fundamental entities"; Time and Space vs. Frequency and Wavelength. Some might say that it is splitting hairs, and I'm not sure the difference is that critical.

Your "set", layed out in mirror symmetry:
+1..-1
_0.._0
-1..+1
also implies rotational symmetry.

The only problem in my thinking is that it is a "still frame" picture. If we allow a step by step process, the picture changes a little. Energy is made up of a dualistic coupling of E & M. They end up "in phase", at 90 deg, but they do not start out that way. First one, then the other. This implies that the "equilibrium point" is NOT symmetrically equal, but imbalanced.

I'm going to try to save a lot of words with a picture.

+1..__..__
__..__..00
__..-1..__

Does this make any sense? (I'm short on time!!)

What's difficult to grasp is a frame of reference. In a universe of space/time as motion, there is no frame of reference to define a change of space or a change in time. This is a good thing. In fact it's a primary goal of modern physics, but it's difficult to not think that space isn't a container of matter, where time marches on relentlessly, and motion doesn't exist unless something moves relative to the container of space. The traditional notion of motion is what forces us to think of space as something real that can be measured, warped, etc.

However, things change radically, if we assume that space, like time, marches on relentlessly too. We can actually see this in the recession of the distant galaxies, but we don't obsserve it locally. Why is this? Well, to answer this question, we need to begin at the beginning and assume that it does for a moment, but that means giving up the idea of a reference frame of space and time momentarily.

When we do that we have only a motion - nothing else - with two reciprocal quanities, space and time. Quantities are real numbers, with no negatives, but since these two numbers are reciprocally related, there is also a number that is the relation between the two, and it does have negatives. So, if the number of space quantity is continuously increasing, and the number of time quantity is continuously increasing,

space = 1, 2, 3, ...n and time = 1, 2, 3, ...n,

then, the ratio of this INCREASE is 1:1; that is, space increases as time increases on a 1 for 1 basis. We can see that this progression of these two numbers constitutes motion, since the ratio of changing space to changing time is motion. Clearly, in doing this, we have defined a starting point with this 1:1 space/time progression that involves no external frame of reference.

Next, suppose that instead of continuously increasing, the space number at a given number in the endless progression, decreases, so that at number n, instead of increasing to number n + 1, it decreases to n - 1. Then, at n -1, it increases to n again, and it repeats this reversal pattern endlessly at the location n. What happens at location n?

Well, some interesting things. First, the space aspect of the motion at that location is confined to one unit of space that is constantly increasing and decreasing between n and n-1, while time continues to increase. The effect on the space time ratio at that location is to reduce the number of space increases by half relative to the number of time increases, because every other time the space number decreases instead of increasing. Thus, the space/time ratio is changed from 1/1 to 1/2 at that location.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander too, so we can say the same for the time numbers; that is, at a given location, the time numbers could decrease from n to n - 1, instead of increasing from n to n + 1, and follow the same pattern as the space progression; that is, it continuously reverses, decreasing/increasing from n to n-1 and back to n, while the space numbers, at that location, continue to increase normally. This again affects the space/time progression ratio at that location, changing it in the other "direction" from 1:1 to 2:1, because now the time numbers only increase every other time, while the space numbers continue to increase uniformly at this location of time.

The result is that we have now defined three states of motion, which are related. The first is the initial condition of a unit progression ratio, where the ratio of increasing space to increaseing time is 1/1. The second is the state where the progression of the space numbers has been altered by the change in the pattern from continuous increase to alternating increase/decrease, resulting in a ratio of increasing space to increasing time that is 1/2, and a third state where a similar change in the reciprocal numbers of time results in a space/time progression ratio of 2/1.

However, these three ratios, 1/2, 1/1, 2/1, correspond to three integers, -1, 0, +1, when the 1/1 is viewed as a balanced state, and the 1/2 and 2/1 ratios are viewed as the two possible imbalances of the balanced state, of unit magnitude, caused by the "direction" reversals in the progression of the space or time numbers.

Well, we might ask, what does this buy us? The answer: almost everything we want, since now, if we assign values of magnitude to the space and time numbers, such that the 1/1 progression ratio is c-speed, then the 1/2 progression is a c-speed space vibration, while the 2/1 progression is a c-speed time vibration. The space vibration is not able to progress in total numbers of space magnitude, while the time vibration is unable to progress in time magnitude, because of the vibrations. It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed.

This was a lengthy explanation to answer your questions TRoc, but I hope you can see how this is not a "still-frame" picture! Far from it, it is incredibly dynamic. The difference in this approach is that the symmetry is broken in discrete units; that is, the space/time progression ratios exists as discrete units of space/time, so that the -1s are independent units relative to the +1s, but they are derived from the same symmetrical state. In other words, the -1s are units of broken symmetry in one "direction" from the point of symmetry, or balance, the zero balance we might say, while the +1s are units of broken symmetry in the opposite "direction."

This means that these units can be combined in various ways. For instance two -1s, or two +1s, or a -1 and a +1, or two -1s and two +1s, etc. It gives us a two-bit information system of immense power.

Excal
jal
Excal....
Keep going don't let this post interrupt.
I just want to say that I feel that you have described in a beautiful way how I see spacetime (my spot) behaving (2d or 3d).
You helped.
QUOTE
It's as if one is marching in place space-wise, while the other is marching in place time-wise, but relative to one another they are moving at unit speed; that is, since one is progressing space-wise, and the other is progressing time-wise, relatively they are progessing space/time-wise, at c-speed.

My presentations
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Inverse Square Law
and
ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY

jal
Excal
I would just like to point out how important it is to understand that the mathematical negative, which was so hard to accept for many (except for the accountants who always understood it, even from the days when the ancients used a pan balance to weigh things, including money), is not something imaginary, but real.

If we measure an object by balancing it with another, standard, object, it doesn't matter which side of the balance we place the standard and which side the object. The effect of one on the balance point is simply the inverse of the effect of the other. We can call one "direction" positive and the other negative, if we wish, but both of these "directions" are real. There is nothing imaginary about either one.

The mathematicians thought that they needed to square a positive number to get a negative number, so they invented an imaginary positive number that they could square to do it. The scientists thought that they needed to keep energy positive, so they invented an imaginary field to do it. However, the accountants have known all along that negative balances are just as real as positive balances, and that we need both to track finances properly.

Well, it turns out that we need both to do physics properly too, but because the idea of a negative object, or negative mass, or negative energy was too hard to cope with, physicists have not accepted it. The confusion we see today in modern physics is due more to this one fact, than any other.

If the ratios of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0 and +1, then the motions of 1/2, 1/1, and 2/1 are too. Likewise, it doesn't matter if the ratios are multi-dimensional, the same scalar relation between them holds. We just need pseudoscalars like tensors or octonions to express them. Thus, (1/2)^n, (1/1)^n, and (2/1)^n are equivalent to the scalars -1, 0, and +1 as well. The exponentiation of the ratios does not change this fact. We can see this in the binomial expansion (binomial because there are two "directions") of the Clifford algebras or Pascal's triangle:

2^0 = 1 = 1
2^1 = 11 = 2
2^3 = 121 = 4
2^4 = 1331 = 8
...

We see that the unit scalars on the left of the triangle are balanced by the unit pseudoscalars on the right, ad infinitum. Thus, regardless of the number of dimensions, and the degrees of freedom of a number, there is always a scalar balanced by a corresponding pseudoscalar in the algebra.

So, it turns out that energy, with dimensions of time over space, or t/s, is just the inverse of velocity, with dimensions of space over time, or s/t. This means that there are two, reciprocal sectors of the universe. One wherein the equations of energy are the inverse of the equations of energy in the other. We can call one positive and one negative, just as we can call the two "directions" of a pan balance negative and positive, but, in reality, one "direction" is just the inverse of the other "direction."

With this much understood, we can see that, because

1) E = mc^2,

says that inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed (recall that mass is just the resistance, or inverse, of motion in three dimensions) times velocity squared, or

t/s = (t/s)^3 * (s/t)^2,

then the equation for velocity V is the inverse of this, or

s/t = (s/t)^3 * (t/s)^2,

which is saying that

2) V = (im)e^2,

where V is the inverse of E, im is the inverse of mass, and e is the inverse of c (that is, e = t/s = c = s/t = 1/1). Putting this in so many words, we may say that, in our sector of the universe,

1) Inverse velocity is equal to inverse velocity cubed times velocity squared, and, in the inverse sector of the universe,

2) Velocity is equal to velocity cubed time inverse velocity squared.

This is huge, because it defines the energy equation for the "negative" half of the universe where the energy equation of the positive half is the inverse of the negative half. Mathematics is telling us the same thing: the positive half of the integer system is really only the inverse of the negative half of the integer system, PROVIDED that we understand that scalars are really only the value of two real numbers, reciprocally related, in a rational number. Negative scalars are really only the inverses of positive scalars, as represented by rational numbers.

Consequently, there is no need for imaginary numbers, imaginary dimensions, or imaginary universes. There is just a need to recognize the reality of inverse "directions," or negative and positive numbers, for what they are: ratios.

Excal
RealityCheck
.
Excellent!
TRoc
Excal,

Very well put. I was leery of using your "set" in my explanation, and now I see why. Even though we are saying the same thing, our models are somewhat different. The set '+1,0,-1' , has not been used in mine. Essentially, we are at qualitative and quantitative differences. Let's not get bogged down by that.

In the great sphere of the Universe, there is a "line" between halves, and, as you said, they can be expressed in terms of positive and negative. There is no frame of reference, other than the sphere as a whole, itself. There are no other Universes, or dimensions. There are inverses of directions (3) mis-leading some to compute for 6 ~ 12 dimensions. The Hebrew language sums up that fact well; it is the only surviving system that displays this ancient knowledge. It is a completely harmonically engineered language, and contains more knowledge than the sum of its parts. That is not meant to be a religious statement, or supportive of their cause. Just a historical / symmetrical / harmonic note. (incidental pun)

The reason I brought out the square root of ©, was to show the mirror symmetry that lies at the boundary of the 2 halves of the Universe. It is false to assume that the center of the Universe lies at the value of 17314, for that would not allow the duality of the opposing halves to exist. That number is the product of 2 dualistic measurements, and if 2 people started out from each side, at the respective symmetrical components (the 5.159e-7 and 5.76e14 from my previous post) they would not meet. In fact, they could not arrive at a further distance from each other; they would each be at the tail of the opposing yin and yangs. Even at the other dimensional center, beginning from points of 7.30e-7 and 4.06e14, they would not meet; at least they would be "in sight" though, at the symbolic "mouths" of yin and yang.

The mathematical "map" that describes this is my "resonance matrix"; actually, it is not mine, it is "ours", I just have been allowed to open the gate, that has been locked to all. Much akin to the sword you have pulled from the rock; the power that it wields must be used for the greater good.

I use the "old school" terminology; I call those "pseudo scalars"that you mentioned - "harmonic columns". Reducing the "equations" from the ratios to the irrationals is all that I have done to Pythagoras' earlier work. There is much to glean from just this alone, as you have pointed out. As there is no "stillness", there is no infinite mass, and therefore no infinite energy; just eternal balance. The balance will always produce "velocity" of ©. The decimal numbers substitute well for the negatives, producing the quantitative results that match the empirical data. In this way, you do not have to compute the entire chart as I have, you can clearly see the mirror symmetry begin with the directional change as you cross over to the "sub pseudo-scalars"; the positive values move from left to right, and the "negative" or decimals, move from right to left. The "thirteenth column" is for illustrative purposes only, to create the dualistic symmetry that our ordered minds prefer.

This is a philosophical marriage of Eastern and Western approaches, as well as a mathematical one. Zero never appears as a real quantity; it is a "historical" term to define what "was" and never what "IS". Conservation of mass, energy, etc, is the result of our definitive labels for the apparent motion of the eternal scales; the duality of the counter-balance.

To bring this back down to everyday "science", the harmonic column, or pseudo-scalars that you mentioned, (1,2,4,8..) can be expressed in eV, which can easily transformed into "mass" quantity symbols. Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up. I have only talked about frequency and wavelength of the massless ("photons"), but any dualistic quantity, that equates to © velocity, can be derived from this matrix. (ie. de Broglie waves, and their mass or energy equivalents)

TRoc

Confused2
I'd just like to draw attention to the way rather horrible things happen if you take mass (m) and muddle it up with metres (m) .. I feel mildly guilty here for not using something like M for mass but you never know what is going to happen until after it's happened. -Confused2
jal
Hi all!
I want to meet and compare notes in my thread. I don't want to litter this thread with another discussion.
Yin_Yang of spacetime
Excal
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
Very well put. I was leery of using your "set" in my explanation, and now I see why. Even though we are saying the same thing, our models are somewhat different. The set '+1,0,-1' , has not been used in mine. Essentially, we are at qualitative and quantitative differences. Let's not get bogged down by that.

Yes, and let me point out that, though it's not very evident from what I've explained to this point, the limit to one unit pertains to a discrete unit of motion. However, the fact that these units are discrete leads to the possible combinations of units that then extend the number of units to higher quantities in each "direction;" that is,

n..., -1, 0, +1, ...n

is the actual series of the system, which is the integer number system. In the case of radiation, n extends to infinity, but, in the case of matter, n is limited.

QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
In the great sphere of the Universe, there is a "line" between halves, and, as you said, they can be expressed in terms of positive and negative. There is no frame of reference, other than the sphere as a whole, itself. There are no other Universes, or dimensions. There are inverses of directions (3) mis-leading some to compute for 6 ~ 12 dimensions. The Hebrew language sums up that fact well; it is the only surviving system that displays this ancient knowledge. It is a completely harmonically engineered language, and contains more knowledge than the sum of its parts. That is not meant to be a religious statement, or supportive of their cause. Just a historical / symmetrical / harmonic note. (incidental pun)

That's interesting. I didn't know that about Hebrew, but I know that the ancient Greeks and Hebrews shared the same sacred regard for the first four numbers, 1-4, which, as it turns out, form the ancient tetractys of the Phythagoreans. However, while through the centuries these things got encrusted with obscure cultic meanings, for the Phythagoreans, the "Harmonia of the Sirens" held the "Fount and Root of everflowing Nature."

