I Wrote a reply earlier and my kids got into the comp before I had a chance to send it …LOL . So I’m going to copy it in from now on.
Ok…..
1.IF energy was not in it’s current quantity at the beginning AND the end, Then the theory of thermodynamics is the first to go.
2. If energy need not be measured at both scales to the same degree , (smallest and largest) Then we are living in two dimensions. Because we could not see past our own frame .
3. If energy need not be evenly distributed throughout time and motion , then we could not receive light from past events (such as distant stars).
By looking at the distribution of energy as the only “constant reality”. I manage Behaviors into two distinct camps.
1. Possible
These are the things we can observe. Anything which doesn’t rely on guesswork to “make it do stuff”.
2. Probable
These are things that COULD occur, Given that true base energy could realistically do anything and create any type of universe it likes.
Both are entirely reliant on each other as to the make up of the universal model.Once The first “possible” occurred, it increased AND diminished the probable outcomes of reality.Since balance is required in all measures of time and space ,The beginning and the end become glued together in this way and continually reduce the chaos (or increase it) but certainly one affects the other.
Cheers
Iseason
Nothing
Everywhere
Time
Infinity
Everything.
Everywhere
Time
Infinity
Everything.
everything + everywhere +Variation =(motion + time)
(but in that order)
cheers
Iseason
(but in that order)
cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Nov 9 2007, 10:21 AM)
everything + everywhere +Variation =(motion + time)
(but in that order)
cheers
Iseason
Kinda kills the direction of the discussion though , doesn't it.
If the purpose of this thread is to find a starting point. Then everything MUST be the beginning.
If this is not the starting point , then the next logical is ALWAYS Because infinite progression is the only way forwards.
Why?
if nothing exists ahead of everything than everything came from nothing. In that case , there is always nothing and never anything.
A causal proposal from both scales makes sense . Everything , begat,"something everywhere", and this variation is time and space.
But this also means that you must adjust your measure in the way the universe acts rather than how we wish to perceive it. Rather than using "infinite progression" can only work while every position in time and space is balanced against a causal view.
From a causal view. Something happened: BUT FROM A LOGICAL PROGRESSIONIST VIEW> Nothing could have occurred without a mirror effect on all the measurable parameters>
IN effect: once the beginning had started < the ending was put beyond doubt>when you move the logic inwards and outwards at the same time < the effects are "things popping out of different parts of space" in an even distribution at the beginning and the end> but with a rather less organized centre>
since there will always be one point in favor < for or against one of the ends < the balance is tentative> a bounce here means a push there >
Cheers
Iseason
(but in that order)
cheers
Iseason
Kinda kills the direction of the discussion though , doesn't it.
If the purpose of this thread is to find a starting point. Then everything MUST be the beginning.
If this is not the starting point , then the next logical is ALWAYS Because infinite progression is the only way forwards.
Why?
if nothing exists ahead of everything than everything came from nothing. In that case , there is always nothing and never anything.
A causal proposal from both scales makes sense . Everything , begat,"something everywhere", and this variation is time and space.
But this also means that you must adjust your measure in the way the universe acts rather than how we wish to perceive it. Rather than using "infinite progression" can only work while every position in time and space is balanced against a causal view.
From a causal view. Something happened: BUT FROM A LOGICAL PROGRESSIONIST VIEW> Nothing could have occurred without a mirror effect on all the measurable parameters>
IN effect: once the beginning had started < the ending was put beyond doubt>when you move the logic inwards and outwards at the same time < the effects are "things popping out of different parts of space" in an even distribution at the beginning and the end> but with a rather less organized centre>
since there will always be one point in favor < for or against one of the ends < the balance is tentative> a bounce here means a push there >
Cheers
Iseason
Repeat of a past posting, with additional thoughts and introducing "consciousness",. i.e. panpsychism.
Light and mass make "unity" since identification (quality) and/or measurement (quantity) of one cannot be determined without the other. i.e. their summation is always zero w.r.t. time.
Evidence suggests "particles of mass(energy)" and "waves of light (energy)" and uncertainty principle suggests either must be equal to or greater than Planck's constant. again, mass "wants" (consciously) more "time of existence", gained by controlling more position while waves of light expand into more space, diluting mass control of position., i.e., still sum of both is zero.
So, units of Planck constant, kg-m^2/sec has a dual plurality, momentum times distance or mass rate of change times area, i.e., (Kg-m)/sec (m) OR (kg/sec)(r^2),
We will begin at zero and progress in positive time as mass and simultaneously progress in negative time as a wave of light, their sum, alternately zero and finite as time progresses, also from zero.
Now I have gotten myself confused because my time is limited. Equal plus and minus leads to nowhere. Aha! thats the solution. Mass controls position due to its inertia, light controls space due to its motion.
Light and mass make "unity" since identification (quality) and/or measurement (quantity) of one cannot be determined without the other. i.e. their summation is always zero w.r.t. time.
Evidence suggests "particles of mass(energy)" and "waves of light (energy)" and uncertainty principle suggests either must be equal to or greater than Planck's constant. again, mass "wants" (consciously) more "time of existence", gained by controlling more position while waves of light expand into more space, diluting mass control of position., i.e., still sum of both is zero.
So, units of Planck constant, kg-m^2/sec has a dual plurality, momentum times distance or mass rate of change times area, i.e., (Kg-m)/sec (m) OR (kg/sec)(r^2),
We will begin at zero and progress in positive time as mass and simultaneously progress in negative time as a wave of light, their sum, alternately zero and finite as time progresses, also from zero.
Now I have gotten myself confused because my time is limited. Equal plus and minus leads to nowhere. Aha! thats the solution. Mass controls position due to its inertia, light controls space due to its motion.
Sdogv
Light, like energy, must have a conceptual beginning if it is to be within the dimension we inhabit. Failure to observe that mass and light have both a beginning and an end leads to an infinite universe. This means everything that is called a constant is no such thing. Since an ever expanding universe must reach a limit where the energy is exhausted . Likewise there cannot be an infinite beginning , since that means infinite regression.
Descriptions that use "actual" Boundaries are useless for describing either of these two , since neither is likely to be unchanged from one to the other.I am not arguing that the concept/ideas you propose are not per tenant. just further along and not base behaviors. They lack several key functions
1. limits
2.Base behaviors
3.interactions that are not one or the other
4. a medium
5.direction (how dispersal took place)
6. order
7.disorder
most of all they lack energy unless the energy is assumed.to be an act of transfer between the two.
Cheers
Iseason
Light, like energy, must have a conceptual beginning if it is to be within the dimension we inhabit. Failure to observe that mass and light have both a beginning and an end leads to an infinite universe. This means everything that is called a constant is no such thing. Since an ever expanding universe must reach a limit where the energy is exhausted . Likewise there cannot be an infinite beginning , since that means infinite regression.
Descriptions that use "actual" Boundaries are useless for describing either of these two , since neither is likely to be unchanged from one to the other.I am not arguing that the concept/ideas you propose are not per tenant. just further along and not base behaviors. They lack several key functions
1. limits
2.Base behaviors
3.interactions that are not one or the other
4. a medium
5.direction (how dispersal took place)
6. order
7.disorder
most of all they lack energy unless the energy is assumed.to be an act of transfer between the two.
Cheers
Iseason
first of all, you need to start at nothing and build from there. The problem is that most people cannot even begin to fathom "nothing".
I have a TOE which I believe is correct. It explains how everything has happened, what is happening and has predicted a great many major discoveries recently. It explains EVERYTHING in understandable terms: time, light, gravity, dark energy, why the big bang was NOT the origin of the universe, ESP and all paranormal events, life, death, heaven and everyhing else I can think of. It explains why space is expanding at an accelerating pace, the formation of new celestial bodies, nebulas, on and on and on. It also explains in detail the states of matter, string theory, wave theory and particle theory. It explains why an atomic explosion is so powerful. It explains quantum mechanics. It explains everything about the dimensions of space, what goes on in a black hole and any other unanswered question.
All of these explanations are from ONE single simple answer which I discovered while doing some experiments a few years ago. For several reasons I cannot share with you all the full answer, but in order to understand everything, start with nothing and build from there. Time, energy and velocity are the keys.
All of these explanations are from ONE single simple answer which I discovered while doing some experiments a few years ago. For several reasons I cannot share with you all the full answer, but in order to understand everything, start with nothing and build from there. Time, energy and velocity are the keys.
davidarheault and RC
I want to play a little game.
A little ways back in this post I introduced the concept of "one" which I have shifted to Whole. By no means has anyone let me get away with it , but as yet , no definitive rejections have surfaced (except in favor of pet theory.).
I want to play with davidarheault's concept of nothing. I agree that on conventional lines nothing remains nothing.However, in "whole" i needed both the dimensional extremes of the universe to get anywhere. neither could be measured separately without affecting the energy itself.(either in creating it or destroying it.)
I begin with a measure of energy.The obvious choice was the smallest 'first causality', but without the medium of space, it cannot work.So i needed the largest singularity to balance it out.