Today, we can see, in Dirac's equation, that there are four solutions at the heart of nature's secrets and these four solutions are four harmonies! When we look at mathematics the way the Pythagoreans looked at it, we see a system of mathematics that included four fields:

1) The arithmetic of numbers (magnitudes)
2) The Harmony of ratios (directed magnitudes)
3) Physics (directed magnitudes of space and time)
4) Geometry (magnitudes and directions of space)

Which makes a lot of sense. Today, we know that the two "directions" of positive and negative magnitudes, when expanded from 1 to 3 dimensions, forms the only normed division algebras, and that these, mysteriously (through Bott periodicity), correspond to an underlying pattern seen not only in mathematics, but in the most advanced physics as well.

What we want to do, then, is to take this idea of space and time as the reciprocal aspects of motion and consider discrete units of it as these basic ratios of harmony that form the basic building blocks of physical structure. It would be hard to do better, since it conforms so well to the fundamentals of mathematics, physics, geometry, and (surprise, surprise) music!

This latter connection is most clearly seen in the fact that the frequency of the +1 vibration is twice that of the -1 vibration, the distance of one octave. Within that one octave are those sacred ratios of the Pythagoreans, the perfect fifth, 3/2, and the fourth, 4/3, which is really the inverse of the perfect fifth, 2/3, when viewed from the opposite "direction."

There is so much to say about all this that is almost overwhelming in its intellectual impact, but since it is off-topic in this thread, I'll forbear for now, but maybe will take it up in a more appropriate thread. However, it has a direct bearing on the concepts of matter, mass and energy that I'm sorely tempted to point out, when the opportunity arises, but it's premature at this point I think.

QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
The reason I brought out the square root of ©, was to show the mirror symmetry that lies at the boundary of the 2 halves of the Universe. It is false to assume that the center of the Universe lies at the value of 17314, for that would not allow the duality of the opposing halves to exist. That number is the product of 2 dualistic measurements, and if 2 people started out from each side, at the respective symmetrical components (the 5.159e-7 and 5.76e14 from my previous post) they would not meet. In fact, they could not arrive at a further distance from each other; they would each be at the tail of the opposing yin and yangs. Even at the other dimensional center, beginning from points of 7.30e-7 and 4.06e14, they would not meet; at least they would be "in sight" though, at the symbolic "mouths" of yin and yang.

Yes, but while the square root of c, as a velocity, has two solutions, there is really no reason to construe this to mean that the nonlinear ratio of these solutions must be taken to be fundamental, leading to the result you point out. The fact is, the square root of the underlying fundamental relation of c, when it is taken as the natural datum of nature, becomes the square root of one, 1/1 = 1, with two roots, -1 and +1, which IS linear and delineates the boundary of the duality of the opposing halves perfectly.

It was the unsuspected quantum aspect of the structure of physical reality that did in the Pythagoreans, and it is the unsuspected quantum aspect of nature that is dogging modern physics. On the one hand, we've learned to deal with it on the basis of probability amplitudes, just as the Pythogoreans dealt with the square root of 2 with the irrationals, but, on the other hand, in doing so, we destroy the beauty of our relativistic world, just as the Pythagoreans destroyed their cherished and adored integer world, and we are just as desperate to reconcile them as they were!

QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
I use the "old school" terminology; I call those "pseudo scalars"that you mentioned - "harmonic columns". Reducing the "equations" from the ratios to the irrationals is all that I have done to Pythagoras' earlier work. There is much to glean from just this alone, as you have pointed out. As there is no "stillness", there is no infinite mass, and therefore no infinite energy; just eternal balance. The balance will always produce "velocity" of ©. The decimal numbers substitute well for the negatives, producing the quantitative results that match the empirical data. In this way, you do not have to compute the entire chart as I have, you can clearly see the mirror symmetry begin with the directional change as you cross over to the "sub pseudo-scalars"; the positive values move from left to right, and the "negative" or decimals, move from right to left. The "thirteenth column" is for illustrative purposes only, to create the dualistic symmetry that our ordered minds prefer.

You are so right. However, we have to move from the qualitative descriptions that we see can be "gleaned" from this, to the quantitative calculations of the masses, spins, and charges, of the subatoms, the periodic arrangement of the atomic elements, the atomic spectra, the Zeeman effect, the Lamb shift, the g factor, and the fine structure constant, etc, of radiation, and the relation of it's frequency, propagation, spin and chirality to Planck's constant h, in order to substantiate our ideas.

QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
This is a philosophical marriage of Eastern and Western approaches, as well as a mathematical one. Zero never appears as a real quantity; it is a "historical" term to define what "was" and never what "IS". Conservation of mass, energy, etc, is the result of our definitive labels for the apparent motion of the eternal scales; the duality of the counter-balance.

I agree.

QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
To bring this back down to everyday "science", the harmonic column, or pseudo-scalars that you mentioned, (1,2,4,8..) can be expressed in eV, which can easily transformed into "mass" quantity symbols. Thus, from "First Principles", there should be a predictive pattern for the masses that we find in our "standard particle" line-up. I have only talked about frequency and wavelength of the massless ("photons"), but any dualistic quantity, that equates to © velocity, can be derived from this matrix. (ie. de Broglie waves, and their mass or energy equivalents)

Right on TRoc. As I wrote above, this is where the proof of the pudding lies. Until we can do these calculations, to the accuracy of QM calculations, all our ideas are just blowing in the wind.

Excal

TRoc
Excal,

I am back after a few days away from the computer. I thought for sure someone else would have picked up this topic with you, but I see that didn't happen.

Excal
QUOTE
There is so much to say about all this that is almost overwhelming in its intellectual impact, but since it is off-topic in this thread, I'll forbear for now, but maybe will take it up in a more appropriate thread. However, it has a direct bearing on the concepts of matter, mass and energy that I'm sorely tempted to point out, when the opportunity arises, but it's premature at this point I think.

I certainly agree; you are showing more restraint than I usually do. I have left many people scratching their heads wondering exactly what I am talking about. This subject needs to be addressed from the beginning, and work its' way up. That was the seed for my initial interest in this "TOE" project: that it would be a logical progression from the ground up, and tabula rasa.

It (the TOE project) does not seem to be getting "off the ground" though; we can continue this conversation as it pertains to "energy/matter/mass", but perhaps, as you mentioned, we should start another thread under a more "general" title?

TRoc

fivedoughnut
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 7 2006, 07:34 PM)
That was the seed for my initial interest in this "TOE" project: that it would be a logical progression from the ground up, and tabula rasa.

We are not born blank.....natural pre-designated neural pathways will always influence a model...even a composite model of many minds.......forgive me the thought.
Excal
QUOTE ("TRoc"+)
It (the TOE project) does not seem to be getting "off the ground" though; we can continue this conversation as it pertains to "energy/matter/mass", but perhaps, as you mentioned, we should start another thread under a more "general" title?

I hate to start another thread. We already have so many unused ones. I wonder why RC has disappeared? We're waiting on him to move the TOE thread forward as promised, but nothing's happening.

I hope he's ok.

Excal
TRoc
fivedoughnut,

Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.

Excal,

Yes, I hope that RC is doing well. He has "popped in" recently in other threads, so I think he is ok.

We could continue with the specific topics of "ENERGY/MATTER/MASS" here, and take any of the "resonant patterns" back to "MATHEMATIC/NUMBER-THEORY INSIGHTS from TOE project", or even the "PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS of TOE project".

TRoc

fivedoughnut
QUOTE (TRoc+Feb 8 2006, 01:55 AM)
fivedoughnut,

Exactly. We are not born blank, we are a continuation and extension of the underlying pattern. Essentially, whatever "master pattern" that can be derived in one branch of Science, should be able to be applied to any other. This is what has not been done yet, and what we are seeking.

Quite,

The ancients just called it art. Physics is a mere facet of the aforementioned, and should now utilise new concepts derived from the consolidation of all other spheres.

A holistic approach is a damn good idea Troc.
TRoc
Hello 5..nuts, Excal, et al

I need no longer to be frustrated in trying to convey the geometry of my "resonance matrix"; I have found a Builder/Philosopher who has done it! At the "1/2 spin collapse", the movement manifests the duality. Rotational symmetry of resonant, discreet steps encompasses Pythagoras's ratios, seeding the plane right triangle, and in turn, incorporates the manifestation of all forms.

Go to spiralgeometricsystem and select "my documents", and read the 5 parts. James R. Jacobs has done a wonderful thing with a physical geometrical model, and the Philosophy behind it. I think we can use this for the "building" of a better understanding of Physics -- the way it should be.

TRoc

jjac
TRoc,

I think you've said in three lines what it took me 30 pages to say. Beautiful!

I've just begun reading up on Complexity Theory and Self-Organizing Systems for an article. It seems to me that the twist or rotation of the SGS elements could be called a 'self-organizing geometric property' of the system. For example, the model of molecular structure (Part 4) is self-generated by simply matching the left-hand twisting and right-hand twisting edges of the 'geometric field' representing the Cosine 45 degrees (x,y distance = .7071 and twist = 45 degrees). Since the SGS is scalar invariant there would seem to be an infinite variety of potential compositions that would result from this 'self-organizing geometric property'. In any case, there seem to be a lot of terms and concepts relating to Self-Organizing Systems and Complexity Theory that speak to the geometric properties of the SGS??

jjac
TRoc
jjac,

You were just fortunate enough to catch me at this point; there are many who have had to read much more than 30 pages of my attempts at explanation, and not been able to see what you have a real picture of.

I have imagined "my numbers" floating around, in their discreet, and resonant way, in the form you have made, for a few years now. I did not want to take the time to make my "matrix" 3D, even though I knew that it could be done, and probably a great "intuitive" tool to use to explain the inherent properties. One of the "catches" is that in can be interpreted in other forms simultaneously. I also have not "solved" the "top end"; though that won't mean much to anyone until I can.

At any rate, we should let this thread go back to the topic of the title. ENERGY/MATTER/MASS. Do you have any input there? Also, the "self organization" part is CRUCIAL to my theory. An inherent "code" of self replication that is simple, efficient, and produces logical (and not AD HOC) measurements and constants.

T.Roc

ps. I am hoping that Excal will be back soon
Guest
T.Roc,

Spent the evening reading your past posts. You seem to have taken a qualitative approach, (sound forms, light/color forms) to your inquiry as well, and, related your concepts to numerical values. Very, very interesting. I must ask, do you see that the SGS phases or states between the plane and the vertical to the plane correspond with all possible frequencies and wavelengths. Sort of like each scale (size)of the system, from the smallest possible to the largest, is a set that corresponds with an octave?

jjac
TRoc
jjac,

T.Roc

Laidback
May I say an Interesting thread...

My reasoning is the following...

Lets imply we are capable of detaching one self from the Universe and all Time and we are able to observe the single force that defines its current state..

Hmmm but before we can apply a definition to such a force we need to know what FORCE?

How does this force function?

Obviously the single force currently functions at many levels dependent on definitions, so at what level do we concentrate on first? Inward or better known as Positive charge and or the outward or better known as the Negative charge? velocity? or acceleration? how have they all come about? what force/s defines a single mass or particle?

So lets go back to the basics and back to even before singularity existed. or better understood "our universe existing as a single mass or force".

A singular definition or force.
So how can a force exist or have definition?

If nothing or no force existed Somewhere ANYWHERE!... AND if anything or a definition did exist - the definition or something must tend towards "accelerate to" nothing in order to take up the area of nothing so it can exist there, as its an area of less definition of force or least Resistance! " the result being an inward force to nothing so that nothing can never exist.

Hence an inward force to accelerate to the core can exist and or it can even eventually creep outward pushing against the weakened areas of inward force, and in doing so, be defined as an outward force to where eventually it can even infringe and accelerate past the inward force and as more of the inward force collapses and follows the outward path it weakens more of the inward force further in an ever increasing accelerating huge BOOM! "The Big bang" thats still ongoing today..

Out of this one single force or change we get to define all our known forces, if you don't understand it I suggest you get a piece of paper..

Draw a circle and depict lines of equal inward forces or movement to the centre so that you may get the gist of how a single force can be an inward force, now lets draw a path from the edge of the circle past the core or centre avoiding the inward lines of forces to eventually the other side of circle.. now if we observe the last line of force we should see at some point an inward force is actually an outward force..

Its as simple as that!
Now where was I?

Arghhhhhhhhhhh!
I cunt tek no more!

TRoc
Laidback,

It's been a long time LB, how are you?

You have said a pretty good analogy for DUALITY.

It can be "kicked up a notch" by rotating your circle at a steady rate.

Now, the ratio of the rotational frequency to the frequency of this "flipping" of dualistic force (push to pull, etc.) will create a second set of dualistic measurements, with a harmonic relation to the first.

A simple division into 4 parts leads to a pair of dualities, ie. N/S & E/W. (or an orthogonal physics relationship of Magnetic +/- & Electric +/-).

This version excludes the 45 deg empirical "phenomena".

Doubling this version to 8 parts does not change that.

1.5 times the 8 part (3 x basic) version works the best, while remaining the most simple.

The entry angles can be described by the "pieces" (like a pie) that they fall into. These angles must find symmetry at the CENTER of the circle. Forces are measured/calculated from there.

It will take "a few" rotations for this 12 part necessity to become apparent. The internal geometry of the Force within the rotating circle (or sphere) will become maximally dense in this time.

ciao!

T.Roc

sdogv
Been skimming all of the "threads" related to RC's TOE project. A bit confusing, but here I was impressed by Waterbreaths review of "units". One unit I have played with that seems to be involved (somehow) but not apparent in all the gibberish is a distance "r" which can be defined as the volume to surface ratio of the region of "spacetime?" being considered.