In either case the size remains irrelevant, but the relationship must create equal partnership between the methodology and there can only ever be one energy.
Nothing can only be measured against something.the difference is only infinity if both are equal spatially. it would be natural that something would seek to use entropy to reduce the spacial quantity of nothing.Equally, nothing would be able to create areas whereby something was excluded or thinned so much (or indeed gathered so much, that it's spacial kingdom was reduced.
Getting back to whole, I was requiring there to be at least token energy in the universe. my premise rests on one smallest measure which is able to occupy each time and space one pixel at a time.
but this singular has once again an inability to measure itself (since there is nothing relative for it to use.) This does actually allow it to be nothing.
If you think about a limited sized universe with limited time and mass. The end entropy will spread the energy we conceive to a point where it stops at "a minimum average" OR there is no barrier to how a trade between space and energy .
although i am not starting with nothing..Perhaps In order to achieve entropy in a true sense, energy simply becomes space...If this happens , then I have a Whole anyway.
Funny as it might sound, once nothing truly exists, it can dictate over "something"
But once again only according to spacial dimensions. Given now that something is so thin and necessary to keep spacial dimensions,"nothing can be free to assert an influence out of proportion that you would have been impossible before....
This is just a bit of fun...
I still like my pet theory of one measure of energy which equals both the smallest and largest two singularities..the beginning and the end..
Cheers
Iseason.
I want to play a little game.
A little ways back in this post I introduced the concept of "one" which I have shifted to Whole. By no means has anyone let me get away with it , but as yet , no definitive rejections have surfaced (except in favor of pet theory.).
I want to play with davidarheault's concept of nothing. I agree that on conventional lines nothing remains nothing.However, in "whole" i needed both the dimensional extremes of the universe to get anywhere. neither could be measured separately without affecting the energy itself.(either in creating it or destroying it.)
I begin with a measure of energy.The obvious choice was the smallest 'first causality', but without the medium of space, it cannot work.So i needed the largest singularity to balance it out.
In either case the size remains irrelevant, but the relationship must create equal partnership between the methodology and there can only ever be one energy.
Nothing can only be measured against something.the difference is only infinity if both are equal spatially. it would be natural that something would seek to use entropy to reduce the spacial quantity of nothing.Equally, nothing would be able to create areas whereby something was excluded or thinned so much (or indeed gathered so much, that it's spacial kingdom was reduced.
Getting back to whole, I was requiring there to be at least token energy in the universe. my premise rests on one smallest measure which is able to occupy each time and space one pixel at a time.
but this singular has once again an inability to measure itself (since there is nothing relative for it to use.) This does actually allow it to be nothing.
If you think about a limited sized universe with limited time and mass. The end entropy will spread the energy we conceive to a point where it stops at "a minimum average" OR there is no barrier to how a trade between space and energy .
although i am not starting with nothing..Perhaps In order to achieve entropy in a true sense, energy simply becomes space...If this happens , then I have a Whole anyway.
Funny as it might sound, once nothing truly exists, it can dictate over "something"
But once again only according to spacial dimensions. Given now that something is so thin and necessary to keep spacial dimensions,"nothing can be free to assert an influence out of proportion that you would have been impossible before....
This is just a bit of fun...
I still like my pet theory of one measure of energy which equals both the smallest and largest two singularities..the beginning and the end..
Cheers
Iseason.
Hey RC, I understand your point, But if you know the final answer, why ask. First, can you even imagine what absolutely nothing is? Second, can you truly admit that you can fathom infinity? I will lay off the philosophy as much as possible, but it cannot be left out.
As Einstien was quoted as saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Imagine nothing. No space, no dimension, no particles, no time, no light, no gravity, etc. Nothing would not go on forever, it doesn't exist!
Now imagine one single, absolutely elemental particle, the Hicks Boson for example, and absolutely nothing else. It would have mass so it would have gravity. It would exist so it would have time. Gravity and time ARE quantized aspects of each and every particle in existance! It couldn't have linear velocity because there would be no other reference point in existance. It would, however, have angular momentum because it could reference itself through time. There would be nothing to stop it from spinning infinitely fast, as nothing else exists. No friction, nothing.
Now imagine two single, absolutely elemental particles. They would each posses gravity and time. If they bumped into each other and sped away from each other, they each could reach infinite velocity, as there would be "nothing" to stop them. As they continued, the "space" inbetween them would be a vaccuum with nothing in it, but it would exist, not as "nothing" but as empty "space". It couldn't be "nothing" between them as you couldn't have two seperate particles in two sets of Nothing. This is what we observe in space.
Now imagine those particles going off in different directions. just after they "bump" into each other, they accelerate away from each other. There is "nothing" to slow them down, or even stop them from accelerating to infinite velocity.
Yes, start from nothing. I won't tell you how that particle got there just yet, but it's really cool.
ps. The speed of light is restricted by gravity, which does mean that the speed of light is NOT constant. Btw, light was fairly easy to figure out once I applied my toe to it. Why it appears to originate as a particle, travel as a wave and end as a particle is really quite simple.
Remember, keep it simple. Science has a way of over complicating everything. Even Einstien ackowledged that point.
That's all for now.
Between nothing and infinity is everything. Balance is the secret of the Universe.
As Einstien was quoted as saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge".
Imagine nothing. No space, no dimension, no particles, no time, no light, no gravity, etc. Nothing would not go on forever, it doesn't exist!
Now imagine one single, absolutely elemental particle, the Hicks Boson for example, and absolutely nothing else. It would have mass so it would have gravity. It would exist so it would have time. Gravity and time ARE quantized aspects of each and every particle in existance! It couldn't have linear velocity because there would be no other reference point in existance. It would, however, have angular momentum because it could reference itself through time. There would be nothing to stop it from spinning infinitely fast, as nothing else exists. No friction, nothing.
Now imagine two single, absolutely elemental particles. They would each posses gravity and time. If they bumped into each other and sped away from each other, they each could reach infinite velocity, as there would be "nothing" to stop them. As they continued, the "space" inbetween them would be a vaccuum with nothing in it, but it would exist, not as "nothing" but as empty "space". It couldn't be "nothing" between them as you couldn't have two seperate particles in two sets of Nothing. This is what we observe in space.
Now imagine those particles going off in different directions. just after they "bump" into each other, they accelerate away from each other. There is "nothing" to slow them down, or even stop them from accelerating to infinite velocity.
Yes, start from nothing. I won't tell you how that particle got there just yet, but it's really cool.
ps. The speed of light is restricted by gravity, which does mean that the speed of light is NOT constant. Btw, light was fairly easy to figure out once I applied my toe to it. Why it appears to originate as a particle, travel as a wave and end as a particle is really quite simple.
Remember, keep it simple. Science has a way of over complicating everything. Even Einstien ackowledged that point.
That's all for now.
Between nothing and infinity is everything. Balance is the secret of the Universe.
Why don't I save you time and just spell it all out.
Existence happened, a forcefully expanding hot liquid that cooled transitionally into a fluid Mosaic of matter with defined rules based upon principles discovered but mechanisms yet to be understood. Now here is the interesting part, and some of you will object, strongly. The process had just begun.......
Let me review we have a liquid that condenses to solid and continues by evaporating into the gravitational wave which is creating space itself. By the way since time, in this theory, is the rate of the gravitational wave given off by matter then the inflationary theory is understood as a big bang started before time started as measured by the distance light travels. So time is the measure of ultimate change and the ultimate change is matter, at the electromagnetic field level decaying into the gravitational wave. Now relativity concludes that time and space change due to gravitational field changes and relative movement changes. It truly is a no brain er to understand that if time and space are relative concepts when motion is involved and absolute when there is no relative motion and we can easily understand how sound is also relative in a similar manner then we may conclude they act similar in this respect. They are both generated from a point of origin, they are products of mass to energy transfer, and they are both wave functions which is the key understanding to grasp the concept of relativity and the actual mechanics or reasons why the universe is the way it is. Time is the rate density of the generated gravitational wave and space is the volume density of the gravitational wave.
OK so i have defined time and space as wave functions of all matter decay into a non-binding wave. Time is the rate and space is the unfolding length. Which buy the way means it can't be broken into gravitons. Anyhow lets talk about a misunderstood third action of this process, constructive wave interference. With radiation we have constructive and destructive wave interference of patterns of wave frequency alignment. Now imagine that gravitational wave acts the same but since it is generated from all matter space itself is always undergoing pattern changes with identical frequencies of the gravitational wave and these pattern changes have a path of least resistance which is constructive wave interference since space itself has limits of overlap. This leads to the enlightenment that matter does not warp time and space but creates time and space as a creation of this process and "gravitational wave synchronization" is the action of matter transitioning to constructive wave interference. ( Which by the way explains the gravitational constant). So another review- Time, space and gravitational wave synchronization are three actions of matter transitioning to a monopole wave.