Content to boundary ratio (V/S) certainly controls the rate of any "system to environment" interactions. A system has two "rates" to consider, internal and external which must balance for equilibrium. However any change in "shape" (e.g., spherical or tetrahedral, say) or size (a radius or apothem) will be a determining factor on equilibrium upset, i.e.,it may "grow"and/or "decay", exhibiting "mass or energy changes" internally and externally.

So if a system has a external "velocity" with its environment and an internal "velocity" internally (which may or may not be at "c") an experimental observer might be confused on reality because of the "r" effect..

I have some insight but thought I'd drop the idea here to see if someone has info about it..??

Anyone? Waterbreath?
Eric England
sdogv... I'm liking what you are observing in this VS/r more and more. Not that I'm going to speak to it in the way you are asking someone to, necessarily, but I'm trying to toss in a "generalist's" point of view into each of these sub threads, while doing it in a way that seems applicable to the subject of the thread.

Mass (matter/energy) is considered a "volumetric", whether it is seen has having a theoretically concise surface (matter) or a theoretically in-concise surface (energy). Neither matter or energy have yet to be shown, to be of "substance".

Space is also considered a "volumetric" and the same principle applies to it. In theory, space has not been defined as either concise or in-concise. Where does mass stop and space begin, and vice versa? I.e. the infamous "dark matter", "aether", etc.

Time is also a "volumetric", although I can't say it is commonly considered as such. Isn't it the expression of a "volume of velocity" (amount) using the speed of light as the theoretical maximum? But again, the reference point, just like with mass and space, is still in question.

So in all three cases, a ratio of volume to surface area, can not be established concisely, if one is thinking in terms of a "TOE". We apply in-concise determinations that work concisely, but only in so far as they seem able to. Beyond that, theory breaks down and leaves us wondering about all of it.

"Area is a quantity expressing the size of a figure in the Euclidean plane or on a 2-dimensional surface. Points and lines have zero area. Depending on the particular definition taken, a figure may have INFINITE area, for example the entire Euclidean plane." – Wikispeedia

A "TOE" can not be found, unless infinite is established as > finite (> infinite is another story). A finite point of mass, space, and time (beginning and end) will never be found.

sdogv
OK, LaidBAck, Troc, & England...FORCE and Duality.

Two pointsL (1) B. Fullers Tetrahedron (insteadof a sphere) suggests three dualities...without "harmonics", 3 pairs of 6 edges. So let's say they represent space, time, and mass where any shifts are "energy"...I'm not going any farther here because I studied this experimentally.

(2) I have many many magnetic marbles (promo for SdogV). Turns out there are at least 3 ways that they can be stacked such that all are in contact with each other in ways that N/N and S/S "repulsive" fields and N/S and S/N "attractive" fields hold the structure surprizingly stable, i.e. can be moved across a surface. With larger marbles, the same configuration can be established. So England, I presume that this could be done at all sizes >finite and approach infinite....?

I am not that adept with a mathematical description of the configuration(s) that consider the field interactions, but I would love if someone would describe the 3 (at least) field interactions to make "stable configurations". Marbles have N/S markings so I can see it and feel it, but....

If anyone would like a set of 4 marbles to look (and try to do it...it's not easy, although a 12 year old was able to establish it with intuitive placement, noting N/S, of the 4th three times in a row!!) e-mail me direct with your address and if you are curious I will send my "package" with a bit of ad copy for www.SdogV.com

If someone would tell me how to post a pic here, I could post a pic of final config. (I've copied and tried to paste...but..it's on word doc on desktop and I don't know it's URL..? local?
jal
Hi!
I guess that this is a good place to repeat this post.

It's fine to have a concept..... HOWEVER, after comes a model. By that I mean that it should represent reality. If it does .... then a mathematical formulation should be able to determine if there are hidden faults.
Here is what I have found to be the downfall of all models.

Problems with Quantum Box and Model Building

The solution and the cause of the problem….E=hf
1) Quantum_harmonic_oscillator
2) Quantum_mechanics
3) The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter

We are sitting at a table.

On your side of the table you have a cube made up of small Planck size boxes (10^-33) or other dimensions. All of your boxes have something in them. On my side of the table I have a cube made up of boxes that contain the known quantum world (10^11). There are 10^ 80 of those boxes containing something but most of them are empty.
The table top is free of any objects that would interfere with what we are about to do.
1. As long as my boxes are together/touching, I can communicate anything from one box to another box without anything interrupting or scrambling the messages.
2. You want to put your boxes with my boxes so that what is in your boxes can communicate their content/information to every one of my boxes and you want all of my boxes to communicate with your boxes.
3. In order to have symmetry, it will be necessary that all of your boxes are surrounded by my boxes, which of course means that my boxes will be surrounded by your boxes.

Simple. Go ahead and do it.
4. Oppsss! All of your boxes contain huge amount of gravity. They are all stuck together and making a black hole. Therefore, what kind of force/energy will you use to separate a box from the cube?

5. Oppss! Since all your boxes have been radiating gravity for 14 B. years, haven’t you asked yourself where the reservoir happens to be? You could reduce the amount of energy by 6X because each of my boxes that have a particle are surrounded by 6 of your boxes. How did you manage to break the symmetry and have only those boxes transmit gravity to my boxes that contain only particles? What about all of my other empty boxes? WHAT! YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU WERE SUPPLYING 6X TOO MUCH ENERGY? YOU DIDN’T REALIZE THAT YOU HAD TO CUT YOUR ENERGY OUTPUT BY 6X? CAN YOU FIX YOUR MODEL?

Do you have any other energy coming from the Planck size boxes? ( or curled up dimensions) The ones that are depending on having an existing reservoir of energy. The ones that obey 1/r^2 . Explain that too? Don’t forget virtual particles.
6. Oppss! All your boxes have a higher dimension that contain a complexity of interacting energy waves. How are you going to separate a box from the cube without distorting the complex interactions going on in the cube?
7. Now that you have answered/solved those problems, how are you going to get your boxes across the empty desert (the table top). I said that it was empty. However, if you want to litter the table to with boxes containing SS particles, then you will need to explain how you negotiate your boxes to my boxes/cube without encountering any interference from those new boxes which do not exist in the known quantum world (10^11).
8. Let’s say that you have answered (mathematically of course) those questions,

next, it will be necessary to explain how you have enhance and not confused or scrabbled my ability to communicate from one box to another box. It appears to me that you have forced all communication through your boxes. AND PLEASE REMEMBER NO COMMUNICATION OR MOVEMENT CAN EXCEED THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
The following is a representative of the 6X error that all models suffer.

The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions at a Millimeter
June 5, 2005 SLAC-PUB-7769
SU-ITP-98/13

Nima Arkani–Hamed∗, Savas Dimopoulos∗∗ and Gia Dvali†
∗ SLAC, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94309, USA
∗∗ Physics Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
† ICTP, Trieste, 34100, Italy
QUOTE

We propose a new framework for solving the hierarchy problem which does not rely on either supersymmetry or technicolor. In this framework, the gravitational and gauge interactions become united at the weak scale, which we take as the only fundamental short distance scale in nature. The observed weakness of gravity on distances gsim 1 mm is due to the existence of n ≥ 2 new compact spatial dimensions large compared to the weak scale. The Planck scale MPl ∼ GN-1/2 is not a fundamental scale; its enormity is simply a consequence of the large size of the new dimensions. While gravitons can freely propagate in the new dimensions, at sub-weak energies the Standard Model (SM) fields must be localized to a 4-dimensional manifold of weak scale "thickness" in the extra dimensions. This picture leads to a number of striking signals for accelerator and laboratory experiments. For the case of n=2 new dimensions, planned sub-millimeter measurements of gravity may observe the transition from 1/r2 → 1/r4 Newtonian gravitation. For any number of new dimensions, the LHC and NLC could observe strong quantum gravitational interactions. Furthermore, SM particles can be kicked off our 4 dimensional manifold into the new dimensions, carrying away energy, and leading to an abrupt decrease in events with high transverse momentum pT gsim TeV. For certain compact manifolds, such particles will keep circling in the extra dimensions, periodically returning, colliding with and depositing energy to our four dimensional vacuum with frequencies of ∼ 1012 Hz or larger. As a concrete illustration, we construct a model with SM fields localised on the 4-dimensional throat of a vortex in 6 dimensions, with a Pati-Salam gauge symmetry SU(4) × SU(2) × SU(2) in the bulk.

This is induced by not considering Packing. Secondly, they refer to higher dimensions when they should be referring to an imbedded 2 dimension.
Although I have not done anywhere as good a presentation, what I have presented has more merit and is simpler. I can be excused for my presentation...... I don’t have the background of the “math kids” …. I don't have a model.... all that I have is an applicable concept with indications that it could be turned into a working model.

I have found a lot of published material that has a lot less support than my presentation.

WILL THE TOE PROJECT BE ABLE TO GET PASS THE CONCEPT.... INTO "A WORKING MODEL"...????
PRETTY PICTURES WITH A CONCEPT WILL NOT BE USEFULL UNLESS THEY CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO WORKING TOOLS AND APPLIED TO REAL PROBLEMS.

JAL
StevenA
I think observations should be made from a stationary point with local interactions. We create space mentally but it seems only necessary to explain how interactions within a network can give a general phase shift or delay (and possibly on macroscales only as mass might be an "emergent" property not associated with individual particles but relationships between them or how our view of space is distorted).

For example, if some local property is altered that generates a shift in a reference signal for space, when comparisons are made against it (and we can only make relative measurements ... the view of everything moving through 3-D space is difficult to actually detect physically because we can't actually see in 3 dimensions at once and this isn't simply a human limit either, you can trade off 2-D resolution for adding some planes of 3-D observations in equipment but we truly don't have any way of seeing in 3-D. Even an MRI is limited and takes a long time to develop a lot of 2-D scans as the interior of it is still making observations from a surface in a 2-D fashion).

For example, say three planes are sweeping cyclically throughout this system that determine a relative reference for space by using a "window" of time, the length of the universe in each axis.

Whenever one of these planes crosses by your coordinate in that dimension, you detect a "ping" and from there you make relative measurements of distances by detecting when something else interacts with you and you see these events ordered along the X axis, or whatever axis that plane defines. If similar planes exist for other dimensions, you can effectively "ping" like sonar or radar the relative distances to other objects (or maybe more accurate the ordering, if not the actual distances).

Now if we assume all measurements are made locally, then these global references wouldn't actually exist, but instead a local model of space, creating an artificial reference would be used. Because this isn't actually tied to the universe, the phase and frequency of these could be altered and create the appear of a location (phase shift) or velocity and inertia, with compression in the direction of motion (frequency shift). So you could have a local 3 dimensional oscillator (I guess similar to the brain) that creates a reference for spacial dimensions in a local manner.

The reason why I think could be very is important is because we can't actually see a 3-D space and only local interactions are available, which can create an obvious distortion in how 3-D space is interpreted, but also you have much more flexability available when you consider that things only need to appear macroscopically as a Euclidean 3-D space from local interactions with a possibly stationary observer.

BTW, I enjoyed the images you posted, jal.
jal
StevenA
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.
Can I count your presentation as another "problem" that the TOE PROJECT must overcome?
QUOTE
... how interactions within a network can give a general phase shift or delay (and possibly on macroscales only as mass might be an "emergent" property not associated with individual particles but relationships between them or how our view of space is distorted).

As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.

jal
StevenA
QUOTE (jal+)
StevenA
It sure is hard to make physic interesting. Thanks.

I should pull my weight more on supplying images but I have a hard time linking them now (it keeps complaining about dynamic images) and I still have never made a website to post my own content.

QUOTE
Can I count your presentation as another "problem" that the TOE PROJECT must overcome?

As you read in my presentation, "undebated/unrecognized problems". I stayed away from the obvious and normal problems which are being constantly debated on the forum.

jal

Well I don't necessarily think it's a problem, really. It's a legitimate option. I believe it's actually harder to attempt to explain what's going on in a 3-D simultaneously from all vantage points than it is to get a model that can predict observations from a single vantage point. If you can get everything correct from one viewpoint, you'll likely find other viewpoints naturally arise from this.

Also, in the end it does need to be able to predict observations from a single stationary reference anyway. I believe by focusing on just that limited view and getting that to work, the mutual views will tend to arise naturally. So in many ways it's simpler to just describe what one "observer" (or particle) will encounter and once a model describes that well, if the observations are mutual, then you're practically guaranteed to be able to describe what things look like from another perspective.

Relativity, though a step in the right direction, attempted to take a third person view of space as well and this has lead to many confusions over what actual observations are made from within the system. By instead just taking a couple types of events (for example explaining a first person perspective, using quantum units of information, how someone can witness a circular planetary orbital using light, and observe the necessary periodic or velocity to distance relationship). You don't need to really worry about actually having a planet move through 3-D Euclidean space etc. but simply find a relationship that gives the correct periodic relationship. If this extends to show gravity, in general, then the mutual interaction of light seems to almost automatically guarantee other observers will see the same thing.

Your images reminded me of some thoughts along these lines and I think that instead of the boxes being merged algorithmically, gravity occurs via them diffusing into each other. Scales of time and distances are relative. If each of these boxes, on a macroscopic level, has a large number of uncorrelated activities effectively moving each square around, instead of them remaining as fixed boxes in space, then you'll see them blur and become spherical and merge into each other. Each collection of unit boxes itself wouldn't notice this expansion because it, itself is increasing in size. Instead relative measurements could appear different in scales, but consider that neither box can immediately see the other, they can only see whatever diffuses into each other and if the rates of interactions match gravity closely then this would explain gravity as the macroscopic observation of incoherent diffusion of space and mass into each other. Consider that also rates of times are relative, and densities within an area can determine the local subjective rate of time passing. If one type of interaction can't be detected, then it doesn't create a unit of time in that location.

StevenA
You can read more of it ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8249&hl= )

But I just posted another comment there (shameless bumpage ) and I'll copy it here:

"Look at how gravity operates and the ideas of a curved spacetime - the event horizon of a black hole is actually seen as what? It's a boundary racing out at light speed, though you could also view this as a bidirectional diffusion of mass outward at light speed, and a complimentary diffusion space into a mass at light speed - it's not a static boundary.

So let's say mass grows exponentially in size over time period of time - what happened during this period of time? It diffused over a volume of space proportional to its mass or gravitational force and you could see this as a flow of space into a mass with a rate proportional to it's mass.

Now if that flow is also diffused into a 3-D space, then this flow is dispered and would follow a gradient 1/d^2 (imagine sucking air out of some point in space - the flow of the remaining air is inward with the highest differential pressure being in the middle whether the acceleration is greatest).

But space itself is diffusing into the vaccum (and you need a minimum of 3 different components anyway to create the appearance of spacetime), so it also is encompassing more volume (imagine adding air to this space equally everywhere, while it's flowing into the "hole" where mass sucks the air out). So you have an expansion of space as well as mass.

If you look at the gravitational force (ignoring the scaling), it's:

g=m/d^2

So the mass creates a flow of space inward (or complimentarily mass expands outward as it's bidirectional) proportional to itself with a rate of flow that's diffused along any distance proportional to the surface area of a spherical shell through which it passes (the area of this spherical shell would be d^2 so 1/d^2 would be the flow).

There you go, gravity and it doesn't require a bunch of invisible particles but a much simpler point to point diffusion of space and mass by forces that are inherently largely chaotic for macroscale levels from a quantized and latticelike quantum space."

----------------------------

Actually the above isn't exactly correct, the mass should correlate to the total pressure drop and the pressure drop should be diffused 1/d^2 so as to generate a 1/d^2 force and not a 1/d^2 flow but considering space is expanding as well and local rates of time can vary it gets a bit more complicated, but it still seems like this stuff could work in extracting macroscale observations from discrete networks of quantized systems when you consider the Brownian characteristics of the chaotic elements on larger scales from relative viewpoints of scales of distances, velocities and times.
antpin
The concept has been refined and is now ready, and the refined concept will not be ripped apart

THE “A” CONCEPT OF EVERYTHING

THE UNIVERSE IS ENERGY, TIME AND CREATION ITSELF.

There is no limit to how long the universe has existed and there is no limit to how long it will exist. That is the universe has always existed and it will always exist. The universe has no beginning and it has no end. It was always here and it will always be here and thus its age is infinite.

The universe is time itself, it is creation itself, the space it has and the energy within it is limitless. The universe, the vacuum and the energy particles at the simplest levels making it up were not created, have always and will always exist. The vacuum of space and energy within it can never be lost or destroyed it can only be change from one form to another or from one type of energy particle to another. The universe’s size is infinite, that is the size of the vacuum of space and quantity of matter or mass and energy within it is infinite. I will later explain in this paper why I think the universe, all these thing within it and about it are infinite.

Long before galaxies, solar system, stars (suns), planets, organisms, organic and inorganic substances and molecules, even before ions, atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, even before the extremely small energy particles which make up electrons, protons, neutrons and photons the universe existed as a endless or infinite vacuum in every direction in time and in space. And this infinite vacuum was filled to its entirety in every direction with energy in a very simple and pure form, in the form of extremely small energy particles. I will call these very simple and pure particles A, B and C particles. These simple and pure energy particles, which were present in universe at this point in time, were the A particles which were negative, the B particles which were positive and the C particles which were neutral energy particles.

These A, B and C energy particles with different yet similar behaviors and through different yet similar processes, combined together throughout the universe to create new and larger particles. These new particles then combined with each other and other particles of different sizes and energy levels to create even larger and more complex particles. With the high concentration of these large and even more complex negative, positive and neutral energy particles throughout the infinite universe, over a period of time each type of complex particle started attaching and colliding with each other and other simple energy particles and through very complex and energetic processes became fused together due to the complex reactions which took place between them, to create larger and even more complex particles. These complex energy particles are present today in the form of neutrons, protons, electrons, and high-speed nucleons and photons, etc. All these energy particles from the very small and pure ones which make up the A, B and C particles, up to the more complex ones such as the particles within an atom, would all be responsible for the emergence of many different forms and types of energy and forces throughout the universe, due to the energy which they have between each other and how they move and the energy levels which they have relative to each other. Forces and forms of energy such as sound, electromagnetic waves, heat, magnetic, nuclear, mechanical, chemical, electrical, frictional, gravitational, and attracting, repelling, pushing and pulling forces between particles.

Immediately after their creation the protons started to attract the electrons, but the new and larger particles formed from the two would not and could not become stable. That is they would not combine in a stable manner until neutrons or neutral particles also took part in the formation of the new and much larger particles. The electrons, protons and neutrons, then started combining in organized 1:1:1 ratios all over the universe and started to create the simplest yet one of the strangest atoms (that is hydrogen atoms: 1 neutron, 1 electron and 1 proton). The universe was now becoming filled with hydrogen atoms. Now with the proper balance between electrons, protons and neutrons the hydrogen atoms were now the largest, most organized and most stable particles in the infinite universe at this point in time.

At every level of energy where negative and positive energy particles are present or exist, neutral particles are needed to maintain order, organization, stability and leverage between the negatives and positives.

And with certainty I can say this is true in atoms. In most atoms electrons (the negatives), protons (the positives), and neutrons (the neutrals) all exist together and are maintained in the correct proportion and proper order and thus the atom remain stable and balance. Neutrons are needed in atoms to keep them stable, without the right amount of neutral particles the electrons and protons could not work together and would not remain in the proper balance. If a positive or negative particle were removed from an atom, the atom would remain relatively the same and relatively stable or even more stable; that is the atom could form ions or another atom. But if a neutral particle (a neutron) was removed from the atom, the proper order could not be maintained and if too much neutrons were removed the entire atom could become disorganized and unstable and it would start to breakdown, splitting itself into pieces releasing an immense amount of energy until the pieces it has split into became stable again.

In an atom like a uranium atom the relationships within the atom between the electrons and protons would or could only remain together or in proper order in the presents of the right amount of neutrons. If a neutron is removed the relationship between the electrons and protons would become unstable and violent, and the atom would split, releasing large amounts of energy to the surroundings.

In the randomness of decay or radioactive decay of atoms or elements there is also evidence that there is a need for the right amount of neutral particles within an atom’s nucleus. In an atom because the neutrons in the nucleus have no charge (they are neutral), nothing much can prevent these uncharged or neutral particles from leaving the nucleus of the atom. So neutrons can leave the nucleus almost at random. And without the right balance or amount of neutrons within an atom, order cannot be maintained between the electron and protons (negatively and positively charged particles). The atom will then start to breakdown, decay or disintegrate releasing energy or radiation in the form of alpha, beta and gamma rays and other electromagnetic waves, or in the form of free or loose, random moving and fast moving electrons, protons and neutrons. Thus the atom would effectively turning itself into another atom or element when the energy is released from its structure. This is especially true in radioactive atoms and isotopes.

Now back to what was being discussed at first. With the creation of stable hydrogen atoms every where in the infinite universe the biggest and most important transition had now taken place when pure and complex energy particles (electrons, protons and neutrons) were now working together in an organized way to create the simple atoms, hydrogen atoms, thus giving rise to matter and mass and also giving rise to the very important force of gravity and other such forms of forces and energy. That is with the creation of atoms, energy and force such as light, heat, nuclear, sound, magnetic, frictional, electric, chemical, gravitational and mechanical started to immerge and became important to the universe and how it would now be structured.

With the high concentration of hydrogen atoms present in the universe at that point in time and because of the presence of gravitational forces and the other forces, the atoms started to attract each other, colliding and releasing large amounts of different forms of energy. The attracting atoms then started to create giant hydrogen cluster or clouds, the clusters then started to attract each other creating massive or extremely large hydrogen gas clouds (with individual cloud’s diameter in the region of millions of light-years). An infinite amount of these “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas clouds then started popping up all over the infinite universe, and in the process started revealing the vacuum of space between them.

These massive gas clouds with their high concentration of atoms and strong gravitational forces over a period of time continued to apply force and supply energy to the atoms within them, they then started to contract, becoming denser and more compacted revealing more of the vacuum of space between each other and also putting greater distances between each other. In other words the large gas clouds started to become more organized and took more regular shape because of the large amount of forces and energy within them, and in the same process started putting extremely large distances between each other. The large compact gas clouds would also start to rotate on their rotational axis, this would also cause the production of even more forces and releasing of more energy.

With an energy and pressure build up in the innermost layers (the core) of the clouds, the cores of the massive clouds then started fusing hydrogen atoms to create heavier and more complex atoms, much like what our sun is doing right now but on a much large scale, and in the process the cores of the massive clouds would be set into motion which would cause each massive cloud to start to speed up their rotate on the individual rotational axis. The massive clouds could now be called massive stars (massive rotating energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 50,000,800,000,000,000 km) and because the size of these massive stars cores are very large (each star’s core measured in diameter in light years), the cores would fuse hydrogen atoms extremely fast and on a very large scale. These massive stars would be very different from normal stars in that they would have the ability to pass the point when most of the hydrogen atoms have run out but still remain very stable stars that is they have the ability to fuse many other atom other than hydrogen and they also have the ability to have a high percentage of their structure made of heavy and metallic elements. For example if there is a very high percentage of helium atoms within a massive star (star content: helium 90% and hyrogen10%) the star would fuse helium atom in preference to hydrogen, this is because the star is extremely large and its gravitational field is extremely strong so when energy is released by the thermonuclear fusion of helium the energy could not and would not be enough to cause the star to become unstable.

Over a period of time the rotating massive stars would continue to create and fuse heavy atoms, until a limit or point was reached where the energy being released in their cores and the massive forces generated by their rotation would cause each of them to become highly unstable. The massive unstable stars then at different points in time and at different rates erupted in to massive super supernova explosion releasing a burst of energy and matter in every direction out into the vacuum of space.

The scattered matter and energy from each of the massive stars’ super supernova explosions would then start to form large dense clusters or clouds of stardust (all the elements in the periodic table) near the original location of each exploded massive star. The scattered matter and energy from each massive star would now start to form massive expanding galaxies, in other words each “millions of light-years stretching” hydrogen gas cloud which turned into a massive star was a extremely large body that contained as much matter, mass and energy as a galaxy.

Depending on the rate, degree and size of the explosion of the massive unstable stars the different galaxy, which were formed, had different shapes; shape such as spiral shapes, etc. Over a period of time due to the high concentration of atoms, energy and gravity within the expanding galaxies regular size stars (suns), planets, and solar system started to form in deadly, high explosive, violent, high energy, yet organized way within the expanding galaxies. If a super supernova explosion did not completely break down a massive unstable star, large fractions of the star could remain in the original location of the massive star at the center of the forming galaxy. These large fractions could form very stable, very energetic and very large body and massive dust clouds at the center of the newly formed galaxy, these bodies could stop producing large amounts of energy after a period of time and these bodies could have other large bodies such as large suns in orbit around them or because each of these bodies would have large gravitational field they could share mutual gravitational pull on each other and could rotate and orbit about a single central location, these suns in orbit could be moving at very high speed (small whole number percentage values of the speed of light for the suns that are very close to the center of the galaxy).

The relationship between rotational and orbital motion of and within different objects:
From the smallest to the largest:
In atoms the electrons orbit the nucleus in electronic shells. Large amounts of atoms then come together to form large rotating objects such as moons, planets, suns and massive stars. Moons orbit planets; the rotating planets and their moons in turn orbit a sun. The moons, planets and suns, which are in motion then come together to form solar systems within a galaxy. Then within galaxies at their centers are large rotating bodies formed from the explosion and partial destruction of the massive stars during the creation of these galaxies. In each galaxy these large body at the center would have a special energy relation to every other object within the galaxy due to the fact that both the large body and all the solar systems within the galaxy were all apart of the large energy releasing massive star which the galaxy came from. The large number of solar systems within a particular galaxy would all be in orbit around the center of the galaxy, thus completing the orbital motion within a galaxy. And the motion of orbit even extend beyond single galaxies, in our region of the universe several galaxies tend to move in a synchronized manner, which would indicate that they are moving towards or are in orbital motion in accordance to a certain location in space, our galaxy being one of those galaxies.

The universe would now an endless or infinite vacuum in every direction, filled with an infinite amount of energy particles of all sizes and energy filled expanding galaxies moving in all directions, moving in synchronized and in random ways.

With the galaxies within the universe expanding and moving they will not remain organized forever and galaxies will start to collide. And again the universe had no beginning and it has no end. Its age is thus infinite. The universe with its endless vacuum and the energy within it was always here but some time in different forms.

One reason why the universe is considered infinite in terms of its age is because in term of an atom; the amount of times an atom and the particles making it up can be broken down or split up to get smaller particles or fractions, the amount of fractions would be infinite. That is because, say you have a molecule, you can split that molecule in to several atoms, then each of those atom can be split into electrons, protons and neutrons. Then each of those electrons, protons and neutrons can further be split in to even smaller particles, then those particles can be can be broken down to even smaller particles, then those small one to even smaller, then those smaller one can be broken down to the A, B and C particles that were mentioned earlier in this paper and those smaller and simple A, B and C particles can be broken down to even smaller particles and those can be split up or broken down to even smaller particles and soon and soon, and you could continue for ever and never stop and the particles you get could still be broken down further.

The bases or principles of the above statements are that if something exist then it must be made of something or it must contain some type of particle or it must contain some smaller thing working together. For example we all know protons exist therefore they must be made up of smaller particles working or coming together, we therefore know that those smaller particles inside proton exist therefore those smaller particles must be made up of even smaller particles. And each of those small particles had to be constructed or made at some point by the universe from even smaller energy particles. In simple terms an atom consist of an infinite amount of different size energy particles and the smaller a particle the smaller its energy level, and each energy particle in the atom was constructed at some point in time by the universe. Even if string theory (M theory) is correct and every atom and other energy particles or energy wave in the universe are made of vibrating strings, the fact would still remain that the strings would have a physical energy structure and they would also have to have some force or form of energy within them or some force or form of energy which had originally acted on them to cause or is still causing them to vibrate and the string would have to have a way of relaying messages between each other, which would mean that strings are made of smaller energy particles working together. And the fact that those smaller particles making up strings exist mean that those smaller particles within the strings must also be made of even smaller energy particles coming together or working together.