Now let me get this straight, gravity doesn't pull it synchronizes and resistance to gravity and inertia are a desynchronization? Yes and and time and space are wave functions of this process? yes. Well if gravity doesn't pull and all this can be explained in three dimensions then is string theory (M- Theory) necessary? No. If gravity doesn't pull then do we need dark matter to push? No! Can galaxy spins be explained by this process? Yes. Can the increasing acceleration of the universe be explained? can the speed of light being constant be explained? Yes and Yes!
Yes but quickly because I am bored, The accelerating universe can be explained by the very complicated equation of F=M times A where the force of the big bang is constant because gravity does not pull but synchronizes so there is no force to pull matter back, the remaining matter is constantly turning into space via the gravitational wave so it is decreasing. Well, lets see we have a constant force, undisturbed as far as slowing down along with a decreasing mass so the shrinking mass is acting upon with the same initial force. But then if the universe is accelerating and synchronizing at the same time what does this overall picture look like. Let's guess, maybe a beach ball going to an elongated football going to a really long wave good by. If anyone is interested in more since i don't really come back and revisit I am C. Michael Turner and can be reached at Gravitation@cfl.rr.com and I did copyright all of this years ago when i wondered when I drop stuff why does it fall? Basically, If you have a few traps that you think i am wrong, I have answered all of them myself as I had to work through all of it. Such as the nature of the fine structure constant and does it change? How can we measure this decay? Can we see it? can we slow it and what are the effects if we do? Believe it or not, a lot of this had all ready been answered but no one saw the big picture. the big picture is that everything decays into the most basic component, the monopole gravitational wave and time space and wave synchronization are the holy grails of natures actions. Please e mail me either that I am fos ( full of shi... ) or wow! gravitation@cfl.rr.com Thanks for the forum!
Existence happened, a forcefully expanding hot liquid that cooled transitionally into a fluid Mosaic of matter with defined rules based upon principles discovered but mechanisms yet to be understood. Now here is the interesting part, and some of you will object, strongly. The process had just begun.......
Let me review we have a liquid that condenses to solid and continues by evaporating into the gravitational wave which is creating space itself. By the way since time, in this theory, is the rate of the gravitational wave given off by matter then the inflationary theory is understood as a big bang started before time started as measured by the distance light travels. So time is the measure of ultimate change and the ultimate change is matter, at the electromagnetic field level decaying into the gravitational wave. Now relativity concludes that time and space change due to gravitational field changes and relative movement changes. It truly is a no brain er to understand that if time and space are relative concepts when motion is involved and absolute when there is no relative motion and we can easily understand how sound is also relative in a similar manner then we may conclude they act similar in this respect. They are both generated from a point of origin, they are products of mass to energy transfer, and they are both wave functions which is the key understanding to grasp the concept of relativity and the actual mechanics or reasons why the universe is the way it is. Time is the rate density of the generated gravitational wave and space is the volume density of the gravitational wave.
OK so i have defined time and space as wave functions of all matter decay into a non-binding wave. Time is the rate and space is the unfolding length. Which buy the way means it can't be broken into gravitons. Anyhow lets talk about a misunderstood third action of this process, constructive wave interference. With radiation we have constructive and destructive wave interference of patterns of wave frequency alignment. Now imagine that gravitational wave acts the same but since it is generated from all matter space itself is always undergoing pattern changes with identical frequencies of the gravitational wave and these pattern changes have a path of least resistance which is constructive wave interference since space itself has limits of overlap. This leads to the enlightenment that matter does not warp time and space but creates time and space as a creation of this process and "gravitational wave synchronization" is the action of matter transitioning to constructive wave interference. ( Which by the way explains the gravitational constant). So another review- Time, space and gravitational wave synchronization are three actions of matter transitioning to a monopole wave.
Now let me get this straight, gravity doesn't pull it synchronizes and resistance to gravity and inertia are a desynchronization? Yes and and time and space are wave functions of this process? yes. Well if gravity doesn't pull and all this can be explained in three dimensions then is string theory (M- Theory) necessary? No. If gravity doesn't pull then do we need dark matter to push? No! Can galaxy spins be explained by this process? Yes. Can the increasing acceleration of the universe be explained? can the speed of light being constant be explained? Yes and Yes!
Yes but quickly because I am bored, The accelerating universe can be explained by the very complicated equation of F=M times A where the force of the big bang is constant because gravity does not pull but synchronizes so there is no force to pull matter back, the remaining matter is constantly turning into space via the gravitational wave so it is decreasing. Well, lets see we have a constant force, undisturbed as far as slowing down along with a decreasing mass so the shrinking mass is acting upon with the same initial force. But then if the universe is accelerating and synchronizing at the same time what does this overall picture look like. Let's guess, maybe a beach ball going to an elongated football going to a really long wave good by. If anyone is interested in more since i don't really come back and revisit I am C. Michael Turner and can be reached at Gravitation@cfl.rr.com and I did copyright all of this years ago when i wondered when I drop stuff why does it fall? Basically, If you have a few traps that you think i am wrong, I have answered all of them myself as I had to work through all of it. Such as the nature of the fine structure constant and does it change? How can we measure this decay? Can we see it? can we slow it and what are the effects if we do? Believe it or not, a lot of this had all ready been answered but no one saw the big picture. the big picture is that everything decays into the most basic component, the monopole gravitational wave and time space and wave synchronization are the holy grails of natures actions. Please e mail me either that I am fos ( full of shi... ) or wow! gravitation@cfl.rr.com Thanks for the forum!
Hi RealityCheck,
I think what davidarheault is saying, is that especiallly in the Q/A stage of a process that aims to answer all questions, you should really start with asking the "right" questions, and try to find the "right" answers.
The desire to answer questions is very human, and it is very easy to NOT resist the temptation of NOT starting with nothing, or everything, and balancing it from there... Complexity is relative. A good clue is to realize that everything is limited.
The problem might be so simple that we simply cannot express it.
Good luck!!!
I think what davidarheault is saying, is that especiallly in the Q/A stage of a process that aims to answer all questions, you should really start with asking the "right" questions, and try to find the "right" answers.
The desire to answer questions is very human, and it is very easy to NOT resist the temptation of NOT starting with nothing, or everything, and balancing it from there... Complexity is relative. A good clue is to realize that everything is limited.
The problem might be so simple that we simply cannot express it.
Good luck!!!
Just to be complete: I posted my simplest "TOE" in the numbers thread. You can count on it that it should "answer" the "question": what do we start with if we want to "express" "everything" "sensibly"?
One answer is: "nothing".
(I hate to be cryptic, but I have no time: notice the pattern in these four "sentences" and realize that I have said that one answer means nothing.)
Again, good luck and have fun!!! Sorry for breaking your rules.
One answer is: "nothing".
(I hate to be cryptic, but I have no time: notice the pattern in these four "sentences" and realize that I have said that one answer means nothing.)
Again, good luck and have fun!!! Sorry for breaking your rules.
Sdogv (Nov 18, 2007, 06:38 PM GT): Sorry, I may be at where your words stated confusion resides also.
Plus and Minus equals zero, put in numbers, not numerals, and give these numbers with some range of accuracies, the difference may be the asymmetry that gives us the sense of matter?
Noise, unknowable, randomness. The truth is, I don't understand Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Ok, the product of two variables, mass (m) times velocity (v), for starters, is the momentum, p, and the sum of p times v along a path in two dimensional space, say x by y, assuming it is continuous for the observer, whether bumpy or not, and say we can travel along the path, s=function of x and y, or stick to y=f(x), and s is the curve, like we are on a roll-a-coaster, then when we get off the track (s), there is a force upon our body, that must be the many g-strings, very thin and dense of different areas as Newton's Gravitational constant, G.
The Higgs particle, some five types according to current research, may be connected to all other particles in our "universe", at one end of the g-string approaching directly in the path of travel, pushes the mass of the string forward, causing a bulge, imagine shaped like a "slug" the term for a unit of inertia.
And away from the moving mass, each g-string narrows in the opposite direction.
My confusion right now is the concept of Inertia is one of continuous constant velocity unless something, like mass colliding with the mass in our frame of reference, is slowed down, or sped up by "impulses", that is the sum of mass being adsorbed by our mass at the frame of reference.
Got to clarify this.
It may be that the "pure" linear motion travels along the g-string faster than the speed of light, c, with respect to the string, but the movement if transverse to that linear direction (by some string theory essayists), must be related to the speed of light at our "laboratory" in our frame of reference, and that means the speed of the electron around it's chemical orbits, that give off frequencies proportional to the electron orbits as they jump in or out of an orbit to another but in the case of EM, not too far from their "mother masses" as to be "free electrons, a Newtonian physics, with A. Einstein's special relativity which compensates by a frequency shift, red shift for source traveling away, blue shift for approaching.
Thus for, remembering, the Higgs Universal Gravitational System (Hugs), is a physical model, tentative, that extends my temporary curiosity to reach some more extensive understanding. That is, a better everyday physical parlor dance with words to impress others (with knowlege, of course,or off course, but best for helping others, I hope, learn while I earn).