Another reason why the universe is considered infinite in terms of its age is because, some theories state that a big bang occur at some point in the past. Well I will ask the questions, where did the matter and energy in the big bang come from or where was this matter and energy located before if came here? Before the big bang what was in this location or region where we now call the universe? Their theories state that there was nothing here and nothingness normally means or represent the vacuum of space. Then I will ask the question, how long was this nothingness here before the big bang, or how old was the vacuum or nothingness and is the vacuum infinite in terms of its age and size? I would also ask the question was this enormous vacuum created or was it always here and can it be destroyed? And if it is destroyed what would take is place in the region where it was located? And if the vacuum was created what created the thing that created the vacuum?

One reason why I think the universe is infinite in terms of its size is because if the universe is not infinite in size then it must have a boundary or border around it. So I will ask the questions, if it has a border what would this border be made of? Would this boundary only enclose the matter and energy in the universe or would it also enclose the vacuum or void of space in the universe? Could this boundary be broken through? Would these boundary be visible in terms of would it be able to emit, reflect and absorb electromagnetic wave of all wavelengths? And if this boundary is made of matter or subatomic particle and other forms of energy particles could it have forces acting in it such as gravity and electromagnetism, etc? And what shape would this boundary form around the universe? That is would the universe have a spherical shape, cylindrical shape or would it have a irregular shape.

The newest concepts on stars, and on the construction, destruction and reconstruction of galaxies all over the universe based on the A concept of everything

The universe has the ability to have galaxies created, destroyed and reconstructed.

When a large enough star within a galaxy or when two galaxies meet, the galaxy or galaxies would start to become disorganized and extremely violent explosions would start to occur within the galaxy or galaxies, that is the solar systems within the galaxy would be destroyed, through a series of extremely large and violent explosion. That galaxy would then be changed back to large high energy dust and gas clouds, and due to the force of gravity the matter and energy among and within these large clouds, they would then start to move towards one or a few central location. This would then start to reveal the vacuum of space, which was previously occupied by the solar systems and their stars, thus recreating the massive rotating body called a massive star (massive energy releasing bodies with their individual radius about 50,000,800,000,000,000 km), which originally created that galaxy. Over a period of time the massive star or stars would then become unstable and again scattering the matter it had accumulated to recreate the galaxies or galaxies, which were previously destroyed.

It is not yet a proven fact that the universe can do this, has done this, or is doing this and will continue to carry out this construction, destruction and reconstruction process but I believe that this A concept will prove to be more logical than the other theories.

In summary my theories will explain theoretically in detail that these massive stars of which I speak are not wormhole or black holes nor portal to some other dimension or universe and are not bodies which destroys matter but that they are in fact extremely large stars with extremely large mass and density, with each having a radius of about 50,000,800,000,000,000 km, which exert an extremely strong gravitational force and release other forces and forms of energy, enough to breakdown and attract or pull in most of the matter within a galaxy or enough to make almost every solar system in the galaxy become a part of its structure. The massive stars would acquire their individual mass through a series of billions of massive and extremely powerful explosions through the galaxy they are in and along with their extremely strong and large gravitational field.

A law of physics states that every object in the universe has a gravitational field, but for a body or object to have a large gravitational field or strong gravitational force relative to another body, which it is attracting, the body has to have a large mass. Therefore the larger a body’s mass, the greater its gravitational field strength.

Therefore for a massive star to have such an extremely strong gravitational pull enough to suck in any material or matter near it, it has to have an extremely large mass. So that is why I have concluded that a massive star is not a wormhole or black hole that sucks up every thing even light but that it is instead a extremely large growing body with a extremely large mass, extremely large gravitational field and because of its large size consist of lots and lots of energy. And also because of it large gravitational field it is able to attract bodies or objects from great distances in space, the bodies it is attracting might then collide with other bodies to form clusters around it which would aid in its growth and also prevent it from loosing energy.

The creation of a Massive star from an existing galaxy:

Any large star or sun with a stable core, or any large star which can or has the ability to withstand the bombardment and explosive power of millions of large and extremely fast moving meteors and asteroids all at the same time (each meteors or asteroids the size of a small planet such as Pluto) has the ability to become a Massive star/ Growing star/ Giant star/ Mega star/ The large or massive bodies which were involved in the creation of galaxies.

Say our sun was much larger (about 3000 times larger in mass) and 65% of its structure was light metallic and nonmetallic elements, and the other 35% of its structure was hydrogen, and say the star still had a very stable core and it got hit by billions of large and extremely fast moving meteors or asteroids, or say large fragments from another large but unstable sun were to hit it, or say the sun got hit by a smaller but fast moving sun, or say a massive solar flare or jet of energy particles with the mass of 10000 Jupiter’s was launched from the core of the sun and move away from the sun in a straight line at haft the speed of light with extremely large amounts of energy and force in the form of enormous high energy jets. Then say this situations produce a series of large explosion beneath surface of this larger sun. Breaking the chromospheres and some portions of the photosphere in to billions of large segments or fragments, with the average kinetic energy or temperature of these segments being raised from tens of thousands of degrees Celsius to hundreds thousands and millions of degrees Celsius. The explosions within the sun or the unstable state of the chromospheres and photosphere could shoot these billions of extremely hot segments at high velocities away from the sun in every direction, along with many different kinds of deadly radiation, this would mark the start of the growth of the newly forming massive star.

These segments or high velocity fragments from the sun would amount to about 35 - 40% of the sun’s mass. The rest of the 60 – 65% of the sun would still remain relatively intact and partially stable, and would still continue to produce more radiation, light, heat energy and other forms of energy by thermonuclear fusion, and would also generate many massive shock waves throughout its structure.

The segments or fragments would be moving at such high speed that they could easily escape the gravitational pull of the sun, they would be moving away from the sun in the form of a fast outward moving high energy longitudinal and relatively spherical wave. If some of the fast moving fragments themselves do not have a strong gravitational force between each other, then they would continue to moving in straight lines away from the sun, the force which released the fragments from the unstable chromospheres and photosphere of the large sun should and would be enough to carry them out of the solar system at high velocity in a relatively short period of time.

The segments would at first be moving in a relatively straight line away from the sun carrying high energy dust, gases, solid and molten materials. Immediately after the segments have left the vicinity of the sun they would start to attract each other because of the strong gravitational force between them. Some segments would continue at high velocity, some would change directions, some would start to slow down while some would begin to speed up. Some small and medium size segments would begin to change direction and speed due to their attraction to each other and due to their attraction to the larger segments. The change in direction and speed of some of the fragment would begin to cause collisions between the fragments within the outward moving wave of fragments. Most segments would escape from taking part in any of these collisions.

The collision between the fragments would at first create an outward moving relatively spherical wave, cluster or cloud of high-energy particles, which would surround the remaining 60 – 65% of sun in all direction. In other words the remaining 60 – 65% of sun would have a giant outward moving high energy membrane made of the materials that were left when the fast moving, high energy fragments which collided with each other. The cloud or cluster would consist of the same material as the segments (star dust in the form of plasma, high energy particles of gases and metals and other energy particles). The cluster would at first be moving outwards at a reasonably slow speed compared to the speed of the segments that had escaped the collisions.

Many of the escaped fragments would now be in a direct collision curse with many other stars and planets in different locations in the galaxy. The direct collision of a high-energy fragment with a planet or unstable sun or even a stable sun would be catastrophic for that body, when the high energy fragment collide with that body the amount of energy released would be enormous and could destroy that solar system and, or eventually that most of the stars and solar systems in the galaxy.

Say the growing massive star was close to the earth and its solar system and one of these segment were to collide with the earth, the massive explosion would not only destroy every thing on the surface of the planet, but it would destroy the entire planet. The massive explosion caused by the segment along with the high energy core of the planet, would break the earth into thousands of trillions of trillions of pieces of high energy and molten rocks fragments, and fast moving clusters of high energy dusts and gases. The explosion would cause the fragments from the earth to scatter in ever direction away from the location where the earth was at extremely high velocities. Some of the fragments from exploding planet would immediately be heading directly towards the newly formed and growing massive star, and also towards the large cluster or high-energy stardust and plasma membrane surrounding the growing star, and would get trapped in it gravitational field. These would amount to about 40 – 45% of the fragments after the explosion of the earth which would be trapped in the growing star strong gravitational field. The high velocity fragments from the planet now trapped in the growing star’s gravitational field would begin to move towards the growing massive star at extremely high speeds but would be slowed down and broken down into smaller pieces by the high energy cluster or cloud surrounding the growing star. The fragments, which were broken down, would now become a part of the now inward moving high-energy cluster or membrane of stardust surrounding the growing star. The cluster would now be moving inwards towards the massive star’s surface; due to the large and strong gravitational field of the growing star it would begin to pull particles from or within the large high-energy cluster towards it. As high-energy fragments from the bodies, which were caused to explode, by the high-energy fragments from the growing star, now become a part of the large high-energy cluster surrounding the growing star, the high-energy cluster would start growing or it would start acquiring mass or matter, the growing massive star would then acquire the matter which it needs for its growth form the high-energy cluster around it. The larger or the more mass the growing star has the greater and the stronger its gravitational field becomes, thus it could and would acquire more matter or mass at a faster rate form the high energy cluster.

The high velocity and high energy segments that came from the growing star, the other 55 – 60% of the high-energy fragments from the earth and the high-energy fragments from other bodies, which were caused to explode, by the high-energy fragments from the growing star, would continue to move towards other stars and other bodies in the galaxy, this would cause a series of massive cosmic collisions and massive explosions or supernova explosions throughout the galaxy. These collisions and explosions or cosmic chain reactions would mark the beginning of the destruction of the galaxy.

With the destruction or explosion of each planet and unstable star by the high velocity segments or high energy fragments, the exploding bodies would at first distribute about 35 – 35% of their mass to the cluster surrounding the now growing star thus enabling the star to grow. The grow star would remain stable as it grows and could not and would not get hit by any large external high energy object, this is because the now inward moving cluster surrounding it would slow down and break down all the large high speed fragments moving towards it.

How the growing star collects matter from the relatively spherical high-energy cluster or cloud surrounding it:

The small high energy particles of dust, molten rocks and gases close to the sun within the innermost layers of the cluster would be pulled into the growing stars dense high energy atmosphere by its strong gravitational field. The immense heat, radiation and other forms of energy being produced by the sun would then break down the already small particles into their smallest form (atoms and ions) as they enter the atmosphere. The high-energy atoms and ions would then be distributed on rotating sun’s surface, causing the mass of the mass star to become large, in which case its volume could increase, density would increase and its electro magnetic and gravitational field would become stronger and larger. This is when the growing star is officially said to be become a massive star and its growing gravitational field would now be capable of attracting or pulling objects (such as the mass of an entire star or planets) in other solar systems towards it or it would have the ability to pull entire solar systems towards it.

Where and Why Spherical high energy clusters form around high energy object:

Spherical high energy clusters like the one around the growing star would not form around many the billions of exploding unstable suns, planets and other objects, which were caused to explode, by the high-energy fragments from the growing star. This is because the collisions, which form the cluster, depend on the size of the fragments and how strong the gravitational forces between these fragments are. If the collisions to form the clusters do not begin to take place immediately after the explosion of the body, then the collision between the fragments would not take place at any other point in time near the location of the exploded body.

Compared to the fragments, which came from the now growing star, the fragments from an exploding unstable star or planet would be relatively small but they would move through space at a much higher speed, and the gravitational forces between them would be very weak. While the fragments from the stable sun that formed the now growing star would be very large and the forces of attraction between them would be very strong. They therefore would tend to attract each other more readily to cause collisions, which would form the high-energy clusters of stardust. The explosive power of the fragments from the stable star would not depend totally on their speed but mostly on the large mass (size) and on the high energy reactions taking place on and within them.

The fragments from the unstable suns and planets would be relatively small and the gravitational force of attraction between them would be very weak. If they do not begin to attract each other when they are close together, they would continue to move further and further apart with the gravitational attraction between them getting weaker and weaker thus eliminating the possibility of the formation of a very large cluster near the source, fragments are in the closest proximity to each other immediately after the explosion. The explosive power of these fragments would not depend on their size or temperature but on the extremely high velocity at which they travel, due to the fact that the body that they came from would have being completely destroyed thus giving them the energy to travel faster.

Thing that can happen to the growing massive star:

During the formation of the massive star was complete or before it was fully developed, many different situations could cause the star to become highly unstable and explode, scattering the matter it had gather back out at high velocity and temperature in every direction into space. This scattered matter would help to reform the partially destroyed galaxy, which the growing star was located in.

If the massive star remains stable during its growth and remains stable when it has stop growing or have stopped collected all the matter near it in the galaxy, then there are two possible out comes for the now fully developed massive star.

One of the out come is during the formation of this giant star (massive star), more than one was formed in a similar manner in other parts of the galaxy. These massive stars would now be extremely dense and their gravitational fields would be extending for several thousand light years. These massive stars would still continue to produce lots and lots of light, heat, and other forms of energy in extremely large amounts, they would then start to attract each other and the speed of these mega bodies would start to increase as they move closer and closer towards each other. The massive bodies would continue to move faster and faster and closer and closer towards each other, increasing their temperature, explosive power and velocity. They would then start to become unstable as their temperature increases to tens of billions of degrees Celsius and as their motion begin to increase. They would then collide at extremely high speeds, creating a massive and extremely violent explosion. This would mark the start of the reconstruction process of the galaxy, which was destroyed by the massive stars and their activities.

The second and final outcome: this outcome or the first outcome could be the outcomes, which would recreate the galaxy or may have been the situations that originally created the galaxy the now destroyed galaxy.

In the second out come, only one mega star is created, which remain stable as it produces its energy in extremely large amounts. It continues to combine lighter elements to get heavier elements, it would also fuse the heavy elements within it to get even heavier elements until a point or limit is reached where it has to find another way other than fusing atoms to produce energy. With the extremely high temperature and pressure, vibrations and other motions within the mega star, the high energy atoms within its core would start to emit or release massive amounts of large and small high energy particles (such as nucleons and neutrons, etc), the reactions within the core would now stop fusing atoms and would start to split atoms, splitting the heavy elements (such as metals) which it had produced back into light elements (such as gases especially hydrogen the simplest and most stable atom). The splitting of heavy elements by nuclear reactions to produce energy, within the massive star, would begin to cause a series of extremely large nuclear explosions or a series of massive chain reactions within the entire structure of the massive star, which would cause the mega star to become highly unstable and extremely violent.

In its unstable state the rotating massive star would then erupted into a mega super supernova explosion in one or several massive and violent explosions. This massive explosion would break the mega star into billions of trillions of trillions of high energy fragments made of stardust and these fragments would be of many different sizes (that is different mass, volume and density), the fragments would also be accompanied by large amounts of large high energy clouds also made of massive amounts of stardust (most of the elements in the periodic table). The high speed and high-energy fragments and clouds would be scattered in relatively every direction from the location where the star was.

The massive and violent explosion of the mega star would be the important situation, which would or could recreate the galaxy. The size and power of the explosion along with the rotation, gravitational field and large centripetal force of the exploding massive star would determine the size and shape of the galaxy that is whether it would be shaped like a large spiral or whether it would be shaped like a large and loosely organized cluster of stars and solar systems in space. The explosion would also determine the rate at which the forming galaxy would expand or the rate at which the high-energy fragments would move away from the original location of the of the massive star which had exploded. The location in space where the massive star was located would become the center of the forming galaxy.

As a massive star grows it acquires more energy and as its energy levels increase its rotation would also increases, this would cause certain forces to start to oppose the large gravitational and magnetic forces within the massive star. The opposing forces would be acting mostly perpendicular or at right angles to the rotational axis of the massive star, as shown in the diagrams below:
￼￼
A rotating object, body or cloud is just a object or body with its structural particles or the particle making it up in orbit around its rotational axis. If the object is completely solid, molten or is a extremely dense cloud, as the object rotates the particles orbit the axis would normally uniformly or would complete a orbit of the axis at the same time and the only why this could occur is if the particles furthest from its axis had the most or largest amounts of energy, this is because the particles furthest form the axis would have a larger distance to travel than the particles closer to the axis to complete a orbit around the axis, so because they have a greater distance to travel they would need more speed and more mechanical energy. If the object starts to become compact its rate of rotation would increase because the particles furthest form the axis would start to move closer to the axis and as they move closer they would have a smaller distance to travel to complete a orbit around the axis and because the have more mechanical energy than the rest of the particles they would also transfer some of their energy or momentum to the other particles close to them thus also increasing those particles energy levels, these increases would cause the increase in the rate of rotation of the large object. If the rotating object has a unstable or high energy producing core and a large gravitational field the forces which are acting at right angles to the axis of the body and are opposing the gravitational forces within the object would be multiplied or be amplified and this would cause a change in the shape of the object. In the case of the massive star because the core is producing massive amounts of energy of all type, the forces acting perpendicular or at right angles to the rotational axis of the massive star would be amplified or multiplied by large amounts and could or would now slowly and easily overcome the portions of extremely powerful gravitational and electromagnetic forces also acting at perpendicular directions to the rotational axis of the massive star. While only a relative small force would be opposing the extremely powerful gravitational and electromagnetic forces acting in areas parallel to the rotational axis of the massive star. This would cause the rotating massive star to start to become flat, that is the massive star would no longer be spherical but would start to have a more rotating disk like shape. As shown in the diagram below:

As the massive star energy production increases its gravitational field would remain relatively the same in all direction buts is rate of rotation would increase and the strength of the forces opposing its gravitational pull at right angles to is rotational axis would also increase. And as the unstable state of the core of massive star develops the forces opposing its gravity would be a major factor in helping to determine the direction and rate at which the high-energy fragments would move away from the original location of the massive star or the shape and size of the forming galaxy and the rate at which the forming galaxy would expand, when the massive star explodes. In the case of a exploding high energy fast rotating massive star because large forces were already opposing its gravitational field at right angles to its rotational axis most of the matter or high energy materials from the exploding body would more easily and readily move or would more likely move in direction at right angles to the rotational axis of the exploding massive star thus giving the forming galaxy the shape of a flat, spiral wheel with a bulge at the center with the matter in the galaxy moving outwards but still in orbit around the rotational axis of the now destroyed massive star, which was located where the bulge is. As shown in the diagram below:

If some situation or something were to occur during the formation of the massive star which cause it to stop its rotation, this would prevent the massive star from having a rotational axis and their would be no major force opposing the gravitational and electromagnetic forces within the massive star in any specific direction. This would leave the forces being produced by its core free to evenly oppose its gravitational pull of the star in all directions, and because of this the massive star would not become flat and would take a more spherical shape. As this massive star become unstable and explode, the forming galaxy would also take a more spherical shape instead of a flat and rotating shape.

Energy of all forms and types would be produced by the explosion of the massive star whether it was rotating or not and would be moving with the waves of fast moving fragments and stardust clouds away from the original location of the massive star (center of the galaxy) in every direction. All of this energy would remain long after the explosion of the massive star.

The large, medium and small fragments along with the different size dust and gases cloud from the explosion of the massive star would be the bodies, objects or materials which would reform the solar systems, suns, planets, moons, meteors, asteroids and comets within the new galaxy. The size or mass and amount of energy within a solar systems and the bodies within that solar systems and the distance of that solar systems from the center of the galaxy would depend on the size and energy levels of the fragments and stardust clouds which will create it, and would also depend on the amount of fragments and the strength of their gravitational forces .

I have several concepts on how the solar system would be recreated after the explosion of the massive star; these theories are mostly modifications of other theories and concepts.

Of the high-energy fragments that broke off the mega star the fragments with the largest mass along with the largest volumes of stardust clouds would be the large bodies or objects, which would reform many of the stars (suns) within the solar systems of the galaxy. The extremely large fragments and dust clouds would have traveling with them, other small and medium size high-energy fragments, dust and gas clouds; these large amounts of small and medium objects would reform planet, moons and other heavenly bodies within a solar system.

Upon exploding, the high energy, large and fast moving fragments and clouds would move in every direction away from the original location of the mega star. These large fragments and clouds, whose individual mass would be about the same as a normal sun’s mass, would have large amounts of smaller fragments along with dust clouds and other small particle accompanying them or traveling with them through space. In other words the smallest high energy fragments and clouds, whose total mass would amount to about the same as several large rocky and gas planets, would be accompanying the larger and violent energy releasing fragments at high velocity, in a similar manner to how the tail of a comet travels, trail behind or accompany the head of the comet. That is the head (coma and nucleus) of the comet would represent the largest high-energy fragment or dust and gas cloud (a sun in its early stage), while the long sparkly tail of the comet would represent the smaller fragments and dust clouds traveling behind the largest fragment.

Upon leaving the exploding mega star, nuclear reactions or chain reactions, that is the splitting of heavy elements to form lighter element would continue to take place within the large fragments and small fragments. In the largest high energy fragments the nuclear reactions would cause small portions of their outer layers to break off and become a part of their trailing tails. The reactions would also further break up the small fragments making up the tail, thus causing the tail to breakdown in to more high-energy dust and gas clouds.

These nuclear reactions splitting the atoms within the fragments, would continue to take place within the loosely formed suns (largest fragments) and would also continue within the smaller fragments in its tail, until a limit or point is reached where most of the heavy elements within the largest fragments and their tails have been broken down or split up back into light elements such as hydrogen. By this time the loosely formed sun and its tail would start to resemble a extremely large and fast moving cloud made of high energy dust and gases, and some small fragments, with a more organized head and tail, and would also start to resembling a giant shooting star. Most of the mass, energy and gravitational force within the fast moving giant cloud would be located in its head (sun), that is about 80% of the mass and energy within the fast moving cloud would be located in its loosely formed suns. The head or loosely formed suns mass or structure would be made up of mainly light elements or gases (which were created during the chain reactions which changed the heavy elements back to light ones) and a much smaller volume of heavy metallic elements. Most of the heavy metallic elements which were not fully broken down by the atom spitting nuclear reactions would be located in the form of large amounts of small fragments and dust in the tail of the giant cloud (young solar system). These small fragments and dust clouds would remain in or as a part of the tail along with large amounts of small gas cloud.

Some possible out comes for the forming suns and their organized tails after the formation are:

1. Each giant high energy cloud could begin to slow down on its own due to the gravitational, electromagnet and other forces acting within it, between the large loosely formed young star, the small fragments and the dust and gases cloud throughout its structures.

2. One giant cloud’s motion or forming sun and its tail’s motion and its other activities could be obstructed or disrupted by the large gravitational field and physical structure of another giant dust and gas cloud; that is two giant clouds could pass very close to each other, which could or would cause the two giant dust clouds (young solar systems) to change their direction and speed, this could also cause the structure and size of their tails to change and could cause their tail to start to orbit the developing suns at relatively high speed.

3. One fast moving star and its tail (other young solar system) could move so close to the other young solar system, that the strong gravitational field of one of the young solar system could cause the other to lose some of its mass. That is a small amount of gas particles and small high-energy fragments could break of from one giant cloud and become a part of the other giant cloud’s structure. The gravitational force of the clouds could be so strong that it not only causes some of one giant cloud’s structure to break off but it also cause the two to collide into each other at very high velocity, thus causing the two young solar systems to combine into one large dust and gas could where they could continue to develop as one large new solar system.

Whatever the out come, upon slowing down the giant dust and gas clouds would start to become more organized due to the gravitational forces acting within them and would be the bodies or objects which would reform the solar systems within the galaxy.
Eric England
I whole-heartedly agree that the universe is infinite.

Your case for "infinite", however, contains "finite" assumptions.

QUOTE
...the space it has and the energy within it is limitless...that is the size of the vacuum of space and quantity of matter or mass and energy within it is infinite.

You can't put one inside the other and arrive at infinite. You are saying that space is always the end of an infinite universe. That it is always outside matter and energy.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ...the space it has and the energy within it is limitless...that is the size of the vacuum of space and quantity of matter or mass and energy within it is infinite.

You can't put one inside the other and arrive at infinite. You are saying that space is always the end of an infinite universe. That it is always outside matter and energy.

... the energy particles at the simplest levels...

Infinite has no particle or wave. Infinite does not arrive at "infinitesimal".

A universe of "infinity" precludes infinitesimal and infinite as departure or arrival points. This applies equally to substance, space, and time.

Infinity has to be contained within something greater. What "something" and "greater" mean, I won't get into.
sdogv
Hey England. (mostly 1)..and all (2):

Two related points I find of GREAT significance:
(1) From an Islamic site, (Hypercube....Consciousness)
Theorem One
If the diameter of the universe is "1 universe"
then the circumference of the universe is Pi
Theorem Two
If the circumference of the universe is Pi
then the universe is infinite
Theorem Three
If the universe is infinite
then every point is the center of the universe
(omni-directional everywhere...?)

and (2) The most comprehensive and completely referenced site covering TOE and Unified Theory that I have found in over 2 months of surfing sites, forums, etc... from an Iranian dentist.
Mohsen Kermanshahi (to me, he argues very conviincingly for V>c under real (but unobservable) life conditions.)

http://www.universaltheory.org/where_is_singularity.htm

Check it out.!!! Am I wrong?...
Eric England
All in all, you have done a great job in scouring the Internet for meaningful approaches.

Number 1 is an extremely interesting approach.

In essence, it describes a volume and surface area that have no particular (finite) size(s). It also describes a sphere that is perfect in every possible respect and has no reference point outside of it. It doesn't show how or why this is, however.

Without getting into why or how, let's use this condition to describe the result. The condition being, again, "a perfect sphere with no outside reference point".

This is the only condition where absolute center can be located and what is being referred to as "omni-direction", can be examined. The information available at center is two-fold. There is no size and there is no movement.

Any perception of movement from center, through the volume and towards the surface, is an equal movement away from the surface. In addition to this, any rotational movement at center about an axis, is also impossible, since all directions are the same.

"Omni-direction" is actually no direction. There is no direction or dimension. This is a point with no extent, that does not occupy a position in a greater extent. This is a dimensionless point. The geometry of physics has not yet, allowed for this.

I think it's true to state, that this is the "naked singularity". What is greater than it, what "greater" means, and what dimension, direction, and movement actually are, I won't get into.

As for number 2, his approach is not complete, but very much worth reading.

His primary point, is that we are trying to dismiss zero and infinities, in looking for a TOE. That in fact, we can't and shouldn't dismiss them. Whether we find them inside or outside the universe, we need to include them to reach an understanding of the universe. To this, I whole-heartedly agree.

Ǽon
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Jan 7 2006, 08:49 PM)
Well, I got a request to post my thoughts/questions.... So here goes.

They were inspired partly by Confused2's discussion of units...

I think the development of a fundamental theory of energy, mass, etc., would do well to consider the unit difference between mass and energy, and what it might imply.

The mass unit (kg) is the energy unit (J) multiplied by (s/m)^2. Or, alternatively, divided by (m/s)^2.

So I propose some things to ponder...

* What is the physical significance of a squared velocity?
* What is the physical significance of dividing by a velocity?
* The unit s/m is often called a "propogation delay". What is the physical significance of a squared propogation delay?

There may be other ways to break down this unit so that it has different meanings...

* Example: (m/s)^2 = m/(s^2) * m ... This seems to indicate an acceleration, spread across a linear distance. What would it mean, physically, to divide by such a unit? I suppose we could look at it from a propogation-delay standpoint...
* Example: (s/m)^2 = [(s / m) / m] * s ... A propogation delay, changing over a linear distance, spread across a period of time.
* Example: (m/s)^2 = [(m^2) / s] / s ... The m^2 term refers to an area. Dividing by time would indicate a change in area. Dividing by time again would refer to a changing change in area... Or an accelerated expansion or contraction of a 2D region.