I've ordered more steel balls and magnetic sticks constructions from Roger's Connections, a vendor by that name, had a 1/2 price sale, and now will be able, I estimate, to view a possible black hole flat surfaces at least, I hope, four to five layers deep, with inner layers for the four to five layer tetrahedron with flat equal lateral triangle (felt) basic units (the same tetrahedron used as the mathematical model for a three volume soft cover set of text books for a Univ. of Michigan physics course on the subject).
Now would it be nice to have a 3D vertex-edge (felt) view of the possible layering of a black hole? Visualizing how the inner layers form dual four felt sided caps on a square regular base, like the pyramids of of Egypt.
Noisy felts,collectively, might allow a range of Black Hole spherical curvatures consistent with the Hawkin's and others' theory connections with Temperature and BH Mass, that is, the BH Temperature is the total mass's uncertainty.
More on this later, best, rm
===========================
Plus and Minus equals zero, put in numbers, not numerals, and give these numbers with some range of accuracies, the difference may be the asymmetry that gives us the sense of matter?
Noise, unknowable, randomness. The truth is, I don't understand Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Ok, the product of two variables, mass (m) times velocity (v), for starters, is the momentum, p, and the sum of p times v along a path in two dimensional space, say x by y, assuming it is continuous for the observer, whether bumpy or not, and say we can travel along the path, s=function of x and y, or stick to y=f(x), and s is the curve, like we are on a roll-a-coaster, then when we get off the track (s), there is a force upon our body, that must be the many g-strings, very thin and dense of different areas as Newton's Gravitational constant, G.
The Higgs particle, some five types according to current research, may be connected to all other particles in our "universe", at one end of the g-string approaching directly in the path of travel, pushes the mass of the string forward, causing a bulge, imagine shaped like a "slug" the term for a unit of inertia.
And away from the moving mass, each g-string narrows in the opposite direction.
My confusion right now is the concept of Inertia is one of continuous constant velocity unless something, like mass colliding with the mass in our frame of reference, is slowed down, or sped up by "impulses", that is the sum of mass being adsorbed by our mass at the frame of reference.
Got to clarify this.
It may be that the "pure" linear motion travels along the g-string faster than the speed of light, c, with respect to the string, but the movement if transverse to that linear direction (by some string theory essayists), must be related to the speed of light at our "laboratory" in our frame of reference, and that means the speed of the electron around it's chemical orbits, that give off frequencies proportional to the electron orbits as they jump in or out of an orbit to another but in the case of EM, not too far from their "mother masses" as to be "free electrons, a Newtonian physics, with A. Einstein's special relativity which compensates by a frequency shift, red shift for source traveling away, blue shift for approaching.
Thus for, remembering, the Higgs Universal Gravitational System (Hugs), is a physical model, tentative, that extends my temporary curiosity to reach some more extensive understanding. That is, a better everyday physical parlor dance with words to impress others (with knowlege, of course,or off course, but best for helping others, I hope, learn while I earn).
I've ordered more steel balls and magnetic sticks constructions from Roger's Connections, a vendor by that name, had a 1/2 price sale, and now will be able, I estimate, to view a possible black hole flat surfaces at least, I hope, four to five layers deep, with inner layers for the four to five layer tetrahedron with flat equal lateral triangle (felt) basic units (the same tetrahedron used as the mathematical model for a three volume soft cover set of text books for a Univ. of Michigan physics course on the subject).
Now would it be nice to have a 3D vertex-edge (felt) view of the possible layering of a black hole? Visualizing how the inner layers form dual four felt sided caps on a square regular base, like the pyramids of of Egypt.
Noisy felts,collectively, might allow a range of Black Hole spherical curvatures consistent with the Hawkin's and others' theory connections with Temperature and BH Mass, that is, the BH Temperature is the total mass's uncertainty.
More on this later, best, rm
===========================
QUOTE
And away from the moving mass, each g-string narrows in the opposite direction.
My confusion right now is the concept of Inertia is one of continuous constant velocity unless something, like mass colliding with the mass in our frame of reference, is slowed down, or sped up by "impulses", that is the sum of mass being adsorbed by our mass at the frame of reference.
Got to clarify this.
My confusion right now is the concept of Inertia is one of continuous constant velocity unless something, like mass colliding with the mass in our frame of reference, is slowed down, or sped up by "impulses", that is the sum of mass being adsorbed by our mass at the frame of reference.
Got to clarify this.
Yeah, life is a traffic jam, even though some people seem to believe it is a limousine of some kind. ;-)
I don't think the Uncertainty principle is very difficult to understand, but finding all its expressions is.
Here is a way to prove that zero is "something", actually plus or minus square root of 1.
Interesting games...
Fibonacci count starting from 0 and going to future and past as action/reaction.
....n-(past) .....................no(present)..............n+ (future)
...........-21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0(Zero) 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 etc..
where present (n0) adds the previous past (n-) to make the next future (n+), i.e. "natural growth". e.g., such that (n+) = (no) + (n-) OR (n-) = (n+) - (no) or (n0) = (n+) - (n-)
and the Golden Ratop (n+)/(n0) = 1.618.. OR (n+)/(n-) = 2.618.... etc.
Now, unity is plural, at least 2, so zero is composed of "1" and "1" somethings from past to future..
i.e., 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 3+2=5, etc. AND
the other way, 2-1=1, 1-1=0, 1-0=1, 0-1= -1, 1-(-1) =2, 2-(-1)=3, etc.
It can be shown that (no) =(approximately) plus or minus the square root of (n+) times (n-), therefore sqr. root of (1) (1) on either side of zero (n+) and (-) = + or - "1".
In short, the present exists but is really "nothing"... So much for life.
Interesting games...
Fibonacci count starting from 0 and going to future and past as action/reaction.
....n-(past) .....................no(present)..............n+ (future)
...........-21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0(Zero) 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 etc..
where present (n0) adds the previous past (n-) to make the next future (n+), i.e. "natural growth". e.g., such that (n+) = (no) + (n-) OR (n-) = (n+) - (no) or (n0) = (n+) - (n-)
and the Golden Ratop (n+)/(n0) = 1.618.. OR (n+)/(n-) = 2.618.... etc.
Now, unity is plural, at least 2, so zero is composed of "1" and "1" somethings from past to future..
i.e., 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 3+2=5, etc. AND
the other way, 2-1=1, 1-1=0, 1-0=1, 0-1= -1, 1-(-1) =2, 2-(-1)=3, etc.
It can be shown that (no) =(approximately) plus or minus the square root of (n+) times (n-), therefore sqr. root of (1) (1) on either side of zero (n+) and (-) = + or - "1".
In short, the present exists but is really "nothing"... So much for life.
We have a veil that we refuse to lift. A interesting explanation explained as simply as I can.
THE ABSOLUTE CONCEPT as you asked....
Imagine, if you will for a moment, that all of matter was contained in the initial particle before the big bang.
And that matter completely condensed contained all the future energy and future space and the nature of energy, its essence is to unwind from potential to kinetic energy.
For an unknown reason it reached critical vibrational decay, maybe a monopole wave was unable to unbind into the gravitational wave, and the big bang and space formed- the initial release of the gravitational wave.
As matter regrouped do to a decrease in vibration electromagnetic fields formed and the slow decay process continued. Each piece of matter, energy creating its own electromagnetic field decays into a monopole gravitational field. This is the starting point of how we currently measure time and space, from the start of slow decay from the formation of the electromagnetic field.
Each piece of matter continues to give off this gravitational field as a point of origin, energy transfer from potential to kinetic energy creating its own time and space.
I have just explained inflationary theory and initially started to explain the speed of all radiation constant independent of the speed of the source of the radiation. This continuing concept is very important to understand how everything works.
Each piece of matter, energy creates its own time and space by giving off the gravitational wave. The gravitational wave field, being most dense closest to the matter giving it off creates the fundamental reason why all the laws of physics are the same with in each reference frame and why the speed of radiation between reference frames are constant. Time and space are negated to density dependent wave functions and are then relative with respect to comparing them to different densities of wave fields at any given point. Acceleration, velocity creates density differences by elongating the generating fields most noticeable of the smaller object, thus time dilation and space contraction from the standpoint of the moving reference point.
Using the gravitational wave field along with knowledge of physics principles and laws such as Huygens's principle and Newton's first three laws it becomes obvious that Gravity does not pull but it Synchronizes through the path of least resistance.
Gravitational wave synchronization "GWS"- is the fundamental law of physics that everyone missed, it is a monopole wave field generated from all matter as a slow uniform decay process of all electromagnetic fields. It is why light bends around stars, it is why the universe is acceleration at an increase rate, (F=MA) where gravity does not pull so the force from the big bang essentially has not changed but mass is decreasing as it decays into the time and space generating gravitational wave therefore the same force with decreasing mass = an accelerating universe as we measure it.
Since in this concept gravity does not pull but synchronizes, we are held on the Earth by a continuously synchronizing wave field, ours and the Earth's joining through the path of least interference. It is a form of constructive wave interference.
This concept is a way to take all that is known, through experiment and observation and fitting the pieces together to understand how everything works, that is all. There is no new math, only new insight into three dimensions as an active process of all matter decaying into all wave. Potential to kinetic energy distribution.
Just when I stopped getting negative feedback, here it comes again. So in advance, Hi Guys! and Women too.
Under this understanding, the universe is accelerating (elongating) and flattening as it processes from a particle to a wave to a line and runs out of potential energy.
With this understanding matter does not warp time and space but each piece of matter creates its own absolute time and space as a slow decay process into the gravitational wave.
With this understanding, matter, creating its own time and space, via the gravitational field synchronizes with other fields and since everything is field density dependent the path of least interference is to align the fields by bringing the objects generating the gravitational fields together
And that is how gravity works..... too bad no one really wants to lift the veil....
No string theory, no dark matter, energy, no magic.
Only one universe with three dimensions and one process with three actions. Time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are wave-field functions generated by matter, energy decaying into the gravitational wave.
This post has been edited by insight on Today at 1:25 PM
--------------------
Albert Einstein-
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
THE ABSOLUTE CONCEPT as you asked....
Imagine, if you will for a moment, that all of matter was contained in the initial particle before the big bang.
And that matter completely condensed contained all the future energy and future space and the nature of energy, its essence is to unwind from potential to kinetic energy.
For an unknown reason it reached critical vibrational decay, maybe a monopole wave was unable to unbind into the gravitational wave, and the big bang and space formed- the initial release of the gravitational wave.
As matter regrouped do to a decrease in vibration electromagnetic fields formed and the slow decay process continued. Each piece of matter, energy creating its own electromagnetic field decays into a monopole gravitational field. This is the starting point of how we currently measure time and space, from the start of slow decay from the formation of the electromagnetic field.
Each piece of matter continues to give off this gravitational field as a point of origin, energy transfer from potential to kinetic energy creating its own time and space.
I have just explained inflationary theory and initially started to explain the speed of all radiation constant independent of the speed of the source of the radiation. This continuing concept is very important to understand how everything works.
Each piece of matter, energy creates its own time and space by giving off the gravitational wave. The gravitational wave field, being most dense closest to the matter giving it off creates the fundamental reason why all the laws of physics are the same with in each reference frame and why the speed of radiation between reference frames are constant. Time and space are negated to density dependent wave functions and are then relative with respect to comparing them to different densities of wave fields at any given point. Acceleration, velocity creates density differences by elongating the generating fields most noticeable of the smaller object, thus time dilation and space contraction from the standpoint of the moving reference point.
Using the gravitational wave field along with knowledge of physics principles and laws such as Huygens's principle and Newton's first three laws it becomes obvious that Gravity does not pull but it Synchronizes through the path of least resistance.
Gravitational wave synchronization "GWS"- is the fundamental law of physics that everyone missed, it is a monopole wave field generated from all matter as a slow uniform decay process of all electromagnetic fields. It is why light bends around stars, it is why the universe is acceleration at an increase rate, (F=MA) where gravity does not pull so the force from the big bang essentially has not changed but mass is decreasing as it decays into the time and space generating gravitational wave therefore the same force with decreasing mass = an accelerating universe as we measure it.
Since in this concept gravity does not pull but synchronizes, we are held on the Earth by a continuously synchronizing wave field, ours and the Earth's joining through the path of least interference. It is a form of constructive wave interference.
This concept is a way to take all that is known, through experiment and observation and fitting the pieces together to understand how everything works, that is all. There is no new math, only new insight into three dimensions as an active process of all matter decaying into all wave. Potential to kinetic energy distribution.
Just when I stopped getting negative feedback, here it comes again. So in advance, Hi Guys! and Women too.
Under this understanding, the universe is accelerating (elongating) and flattening as it processes from a particle to a wave to a line and runs out of potential energy.
With this understanding matter does not warp time and space but each piece of matter creates its own absolute time and space as a slow decay process into the gravitational wave.
With this understanding, matter, creating its own time and space, via the gravitational field synchronizes with other fields and since everything is field density dependent the path of least interference is to align the fields by bringing the objects generating the gravitational fields together
And that is how gravity works..... too bad no one really wants to lift the veil....
No string theory, no dark matter, energy, no magic.
Only one universe with three dimensions and one process with three actions. Time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are wave-field functions generated by matter, energy decaying into the gravitational wave.
This post has been edited by insight on Today at 1:25 PM
--------------------
Albert Einstein-
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
QUOTE
Albert Einstein-
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
LOL, how deluded can one earthling be ?
QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 7 2008, 09:25 AM)
LOL, how deluded can one earthling be ?
I used to be nice and tried to explained how things work, I assumed people really wanted to know. Then I encountered many people like you that would rather talk trash than facts. So you and people like you have influenced my harshness and presentation. You have a choice, you choose poorly. Stick to the concepts and you might awaken to the reality of the mechanism of the universe and not personal attacks.
QUOTE
Stick to the concepts and you might awaken to the reality of the mechanism of the universe
What are these concepts?
How do you know these concepts are foundation concepts?
I have already computed the mechanisms of the Universe.... do you want to know the mechanism ?
You claim to know them, are they foundation or theoretical?
Telos
QUOTE (sdogv+Feb 24 2008, 10:44 PM)
Here is a way to prove that zero is "something", actually plus or minus square root of 1.
Interesting games...
Fibonacci count starting from 0 and going to future and past as action/reaction.
....n-(past) .....................no(present)..............n+ (future)
...........-21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0(Zero) 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 etc..
where present (n0) adds the previous past (n-) to make the next future (n+), i.e. "natural growth". e.g., such that (n+) = (no) + (n-) OR (n-) = (n+) - (no) or (n0) = (n+) - (n-)
and the Golden Ratop (n+)/(n0) = 1.618.. OR (n+)/(n-) = 2.618.... etc.
Now, unity is plural, at least 2, so zero is composed of "1" and "1" somethings from past to future..
i.e., 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 3+2=5, etc. AND
the other way, 2-1=1, 1-1=0, 1-0=1, 0-1= -1, 1-(-1) =2, 2-(-1)=3, etc.
It can be shown that (no) =(approximately) plus or minus the square root of (n+) times (n-), therefore sqr. root of (1) (1) on either side of zero (n+) and (-) = + or - "1".
In short, the present exists but is really "nothing"... So much for life.
The present is assigned O. It is the starting point but it is something. You bait and which by an illegal action of an improper substitution.
You are switching concepts and it is a bait and switch. Since the present exists it can only be represented in a time-line as zero and not substituted mathematically as zero. You bait and switch a time line as a property of mathematics which it is not, in itself the present.
The concept of Zero, mathematically, is independent of the concept of the present. Not all Zero's represent the present.
Interesting games...
Fibonacci count starting from 0 and going to future and past as action/reaction.
....n-(past) .....................no(present)..............n+ (future)
...........-21 13 -8 5 -3 2 -1 1 0(Zero) 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 etc..
where present (n0) adds the previous past (n-) to make the next future (n+), i.e. "natural growth". e.g., such that (n+) = (no) + (n-) OR (n-) = (n+) - (no) or (n0) = (n+) - (n-)
and the Golden Ratop (n+)/(n0) = 1.618.. OR (n+)/(n-) = 2.618.... etc.
Now, unity is plural, at least 2, so zero is composed of "1" and "1" somethings from past to future..
i.e., 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 3+2=5, etc. AND
the other way, 2-1=1, 1-1=0, 1-0=1, 0-1= -1, 1-(-1) =2, 2-(-1)=3, etc.
It can be shown that (no) =(approximately) plus or minus the square root of (n+) times (n-), therefore sqr. root of (1) (1) on either side of zero (n+) and (-) = + or - "1".
In short, the present exists but is really "nothing"... So much for life.
The present is assigned O. It is the starting point but it is something. You bait and which by an illegal action of an improper substitution.
You are switching concepts and it is a bait and switch. Since the present exists it can only be represented in a time-line as zero and not substituted mathematically as zero. You bait and switch a time line as a property of mathematics which it is not, in itself the present.
The concept of Zero, mathematically, is independent of the concept of the present. Not all Zero's represent the present.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 9 2008, 06:17 AM)
What are these concepts?
How do you know these concepts are foundation concepts?
I have already computed the mechanisms of the Universe.... do you want to know the mechanism ?
You claim to know them, are they foundation or theoretical?
Telos
I'll reply to that in an adultism matter. Until you can tell me the exact calculation mathematically of the meaning of Delta in terms of a Function without using it in the equation except as Delta=? You have no idea about the S-matrix and have no clue and should probably not waste your breath.
QUOTE
Until you can tell me the exact
oh so ABSOLUTE CONCEPT is mathematical.... not observational
just total conjecture, LOL....pure fantasy
What a load !!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess this fits here.
I started to read Cantors "Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers" . It is rather heavy, I hope I have understood correctly that his "aggregates" are todays "sets".
Anyway, after first diagonal reading one idea is clear:
Cardinals (including transfinite) are numbers that can be applied to sets not taking into account any ordering that might be imposed on set in broadest sense;
Ordinals (including transfinite) are numbers that are related to set taking into account simple ( but in principle any) ordering.