Some of these interpretations deal with two dimensional surfaces, although space is three-dimensional. So the units may refer to the boundary surface of a three-dimensional volume, rather than to an actual volume of 3D space. Just as a "for instance", my last example above could correspond to a "ball" of spacetime changing in volume over time. The 2D region could be the surface of that ball. Maybe the energy in a mass is wrapped up on the surface of a sphere, which is changing in size, at a changing rate. If the radius were oscillating between a min and max, periodically, there would be an acceleration associated with this changing rate of growth, which the (m/s)^2 might embody.... But again, why would we be dividing by such a unit?

Certainly there are more possible interpretations of these units. I would be curious to see what others can come up with if they take these ideas further than I have so far been able to. None of my points are necessarily meant to be formal suggestions. I'm just hoping to spur some new thought beyond my own.

Below is an upgraded version of of the subject "AEons" previously published on the PhysOrg Quantum Physics forum.
It seems that the name "AEons" to represent the most basic particles of existance was met with some resistance. Oh-well call them what you will. They represent individual units of energy that make up the The Dynamic AEther of The Universe. Where no stable pattern exists in The Dynamic AEther there is only the chaos of jostling, pulsating grains of energy. Photon Waves and Matter are orginized patterns of this energy.
*********
William B. Luton in his Paper "The Pressureon / Forceon Concept of Reality" suggests the following concept:
The early Universe existed as randomly moving Dynamic Energy Particles. Eventually every possible combination and pattern of these randomly moving particles was generated. The stable Photon Wave emerged by chance from this chaos . The Photon wave forces a twisting pattern of AEons to form as its energy is passed from AEon to AEon in the Dynamic AEther..….

AEons are…....
AEons are AEther-ons……..
AEons are Energy packets……..
AEons movement results in time……..
AEons are the AEther of the Universe……..
AEons move constantly at the speed of light……...
AEons are cause and effect.-(Energy and Matter)….….
AEons are tightly spaced expanding packets of Energy……..
AEons occupy finite space are hyper elastic and have no shape……..
AEons are spiraling electromagnetic fields surrounding Photon Waves……..
AEons are spiraling patterns that are Photons, Electrons, Protons and Neutrons……..
AEons are spiraling Electromagnetic fields surrounding Electrons, Protons and Neutrons……..
AEons move in random fashion in space when not influenced by Photon Waves (Light Rays)……..
AEons are expanding Mass/Energy/Space units that exert pressure on everything, and are everything….
AEon fields are Matter's surface that can be touched, not the Electrons, Protons and Neutrons within Matter…....
AEons can only be organized into a stable sustainable pattern by a Photon Wave in it's various configurations……..

It ain't your Grampaws Old AEther, This One is Dynamic!!
Albert Einstein discovered and now everyone else knows that energy and matter are interchangeable and are different forms or patterns of the same thing. In his book "The Pressureon Forceon Concept of Reality" William B. Luton gives a single reason for Gravity, Electromagnetism and the Strong and Weak Forces. Luton wrote "There is indeed an AEther but far different from the Static AEther previously theorized". Luton believed that a Universal Dynamic AEther, composed of individual packets of Energy, is the cause and effect of all that is reality. Luton called the individual Energy/Space units "Pressureons". Each "Pressureon" moves continually at the speed of light. He wrote, "The Universe is a seething cauldron of vibrating pulsating expanding energy grains that repel each other". Luton's "Pressureons" are the Energy that becomes Matter and the Matter that becomes Energy. I chose to use the term "AEons" instead of "Pressureons" to represent Energy grains. Everything is a result of stable and unstable patterns of this Energy.

Below is a summary of my conclusions after studying with William B. Luton and having many discussions over the span of thirty years about the subject. Once when asked what causes Energy he shrugged and said, "As far as I am concerned before The Big Bang it is any-ones guess". Space, Galaxies, Stars, Planets, You, The Universe and me are all made of the same expanding packets of Energy that I prefer to call AEons which is, short for AEther-ons. AEons are always on the move. The very fabric of space is continually moving at the speed of light. Nothing is in any one place for a measurable length of time, relative to the whole Universe. Everything that we perceive as reality is continually moving in, around, and through everything at the speed of light. AEons sustain all Matter at the Electron level. AEons are the expanding Energy that sustains Stars, Planets and everything in between.

AEons normally move through space at the speed of light in a random fashion, but in the vicinity of a Mass, more AEons are biased toward the Mass than away. (Warped Space). The Electrons Energy is sustained by the Energy / Mass exchange of AEons. AEons biased inward toward a body of Mass become more concentrated than those flowing away from that body. This inwardly biased pressure on the particles of Mass is a one component of gravity. Our Sun requires an enormous Energy inflow of AEons to sustain it and it has an extremely inwardly biased AEon field. The inwardly biased field in the vicinity of The Planet Mercury is much denser than in the vicinity of the Earth. This simply means that more Energy in the form of AEons flows toward a body of Mass than away. The Electrons in the Sun convert the inflow of AEons into Electron Energy and Mass. Some of the Electron's Photon rings are broken at the Sun's surface and radiate into the surrounding space as Photon Waves.
The measurement of time is nothing but the marking of events but events happen whether marked or not marked. Because everything is composed of Aeons continually moving at the speed of light nothing is in one place for a measurable length of time.
Two basics: (1) ENERGY is the ability to do work. (2) Electrons, Protons and Neutrons = ENERGY.

PHOTONS
Photon waves are in perfect resonance with the frequency of the Universe.
Photons are twisting waves of AEons moving through the Dynamic AEther Field at the speed of light. (Light)
William B.Luton called them "Forceons" because they alone can force organized patterns in the randomly moving AEon field. Photon Waves cause a spiraling wake of AEons to be formed around them much the same way that a propeller creates a spiraling wake of water when it spins through a body of water This spiraling wake of AEons is the Electromagnetic component of light. Electromagnetism is a screw like pattern in the AEon field.

Photon Waves spin on their longitudinal axis as they move forward making the waves appear as both waves and packets and can be detected as both. Photon Waves made of expanding AEons are Energy consumers and AEons are the Energy consumed. Closely twisted Photon Waves (Photons) are more energetic than those more loosely twisted. Gamma Rays are more energetic waves that are twisted tighter than those of more loosely twisted visible light rays. Photons, Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, Neutrinos and all of the observed short-lived, unstable pseudo particles are organized patterns of AEons

ELECTRONS
Luton theorized that photon waves were formed in the violently moving Energy of The Big Bang. Subsequently
some of these rolling twisted photon waves were forced into the stable ring formation, the Electron.
Electrons are the AEon / Matter interface (gateway) and are the smallest unit rightfully considered Matter.
Electrons are a stable closed ring of twisted Photon Waves spinning on their longitudinal axis as they move around in a circle at the speed of light.
A spiraling field of AEons is caused to surround and travel with the Electron's twisted Photon Wave. That spiraling field of AEons is Electromagnetism.
Expanding AEons impact the Electrons twisted Photon Wave from all directions at the speed of light and part of their expanding Energy is caught up in the wave to become expanding Matter.

THE TWO COMPONENTS OF GRAVITY
Electrons are Energy/Matter converters at the AEon / Photon level.
AEons normally move about in random fashion in the Dynamic AEther but are biased toward a body of Mass. The Electrons in a body of Mass are Energy / Matter converters, therefore Electrons are Energy (AEon ) consumers.
Directed pressure toward the Electron is one of two components of Gravity. Albert Einstein recognized this as warped time/space around a body of Mass.
The second component of Gravity is also the Electron. A Photon Wave organized in the Electron configuration consumes expanding AEon Energy and converts part of it into Mass. Gravity is the result of a directed pressure of expanding Energy exerted toward all Matter and the conversion of part of that expanding Energy into Matter by the Electron. This continual conversion of expanding Energy into Matter at the Photon / Electron level results in an accelerating outward expansion of all Matter. Gravity is not a force but a twofold result of inward directed pressure on Matter and an outward expansion of Matter.

ELECTROMAGNETISM
Magnetic attraction and repulsion is the result of spiraling screw like patterns of AEon Energy caused by twisted spinning Photon Waves. Electrons aligned in the same plane in a magnetic material makes each Electron's expanding Photon Wave contribute a portion of its tiny spiraling field of AEons to the overall magnetic field. Opposite magnetic poles attract because of a screwing together effect in the AEon field and like poles repel because the screw like patterns in the AEon field rotate in opposite directions having the effect of unscrewing.

William B.Luton called AEons "Pressureons" in his "The Pressureon/Forceon Concept of Reality". He called them "Pressureons" because they exert pressure on everything. The idea of a Universal Dynamic AEther and the structure of Photon Waves and Electrons are logical conclusions based on William B. Lutons "The Pressureon/Forceon Concept of Reality".
The author, Marcus W. Hardin, coined the name "AEons", to be used for Dynamic AEther Particles and the expression "The Dynamic AEther ". mhardin104@aol.com

If a photon wave could be viewed it would look something like this twisted illustration below. Resembles a garden wind twister

javascript:emoticon(':rolleyes:')
smilie

i
sdogv
Re: Waterbreath's "Units"

Unit "playing".

Newton's F = m a defines neither F or M directly, but the ratio F/m as determined from measurements of a. So wha is mass, really?

Now from Planck constant, gravity, and light velocity we obtain "quantum parameters", and the ratio of Planck mass to Planck length has the units of Kg/m, call it "K".

Seems strange that F/K = c^2 in units, that is, implying F=K c^2 , i.e. constant at the quantum level. which implies that there is a BIG "constant" force available for ma..??about 10^44 ...!!!

Taking this onward through velocity/time, using temperature to define velocity(mv^2 = 3/2kT) brings out some uusual situations re: mass resonance.

How silly is this?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (sdogv+Nov 15 2006, 12:02 AM)
Seems strange that F/K = c^2 in units, that is, implying F=K c^2 , i.e. constant at the quantum level. which implies that there is a BIG "constant" force available for ma..??about 10^44 ...!!!

No it doesn't. You've picked a bunch of measurements, combined a few of them arbitrarily and claimed it's constant for on a quantum level.

Firstly, just matching units doesn't prove they are related in any direct way. Secondly, even if they are, it doesn't mean they are equal, instead you can have things like F = XKc^2 where X is a proportionality constant, or even a variable without units dependent on anything. It might not even be such a linear relationship, it might be F = XKc^2 + F1, where F1 is a constant with units the same as F. Or perhaps F^2 = (XKc^2)^2 + (F1)^2 or infinitely many other similar combinations.

Nothing you've said is sound logic.
Eric England
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
...or "infinitely many" other similar combinations.

Is it "infinitely" or "many"?
AlphaNumeric
No, infinitely many is the same as infinite. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Eric England
But "infinitely many" is still an oxymoron in the greater logical context.

It's a convenience of the game, but that's its limit.

It is logically inconsistent with the philosophical logic it came from.
AlphaNumeric
No, it's a phrase used to mean there's an infinite quantity of something. You know you can combine words to make a phrase which doesn't have the same meaning as when decomposed into it's component words?

If you say "Infinitely many" to someone, you're referring to an infinite number of something. It's a phrase. Saying "I'm dead beat" doesn't literally mean I'm dead does it? No, it's a phrase which means something else!

You're looking for deep meaning where little was implied.
Eric England
I am looking for deeper meaning and yes, little is implied so it is disregarded.

However, it doesn't go away and there is a way to determine it, but not from finite, only from absolute. That's where the clear and sufficient implication comes from.

That's why I keep bringing up absolute. I'm not finding fault, as I've mentioned before. I'm just introducing something that can imply infinity and shed a greater light on finite.

But, as we both know, eveytime I bother to detail any of it, you assume whatever it is you assume, and don't bother to take it at all seriously. That's your choice.
sdogv
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 14 2006, 11:22 PM)
No it doesn't. You've picked a bunch of measurements, combined a few of them arbitrarily and claimed it's constant for on a quantum level.

Firstly, just matching units doesn't prove they are related in any direct way. Secondly, even if they are, it doesn't mean they are equal, instead you can have things like F = XKc^2 where X is a proportionality constant, or even a variable without units dependent on anything. It might not even be such a linear relationship, it might be F = XKc^2 + F1, where F1 is a constant with units the same as F. Or perhaps F^2 = (XKc^2)^2 + (F1)^2 or infinitely many other similar combinations.

Nothing you've said is sound logic.

Hey AlophaNumeric:

Guess I was mistaken, but thought that this sectioin was about discussing "energy/mass/matter".
So maybe the way we play with the units should be considered, vis a vis Waterbreath's post some pages back.

E.g., Newton's force = mass times acceleration

might be looked at as Force (for mass change) = distnce times "stimulation" (i.e. accretion or depletion of what we call mass)

iOh, sorry, we really know what "mass" is, eh? (much less "energy", much less "matter")

Montec
Hello all

For a TOE to be viable there has to be a mechanism that allows/governs energy transfer. If energy could be transfered in an add hoc way then the universe would quickly reach a lowest entropy point. If energy could only be transfered through harmonic coupling then the universe would require more time to reach a lower entropy point. More "harmonic coupling" methods would result in a diverse universe of energy states.

Alvin Lindsay, Jr.
What is time? Time is just this: energy and mass spread out along the forth dimension. Along with professor Mallett, I also think this century will at least see some kind of time travel machine. Quantum physics may well open the door to a microscopic kind of back-to the-past time travel, because at such small scales nothing is certain. That means nothing is impossible, not even backwards time travel into a subatomic particle's past.
iseason
Hi Guys

I am repeating myself here but consider it an important point.

Choosing to try and complete a puzzle like this with peices which are illusive and variable is a tough ask.We do have other options.
We know the universe ends in entropy. So we have a completed Puzzle. We know the universe must have contained a specific amount of energy at the beginning. So here we also have a completed puzzle.
These two states of the universe are equal. There can be no doubt that because energy cannot be created nor distroyed. OR THIS IS WRONG.
So E=mc2 is a variable value. Mass , Velocity,light speed, volume,motion and energy are only in the states that you are discussing for a certain life span of the greater universes existence.