Now what is interesting, is that in Ordinal arithmetic neither summation , nor multiplication is commutative, while for triples of Ordinals associative property in summation holds. etc.
What that means is that the result of operations performed with ordinals DEPENDS on the order ( or path ) how they are performed.
Without further explanations, it is quite obvious to me, that time, being ordered set
(see e.g Time Calculus) must have the same property ( as long as we consider domains where time is infinitely faster (e.g. speed is w in Cantor notation) than our discrete time- results depend on path.
So , to summarize, in general principle of least action in physics must be derivable from the fact that Time is an ordered set. There has to exist certain order of operations in Time which is preferred by Nature to all others, and this order has to be possible to find from Cantors approach to numbers plus understanding that the physical finite time we measure is not the only time has to be accounted for.
Since all classical physics can be derived from not more than second derivative of time, for principle of least action, only 2 scales of time are important .
That is a starting point, just to envision the solution to why principle of least action works.
The triples mentioned above may help to explain why, whatever path is taken, results are always projected in 3D mathematical space ( this I am not so sure of).
I started to read Cantors "Contributions to the founding of the theory of transfinite numbers" . It is rather heavy, I hope I have understood correctly that his "aggregates" are todays "sets".
Anyway, after first diagonal reading one idea is clear:
Cardinals (including transfinite) are numbers that can be applied to sets not taking into account any ordering that might be imposed on set in broadest sense;
Ordinals (including transfinite) are numbers that are related to set taking into account simple ( but in principle any) ordering.
Now what is interesting, is that in Ordinal arithmetic neither summation , nor multiplication is commutative, while for triples of Ordinals associative property in summation holds. etc.
What that means is that the result of operations performed with ordinals DEPENDS on the order ( or path ) how they are performed.
Without further explanations, it is quite obvious to me, that time, being ordered set
(see e.g Time Calculus) must have the same property ( as long as we consider domains where time is infinitely faster (e.g. speed is w in Cantor notation) than our discrete time- results depend on path.
So , to summarize, in general principle of least action in physics must be derivable from the fact that Time is an ordered set. There has to exist certain order of operations in Time which is preferred by Nature to all others, and this order has to be possible to find from Cantors approach to numbers plus understanding that the physical finite time we measure is not the only time has to be accounted for.
Since all classical physics can be derived from not more than second derivative of time, for principle of least action, only 2 scales of time are important .
That is a starting point, just to envision the solution to why principle of least action works.
The triples mentioned above may help to explain why, whatever path is taken, results are always projected in 3D mathematical space ( this I am not so sure of).
I think we are starting to scratch the surface:
Interestingly, in infinite dimensional potential space ( consisting of chaotic release of infinitesimal dimensions of space) there is :
-No lines, as space vanishes and appears, so Newtons first law does not hold
-No trajectories as such
-There are no circular motions as well, so there it is not possible to draw a ring in such space, so pi as a ratio is also not definable
- etc.
The one thing that is definable for such a space ( total chaos, pure motion, pure energy) is bukhs binary principle- either there is and infinitesimal spatial dimension, or there is not. This duality has to be represented in maths dealing with this state, as has the content, or, the number of states it can have + plus ways its subsets can be organized. So we get number 2.
According to set theory of Cantor, extrapolating a little to include imaginary time I as the source of the spatial infinitesimal chaotic dimensionalities, or , actually as another dimension of the same set ( dual , Yin-yang) set, we can write the basic equation for such "thing"= looking for "fixed point" :
I = 2^I where I is imaginary Unit.
Now, the evolution of Universe should be possible to calculate from this relation (yes I know this is a bit extremal to say, but - let us see)
.
Obviusly, pi is not a problem here since we are talking about space where lines and rings do not exist.
So, the solution to this requires:
pi/2=lnI/I = ln2
If pi/2 is a right angle, than in that chaotic space pi = 2ln2= ln4 and right angle is ln2, while "chaotic" ring is 2pi=2ln4= ln16 and spinor 4pi = 2ln16= ln 64.
That means that orthogonal systems in such space exist, but orthogonal means ln2.
also, I= e^Ipi/2 is valid, but now it reads I=e^Iln2.
As the space gets less chaotic, more connected pieces appear, most likely ln2-> pi/2 as we know it in case of Euclid space (normal Hilbert space).
I am not sure if e holds in this setting, but if it does, it has a deep meaning, as e is connected via its mathematical definition
e=lim n->inf (1+1/n)^n to harmonic series 1/n and natural numbers.
But existance of e in such space can only be related to probability distribution of chaotic releases of space since there is nothing else present. Obviosly, if these appearances are distributed so that e appears in distribution, e will be exactly defined in such space ( physically) as base of probability distribution and together with 2 and I form the 3 numbers that are needed to start things going.
I would opt for binomial distribution becuase of the same duality logic . From that we can get both Gaussian (1/r^2 gravity) and Poisson (1/r gravity) as enough (infinity) spatial infinitesimal dimensions get involved.
It was little difficult to give up pi, but obviously it has no obvious place in totally chaotic origins. We may find it however in the other end of Universe evolution, for which I do not have yet equations, but it seems Euler had them already.
So.
Interestingly, in infinite dimensional potential space ( consisting of chaotic release of infinitesimal dimensions of space) there is :
-No lines, as space vanishes and appears, so Newtons first law does not hold
-No trajectories as such
-There are no circular motions as well, so there it is not possible to draw a ring in such space, so pi as a ratio is also not definable
- etc.
The one thing that is definable for such a space ( total chaos, pure motion, pure energy) is bukhs binary principle- either there is and infinitesimal spatial dimension, or there is not. This duality has to be represented in maths dealing with this state, as has the content, or, the number of states it can have + plus ways its subsets can be organized. So we get number 2.
According to set theory of Cantor, extrapolating a little to include imaginary time I as the source of the spatial infinitesimal chaotic dimensionalities, or , actually as another dimension of the same set ( dual , Yin-yang) set, we can write the basic equation for such "thing"= looking for "fixed point" :
I = 2^I where I is imaginary Unit.
Now, the evolution of Universe should be possible to calculate from this relation (yes I know this is a bit extremal to say, but - let us see)
.
Obviusly, pi is not a problem here since we are talking about space where lines and rings do not exist.
So, the solution to this requires:
pi/2=lnI/I = ln2
If pi/2 is a right angle, than in that chaotic space pi = 2ln2= ln4 and right angle is ln2, while "chaotic" ring is 2pi=2ln4= ln16 and spinor 4pi = 2ln16= ln 64.
That means that orthogonal systems in such space exist, but orthogonal means ln2.
also, I= e^Ipi/2 is valid, but now it reads I=e^Iln2.
As the space gets less chaotic, more connected pieces appear, most likely ln2-> pi/2 as we know it in case of Euclid space (normal Hilbert space).
I am not sure if e holds in this setting, but if it does, it has a deep meaning, as e is connected via its mathematical definition
e=lim n->inf (1+1/n)^n to harmonic series 1/n and natural numbers.
But existance of e in such space can only be related to probability distribution of chaotic releases of space since there is nothing else present. Obviosly, if these appearances are distributed so that e appears in distribution, e will be exactly defined in such space ( physically) as base of probability distribution and together with 2 and I form the 3 numbers that are needed to start things going.
I would opt for binomial distribution becuase of the same duality logic . From that we can get both Gaussian (1/r^2 gravity) and Poisson (1/r gravity) as enough (infinity) spatial infinitesimal dimensions get involved.
It was little difficult to give up pi, but obviously it has no obvious place in totally chaotic origins. We may find it however in the other end of Universe evolution, for which I do not have yet equations, but it seems Euler had them already.
So.
Little doubleposting again:
I will run a little ahead of myself now, but may be this stirs some interest:
from I=2^I i obtained straight angle in space consisting of infinitesimal chaotic dimensions that pop in and out space- they create space as they appear, and decreate as disappear. In such space, there are no straight lines nor finite circles.
The resulting straight (or orthogonal ) angle was ln2.
If we compare this result to projective plane, the angle with reference to absolute points i ( 1,I,0) and j (1,-I,0) which are obtained as crossing of any circle with ideal line, the angle between 2 lines that intersect the ideal line in 2 other points p1 and p2 is given by Laguerre formula:
Phi(angle) = (1/(2*I)) * log Cr(p1,p2, i, j) where Cr is cross product. What is cross product in infinite dimensional disconnected space of chaotic infinitesimal space dimensions remains to be seen, but from previous we can see that in absolutely chaotic stage:
ln2 = (1/2*I) * ln (Cr ( p1,p2,i,j)) or
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = I*2ln2 ; this may be as well taken as definition of cross product of 2 infinitesimal space dimensions in totally chaotic state.