SO HOW CAN YOU USE THEM TO ANSWER THE TOE?

Cheers
Iseason
hppnq
Many participants in this forum seem to be repeating themselves. Great, but very frustrating, no?

I remember thinking "What if the rules themselves were governed by rules?". I was in a tub, of course, I was not trying to be a genius. The question of which rule would then be most "important" and whether it might have a recursive nature was very easily found. Took me twenty years of my life and many, many difficult and frustrating moments to answer that one. I almost, even, forgot the original question.

My theory describes to me exactly what will happen if I reason about what it is I think I know. So when I reason, observe, or provide feedback, you are all part of my science experiment, whether we like it or not. ;-)

I am only human...

The amazing thing to me, of course, is that my theory very naturally explains the most difficult concepts that physics seems to be wrestling with. There's no denying that the success of physics might also be its downfall -- which is really one of the very important "rules" in my theory, that I cannot explain to you, because the theory forbids it.

If you would have the exact same theory, my theory predicts that we will understand each other perfectly. You would of course be me. ;-) I think there is exactly one exception in my theory, and that my whole theory "works" towards this one exception.

Saying that there is always a certain path sounds mystical. But it is obviously true, although it can be ridiculed in many different ... ways. Physics now seems to be inventing the concept of "akashic fields" and "in-formation". Another ether, we cannot get enough of them. Each time we device an ether, someone should really stand up and say: "Stop that nonsense immediately!"

Still, nobody would call Lorentz a clown, least of all Einstein, I think. But of course Einstein did not do much more than say: "Well, why don't we forget about this ether that we cannot actually see, and simply stop assuming that the speed of light is, indeed -- because we have measured it -- NOT NOT constant?"

Such a step obviously makes things much simpler, but the real problem, the original question ... remains. You have just found a new way of thinking about it. It is not, in any way, more true or false than the concept of an ether. But it makes more sense.

Why? ;-)

Now, if I would postulate that the speed of light is "not not not constant", would you think I am wrong or crazy, or would you admit that you do not know the basics of observation, differentiation and integration?
Laidback
I tend to agree with a lot of waterbreaths logic.

And here is my two cents worth..

By considering energy laws, what energy exists right now, Must have the Universe as a closed system, so if we refer to all the energy it in fact equates to 100% of the entire Universe, and 100 is a quantity that is very easy to work with..

Now as per Mass/Energy equivalence, and or Potential Energy and Kinetic Energy constructs we can divide 100 in providing relative states of Energy..

For example a near vacuum in fact is with very little potential - but highly kinetic as in maximum velocity..

whilst a relative solid is with a relatively high potential "stored Energy" and as such with minimum velocity..

Most should recognize if we divide total "E" with zero would have the system with no means to express change ergo a Closed system, but once we introduce two dimensions - and by that, any two dimensions we are well on the way to be able to compare one physical attribute to another..

Lets now model two unlike masses in order gravity may be later on explained, and in doing so also provide basic General Relativity Constructs..

with the following models,
let height present as PE
let width present as KE

E = _____________
the above model implies a low potential that is highly kinetic - A near vacuum if you will..

But we need to model some relative solids if we are to model gravity..

so lets divide the above model into 18 units

------------------
and then introduce some opposing velocities as a means of converting KE to PE

-----=----=-----
The above model now has two relative Solids in the midst of a Near Vacuum..
And I should point out not entirely accurate, As a solid is with a high ratio of PE to KE

-----|----|-----
just bare in mind to store energy opposing velocities are required..

And if we allowed the model to run its course
-------||-------
The two solids would end up being repulsed towards each by the near vacuum..
I am out of time, so I will continue on later..

Cheers..
AlexG
QUOTE
And here is my two cents worth..

Not worth that much.
sdogv
I feel obliged to report that there are two (2) prime forces in Physics. Newton's force equals mass times acceleration and Richard's force equals distance times "stimulation". The former involves motion , the latter "growth". The former relates Newton's law of "gravity", the latter relates Coulomb's law of "charge".
If there is any interest, read my Chapter in "Philosophy of Evolution", just published. The details of this approach are in process. Of course "panpsychism" is involved which kills any presentation here.

Laidback
As promised,
Today I will elaborate further..

So far I have referred to some 2D basic energy models to which if modelled in 3D should give some insight as to how all various densities - as in the NEAR-Vacuum to a Solid are at all possible, unfortunately my basic models to those who have very little to work with upstairs, wont provide anything special to them, of course it may not entirely be their fault and may be more by my fault and how I conveyed my constructs..

Of course - To those who have a higher level of intellect, I am confident my previous post should have sparked some sort of insight, and perhaps may have even provided a connection as to why Quantum Mechanics "theoretical Particles" are so problematic when it comes to marry it with general relativity, but I am not holding my breath on that if I am to go by past experiences..

If not I have failed with my previous post - So perhaps the following models may provide the all important link..

** NOTE **
The following models are all in 2D and I suggest once they are understood they then be modelled in 3D..

Having established in my previous post the ratio of KE to PE is the basis for mass, I now need to model THEORETICAL Atoms and the respective charges to them..

And to do this I will use the following keyboard symbols..
"()" = Stored energy as in a minimum of two Kinetic potentials with opposing velocities to them..

"o" = stored energy also, but it suggests its total Potential is not as great as the Potential "()" above..

Now lets imagine if we had two such bodies of energy, within a model, and as such I postulate that the greater Potential will impart with some of its energy as such..

()>0 of course if we consider the model in great detail, as in consider all respective velocities to each body of Kinetic potential, it should be obvious the greater potential is in fact just passing on a recently received potential via the lack of any opposition to it..

let me provide a frame by frame example

()>ooo Frame one
o()>oo Frame two
oo()>o Frame three
oooo Frame four..
But what if this Kinetic potential with a velocity to it comes across a potential with an opposing velocity to it as such <()>o<()> ? we in fact end up with a stale mate, and if we model the above in 3D with the following continuing configuration in all directions, we should note we are in fact modelling atoms..

<()>o<()>
And as the above model suggests we now have the means to quantify three neutrons, two protons and one electron, and with that we also have the means to refer to respective theoretical Charge to our above 2D theoretical particles via the following reasoning..

() = Neutron and or zero charge
<()> Repulsion and or Positive Charge.
>o< THEORETICAL Attraction or Negative charge - Noting the implied attraction is only made possible via existing Repulsion, so that if we remove repulsion we also remove the means for atraction as per defined that all forces are in fact repulsive..

Once the above is understood and then modelled in 3D, we are in fact even able to model electron flow in solids to Electromagnetic waves and or Photons via a NEAR-Vacuum and back again to electron flow in another solid..

But what is most important of all is, if one does indeed understand my models they now have the capacity to model all the forces, as in Gravity, electromagnetic and the Neuclear..

If not <sigh>, Then it may take quite a considerable length of time before all forces by anyone else other than me, can be clearly understood and modelled based purely on the one equation..

Cheers,

Pete..
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 19 2010, 02:21 AM)
Of course - To those who have a higher level of intellect, I am confident my previous post should have sparked some sort of insight, and perhaps may have even provided a connection as to why Quantum Mechanics "theoretical Particles" are so problematic when it comes to marry it with general relativity, but I am not holding my breath on that if I am to go by past experiences..

You demonstrated you don't know the meaning of 'dimension', you know no relativity or quantum theory and that you have no grasp of just how far from anything even remotely related to the GR/QM combination problem you are.

And you make another mistake which leads me into someone else you said :

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 19 2010, 02:21 AM)
But what is most important of all is, if one does indeed understand my models they now have the capacity to model all the forces, as in Gravity, electromagnetic and the Neuclear..
You have provided nothing of the sort. First and foremost there are two nuclear scale forces known, not one. You claim to be able to model anything yet you can't even get the number of forces right (while there might be more than 4 there's definitely more than 3, yet you only list 3)!

Seeing as you claim to understand your own models then that implies you claim you can model any and all of the forces. I would like you to use your work to model the following processes, in all cases showing the step by step method you used :

1. Emission spectrum of atomic Hydrogen.
2. Precession of Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
3. Differential cross section of photon-electron scatterings.

In each case state your initial starting place, including any assumptions you make, then show the steps you used and then provide the general formula. Answers should be within 10% of the true, measured, values so you can make some simplifying assumptions to cut down on the work, but you must state where and why you make a simplification in any case.

Q1 is homework for an introductory course in QM. Q2 is homework for an introductory course on GR. Q3 is homework for an introductory course in QED. All are well understood phenomena and the mainstream models/results are experimentally tested and verified to within 1% so your answers can be checked by being compared with mainstream formula since if you disagree with them by more than said 1% you disagree with reality (but I'll let you have a 10% margin instead).

I look forward to seeing you fail utterly to answer them in anything even vaguely resembling a coherent matter.
Laidback
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 31 2010, 05:52 AM)
You demonstrated you don't know the meaning of 'dimension',

QUOTE (Alphanumeric+)
you know no relativity or quantum theory and that you have no grasp of just how far from anything even remotely related to the GR/QM combination problem you are.

QUOTE (Alphanumeric+)
And you make another mistake which leads me into someone else you said :
someone??

QUOTE (Alphanumeric+)
You have provided nothing of the sort. First and foremost there are two nuclear scale forces known, not one. You claim to be able to model anything yet you can't even get the number of forces right (while there might be more than 4 there's definitely more than 3, yet you only list 3)!

Seeing as you claim to understand your own models then that implies you claim you can model any and all of the forces. I would like you to use your work to model the following processes, in all cases showing the step by step method you used :

Force is only ever repulsive and if we are aware of critical dimensions, we can refer to all of the aspects slotting it into the right theory..

So having said that - Once again let me point out my limits as per my Profile..

And it seems your post was a complete waste of your time, other than the emotions I am about to provided you with regards to the following..
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
I look forward to seeing you fail utterly to answer them in anything even vaguely resembling a coherent matter.

Which I presume is in reference to the following..
QUOTE
1. Emission spectrum of atomic Hydrogen.
2. Precession of Mercury's orbit about the Sun.
3. Differential cross section of photon-electron scatterings.

In each case state your initial starting place, including any assumptions you make, then show the steps you used and then provide the general formula. Answers should be within 10% of the true, measured, values so you can make some simplifying assumptions to cut down on the work, but you must state where and why you make a simplification in any case.

Q1 is homework for an introductory course in QM. Q2 is homework for an introductory course on GR. Q3 is homework for an introductory course in QED. All are well understood phenomena and the mainstream models/results are experimentally tested and verified to within 1% so your answers can be checked by being compared with mainstream formula since if you disagree with them by more than said 1% you disagree with reality (but I'll let you have a 10% margin instead).

I look forward to seeing you fail utterly to answer them in anything even vaguely resembling a coherent matter.

If my previous post failed you, then it would be pointless to continue with the above..
AlexG
QUOTE
If my previous post failed you, then it would be pointless to continue with the above..

Yes. You are right. You are pointless.
Laidback
QUOTE (AlexG+Dec 31 2010, 01:50 PM)
Yes.  You are right.  You are pointless.

I am sorry to hear that Alex,
And as such all I can do is suggest you consider the makeup of any given theoretical particle of your choice via two dimensionally,
But importantly by considering mass/energy equivalence, thereby referring to two appropriate dimensions KE & PE..

Maybe then you may gather some idea what I am getting at with my previous Posts, which perhaps was or is a rather poor attempt by my part - in pointing out how each relative solid or particles are in fact a compression point, via the mechanism with regards to how KE or a NEAR-Vacuum is converted to PE or a relative solid, via having two Potentials being with equal but opposing velocities merge and cancel respective velocities out (Velocity1=-c & Velocity2=+c) much like a bird flying 5knots in a 5knots head wind eg: "Velocity1" = "+5 knots" and "velocity2" = "-5 knots" the result is zero velocity, but in this case we refer strictly to P&K Energy, so in doing so, storing the two potentials together as an in an increase in Potential and or storage of Energy aka compression..

If the above is still unclear, it would be pointless to then elaborate the 2D models I used in my previous posts to 3 or more Dimensions, so let it be known - so that maybe someone else who has understood my modelling can explain it better..

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2010, 12:12 AM)

Are you really that naive? Do you really think being able to recite a definition means you understand it? Parrots can be taught to recite things but they don't understand what they say. The fact your first instinct was the provide a Google obtained link shows you don't actually understand the definition, you just deceive yourself.

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2010, 12:12 AM)
Force is only ever repulsive
Asserting something doesn't make it true.

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 31 2010, 12:12 AM)
If my previous post failed you, then it would be pointless to continue with the above..
So you can't even do it yourself? I'm asking you to do it, as you claim you understand your posts and you claim you've provided all that's needed to model said forces. That's why I picked you, as you claim you understand what you're talking about and thus have it within your capacity to answer those questions using your work. Your excuse is so transparently an attempt to avoid admitting you are making baseless claims about your work that I'm surprised even you tried it.
dimazin
Kinetic energy should be equale m*v'^2
However speed is deformed(distorted) by space-time.
v'=v*L / (L+1)^1/2
v' - true speed for energy
v - observing speed
L - Lorentz's factor
mpc755
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 16 2005, 05:36 PM)
Hi-Ho guys and gals!

This thread is for discussing the nature etc. of Energy, Matter and Mass in preparation for answering the questions in the "THEORY OF EVERYTHING BEGUN FROM ABSOLUTE CONCEPT" thread's relevant-STAGE QUESTION & ANSWER SESSIONS. Hopefully participants will use this thread to introduce/refine their insights/answers in these areas. Thanks.

RealityCheck.
.

Dark matter is aether.

There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.

Matter and aether are different states of the same material.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.

Matter is condensations of aether.

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether.

Matter evaporates into aether.

As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space. The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy.

Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.

Energy is a change in state of that which has mass.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.