Now in chaotic disconnected space pi=2ln2 ( as was shown earlier) . When we think how such space can develop, one of options is looping of imaginary time, or the moment when ln2-> pi/2. If we put this in the above, we can see:
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = i*pi
by exponeating this equality, we get
( Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = e^(I*pi) which is obviously Euler's equation, so
( Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = -1 . (from e^(I*pi)+1=0)
This gives some insight what -1 is - it is a cross product of spatial dimensions when imaginary time loops and creates them; these are the first orthogonal space dimensions ( infinitesimal still) where orthogonality means 90 degrees, and pi is 3,1415.... By returning to previous equality,
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = I*2ln2
and similarly exponentiating, we get;
(Cr(p1, p2, i, j) = e^(I*2ln2) = i^2 (when orthogonal angle =ln2) = -1 so this is valid in every space which has any spatial dimensionality at all, from chaotic infinitesimal to looping infinitesimal while "pi" changes from 2ln2 to 3,141592....
Interesting. Have to find out now what a cross product of infinitesimals of ultimate smallness may mean?
I will run a little ahead of myself now, but may be this stirs some interest:
from I=2^I i obtained straight angle in space consisting of infinitesimal chaotic dimensions that pop in and out space- they create space as they appear, and decreate as disappear. In such space, there are no straight lines nor finite circles.
The resulting straight (or orthogonal ) angle was ln2.
If we compare this result to projective plane, the angle with reference to absolute points i ( 1,I,0) and j (1,-I,0) which are obtained as crossing of any circle with ideal line, the angle between 2 lines that intersect the ideal line in 2 other points p1 and p2 is given by Laguerre formula:
Phi(angle) = (1/(2*I)) * log Cr(p1,p2, i, j) where Cr is cross product. What is cross product in infinite dimensional disconnected space of chaotic infinitesimal space dimensions remains to be seen, but from previous we can see that in absolutely chaotic stage:
ln2 = (1/2*I) * ln (Cr ( p1,p2,i,j)) or
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = I*2ln2 ; this may be as well taken as definition of cross product of 2 infinitesimal space dimensions in totally chaotic state.
Now in chaotic disconnected space pi=2ln2 ( as was shown earlier) . When we think how such space can develop, one of options is looping of imaginary time, or the moment when ln2-> pi/2. If we put this in the above, we can see:
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = i*pi
by exponeating this equality, we get
( Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = e^(I*pi) which is obviously Euler's equation, so
( Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = -1 . (from e^(I*pi)+1=0)
This gives some insight what -1 is - it is a cross product of spatial dimensions when imaginary time loops and creates them; these are the first orthogonal space dimensions ( infinitesimal still) where orthogonality means 90 degrees, and pi is 3,1415.... By returning to previous equality,
ln(Cr(p1,p2,i,j)) = I*2ln2
and similarly exponentiating, we get;
(Cr(p1, p2, i, j) = e^(I*2ln2) = i^2 (when orthogonal angle =ln2) = -1 so this is valid in every space which has any spatial dimensionality at all, from chaotic infinitesimal to looping infinitesimal while "pi" changes from 2ln2 to 3,141592....
Interesting. Have to find out now what a cross product of infinitesimals of ultimate smallness may mean?
The post title infinity gives a new view on the theory of every thing, on the existence of time, time the universe and energy. This is evident in the section titled Real Infinities.
The universe is infinity in every way.
I mean in absolutely every way.
I mean in absolutely every way.
Excuse me for disturb in this theme. Already I should been closed out with my thoughts from forum. But I am saying the my opinion of all: we are big *** by exaggeration of single existence system side. See my complex opinion the http://www.cosmology.hu web site "In English" pdf file.
Emery
i imagine myself as the observer and can see when there is nothing and nowhere, now i will select the first object,or concept, i choose a geometric point that contains all things that will be, though something bothers me, though such a point may not actually exist,other than in theory,if it contains everything it must be somewhere, if a dimension is conjured up to contain it then though it has whatever inside it, there must be something outside for it to exist in, i cannot conceive of anything residing in nothing and nowhere, it beggars the imagination!, not possible, all things must have somewhere to be,space to exist, this means nothing can be first other than the place to put them,space itself must be there whether it contains anything or not, also, it must ever have been there, for if it where removed another place must be found to put it.i believe that this is called catch twenty two,it appears that space is first and must always have been so,the one thing existing in and from itself, in all actual perfection.
if there is a heaven in any form, it must be in space, same for hell,so they who would be whistleing dixie inside the golden gates will be in the same boat as those who would be in the boiling sh-- though none will be disappointed.
regards, rondor
On the big rock candy mountain all the cops have wooden legs and the farmers wives leave out the cakes and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
On the big rock candy mountain you'll never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling through the rocks, there's a lake of stew and of whiskey too where we can paddle in our own canoe
Oh the buzzing of the bees, the cigareet trees, the soda water fountains where the limonade springs and the bluebird sings on the big rock candy mountain.
You gotta laugh haven't you!? Haven't you?? Goodbye
if there is a heaven in any form, it must be in space, same for hell,so they who would be whistleing dixie inside the golden gates will be in the same boat as those who would be in the boiling sh-- though none will be disappointed.
regards, rondor
On the big rock candy mountain all the cops have wooden legs and the farmers wives leave out the cakes and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
On the big rock candy mountain you'll never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling through the rocks, there's a lake of stew and of whiskey too where we can paddle in our own canoe
Oh the buzzing of the bees, the cigareet trees, the soda water fountains where the limonade springs and the bluebird sings on the big rock candy mountain.
You gotta laugh haven't you!? Haven't you?? Goodbye
QUOTE (rondor+Jul 17 2008, 06:46 PM)
i imagine myself as the observer and can see when there is nothing and nowhere, now i will select the first object,or concept, i choose a geometric point that contains all things that will be, though something bothers me, though such a point may not actually exist,other than in theory,if it contains everything it must be somewhere, if a dimension is conjured up to contain it then though it has whatever inside it, there must be something outside for it to exist in, i cannot conceive of anything residing in nothing and nowhere, it beggars the imagination!, not possible, all things must have somewhere to be,space to exist, this means nothing can be first other than the place to put them,space itself must be there whether it contains anything or not, also, it must ever have been there, for if it where removed another place must be found to put it.i believe that this is called catch twenty two,it appears that space is first and must always have been so,the one thing existing in and from itself, in all actual perfection.
Something to consider here is that there's a potential difference between 'nothing' and 'nothing specific' or things that are predictable and knowable and things that are unpredictable and unknownable (these would be things that would defy description, or at least likely any description of them would be just as questionably valid as any other description of them).
Imagine a purely flat desert without any landmarks - if you take a step in a single direction, which way are you going? It wouldn't be any specific direction and in a sense, motion has been detached from residing within the same space as direction.
Now imagine instead that you were moving through a landscape with entirely random features. Again, which direction are you heading? If you aligned your motion with some landmarks (which could immediately change for someone else or after you moved past them) and created a detailed map of the exact path you took, it would not correlate with observations you encountered later, if you tried to repeat it or with observations for someone else.
Though this random landscape would still provide detailed landmarks and unique experiences at any moment, it would not relate to anything outside itself and could be seen as informationally detached from relevance to anything other than potentially concepts like motion or landmarks or walking or whatever properties you interpreted the concept of motion through it.
It's interesting to consider that in terms of an objective direction, velocity, position etc. The random landscape and the uniformly flat landscape are effectively identical, yet the two vary in subjective content. Consider that if we possess finite sensory capabilities within a finite period of time, then we can only acquire a finite quantity of information within that. If existance, on a scale larger than the physical universe was potentially infinitely complex, we could only observe a small subset of events within it as the information contained by all would be larger than our ability to perceive it, within a finite period of time.
Obviously objects that closely shared common landmarks and metrics for their interactions would appear closely related and tightly coupled in their properties. This correlates well with objects being close to each other in space, as in the extreme, if two objects shared all properties in common, they could only appear as a single unit and within the context of space, that would be a single point like object (no tolerance for spacial variance would be available and you couldn't "slip" anything between them to make them appear differentiable).
Of course objects that we only weakly correlated in properties would be preferentially biased toward appearing distant, and influences upon one would be unlikely to have a significant correlation in the other and these would be perceived in these respects as physical separate, independent and distant from each other.
Now recognize that in the extreme, for objects approaching a relationship in which nothing is shared in common between them, though we might extrapolate out to something approaching infinite distance, the concept of distance itself is based upon properties of space - an object can only remain distant or two objects can only remain separated to the extent that they both remain consistant to the properties defining locations within space. Objects that were entirely unrelated would not be perceivable as specifically either distant from each other or near each other as they would not share the same space of interactions.
Notice that the Big Bang can be interpreted in two contexts as either representing our observations of very distant objects on a larger scale of space or as a simultaineous juxtaposition of being objects tightly coupled in an unobservable past - in either case we observe no (or little, as technically we should not be able to deterministically prove anything about entirely unrelated objects) relationship between these objects as they approach either an unviewable infinite distance or become dependent upon unobserved properties of an unwitnessed history. You could analogize this similar to looking through more and more stacks of distorted glass and seeing objects appear to blur, spread and become disorganized the further out we're looking, though interestingly enough, in the extreme, these objects are not actually confined to being distant from us but simply that they remain incoherently related to our local references for spacial metrics, and you have a scenario in which there is no specific boundary except incomprehension or growth and learning itself.
I personally assume that in order for me to see a distant star, my observation of it cannot remain entirely independent of myself - the entirity of that star is unwitnessable by me, and from that perspective it's not real within my subjective context of observation, but the photons I see that are representative of such a star can not have arisen from solely a one way trip from there to here, otherwise it could not exist as something at a specific distance relative to me, and there is a bidirectional interaction that localizes each of us to each other. Another analogy here is of a bat using sonar to "see" the contours of objects - it does not accept all audio information as representing objects but instead filters or isolates a subset of audio components that it generates in order to isolate a perspective relative to itself and reject outside interference - though we could still assume outside interference could create aliases and virtual objects for a bat using sonar, it would still be, once again, a matter of the bats subjective capabilities to isolate these, and this could simply be remapped to using a more complex signature emission for "self" so as to reject a larger quantity of "other" from the perception.
Something to consider here is that there's a potential difference between 'nothing' and 'nothing specific' or things that are predictable and knowable and things that are unpredictable and unknownable (these would be things that would defy description, or at least likely any description of them would be just as questionably valid as any other description of them).
Imagine a purely flat desert without any landmarks - if you take a step in a single direction, which way are you going? It wouldn't be any specific direction and in a sense, motion has been detached from residing within the same space as direction.
Now imagine instead that you were moving through a landscape with entirely random features. Again, which direction are you heading? If you aligned your motion with some landmarks (which could immediately change for someone else or after you moved past them) and created a detailed map of the exact path you took, it would not correlate with observations you encountered later, if you tried to repeat it or with observations for someone else.
Though this random landscape would still provide detailed landmarks and unique experiences at any moment, it would not relate to anything outside itself and could be seen as informationally detached from relevance to anything other than potentially concepts like motion or landmarks or walking or whatever properties you interpreted the concept of motion through it.
It's interesting to consider that in terms of an objective direction, velocity, position etc. The random landscape and the uniformly flat landscape are effectively identical, yet the two vary in subjective content. Consider that if we possess finite sensory capabilities within a finite period of time, then we can only acquire a finite quantity of information within that. If existance, on a scale larger than the physical universe was potentially infinitely complex, we could only observe a small subset of events within it as the information contained by all would be larger than our ability to perceive it, within a finite period of time.
Obviously objects that closely shared common landmarks and metrics for their interactions would appear closely related and tightly coupled in their properties. This correlates well with objects being close to each other in space, as in the extreme, if two objects shared all properties in common, they could only appear as a single unit and within the context of space, that would be a single point like object (no tolerance for spacial variance would be available and you couldn't "slip" anything between them to make them appear differentiable).
Of course objects that we only weakly correlated in properties would be preferentially biased toward appearing distant, and influences upon one would be unlikely to have a significant correlation in the other and these would be perceived in these respects as physical separate, independent and distant from each other.
Now recognize that in the extreme, for objects approaching a relationship in which nothing is shared in common between them, though we might extrapolate out to something approaching infinite distance, the concept of distance itself is based upon properties of space - an object can only remain distant or two objects can only remain separated to the extent that they both remain consistant to the properties defining locations within space. Objects that were entirely unrelated would not be perceivable as specifically either distant from each other or near each other as they would not share the same space of interactions.
Notice that the Big Bang can be interpreted in two contexts as either representing our observations of very distant objects on a larger scale of space or as a simultaineous juxtaposition of being objects tightly coupled in an unobservable past - in either case we observe no (or little, as technically we should not be able to deterministically prove anything about entirely unrelated objects) relationship between these objects as they approach either an unviewable infinite distance or become dependent upon unobserved properties of an unwitnessed history. You could analogize this similar to looking through more and more stacks of distorted glass and seeing objects appear to blur, spread and become disorganized the further out we're looking, though interestingly enough, in the extreme, these objects are not actually confined to being distant from us but simply that they remain incoherently related to our local references for spacial metrics, and you have a scenario in which there is no specific boundary except incomprehension or growth and learning itself.
I personally assume that in order for me to see a distant star, my observation of it cannot remain entirely independent of myself - the entirity of that star is unwitnessable by me, and from that perspective it's not real within my subjective context of observation, but the photons I see that are representative of such a star can not have arisen from solely a one way trip from there to here, otherwise it could not exist as something at a specific distance relative to me, and there is a bidirectional interaction that localizes each of us to each other. Another analogy here is of a bat using sonar to "see" the contours of objects - it does not accept all audio information as representing objects but instead filters or isolates a subset of audio components that it generates in order to isolate a perspective relative to itself and reject outside interference - though we could still assume outside interference could create aliases and virtual objects for a bat using sonar, it would still be, once again, a matter of the bats subjective capabilities to isolate these, and this could simply be remapped to using a more complex signature emission for "self" so as to reject a larger quantity of "other" from the perception.
QUOTE (rondor+Jul 17 2008, 07:46 AM)
i imagine myself as the observer and can see when there is nothing and nowhere, now i will select the first object,or concept, i choose a geometric point that contains all things that will be, though something bothers me, though such a point may not actually exist,other than in theory,if it contains everything it must be somewhere, if a dimension is conjured up to contain it then though it has whatever inside it, there must be something outside for it to exist in, i cannot conceive of anything residing in nothing and nowhere, it beggars the imagination!, not possible, all things must have somewhere to be,space to exist, this means nothing can be first other than the place to put them,space itself must be there whether it contains anything or not, also, it must ever have been there, for if it where removed another place must be found to put it.i believe that this is called catch twenty two,it appears that space is first and must always have been so,the one thing existing in and from itself, in all actual perfection.
if there is a heaven in any form, it must be in space, same for hell,so they who would be whistleing dixie inside the golden gates will be in the same boat as those who would be in the boiling sh-- though none will be disappointed.
regards, rondor
On the big rock candy mountain all the cops have wooden legs and the farmers wives leave out the cakes and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
On the big rock candy mountain you'll never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling through the rocks, there's a lake of stew and of whiskey too where we can paddle in our own canoe
Oh the buzzing of the bees, the cigareet trees, the soda water fountains where the limonade springs and the bluebird sings on the big rock candy mountain.
You gotta laugh haven't you!? Haven't you?? Goodbye
Hi rondor. I think your reasoning is correct.
But 'heaven' and 'hell' are Human mind-states, not 'places'.
g.
if there is a heaven in any form, it must be in space, same for hell,so they who would be whistleing dixie inside the golden gates will be in the same boat as those who would be in the boiling sh-- though none will be disappointed.
regards, rondor
On the big rock candy mountain all the cops have wooden legs and the farmers wives leave out the cakes and the hens lay soft boiled eggs
On the big rock candy mountain you'll never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling through the rocks, there's a lake of stew and of whiskey too where we can paddle in our own canoe
Oh the buzzing of the bees, the cigareet trees, the soda water fountains where the limonade springs and the bluebird sings on the big rock candy mountain.
You gotta laugh haven't you!? Haven't you?? Goodbye
Hi rondor. I think your reasoning is correct.
But 'heaven' and 'hell' are Human mind-states, not 'places'.
g.
[FONT=Times][SIZE=1][SIZE=7]rondor-still kicking.
the collider at cern,thinking about it and what could happen if there is success for their efforts,as usual my sideways mind wonders if the outcome will shed light to any of our thoughts in the from scratch forum,for me,i have long believed that if matter is taken to its lowest common denominator what remains is vibration,no doubt complex forms,but what then?what, i feel and what i have stated,is that it should then quickly return to space,i have nailed my colours to the mast so to speak,but i suppose i can always claim that no power exists great enough to do this! any port in a storm,but what if, iif all of the mass should disappear and only space increase.
mind boggling, mind boggling?dont mind if i do,just run me through the rules i may be a bit rusty.
best regards, rondor
the collider at cern,thinking about it and what could happen if there is success for their efforts,as usual my sideways mind wonders if the outcome will shed light to any of our thoughts in the from scratch forum,for me,i have long believed that if matter is taken to its lowest common denominator what remains is vibration,no doubt complex forms,but what then?what, i feel and what i have stated,is that it should then quickly return to space,i have nailed my colours to the mast so to speak,but i suppose i can always claim that no power exists great enough to do this! any port in a storm,but what if, iif all of the mass should disappear and only space increase.
mind boggling, mind boggling?dont mind if i do,just run me through the rules i may be a bit rusty.
best regards, rondor
The only revolutionary outcome at Cern will be the internet. The collider is a huge expensive water balloon experiment that will provide more questions and misguided theories than answers. Such is the circle of life. At least it gives physics professors something to do until aliens start showing up (hahaha).
QUOTE (rondor+Jul 17 2008, 10:46 AM)
i imagine myself as the observer and can see when there is nothing and nowhere, now i will select the first object,or concept, i choose a geometric point that contains all things that will be, though something bothers me, though such a point may not actually exist,other than in theory,if it contains everything it must be somewhere, if a dimension is conjured up to contain it then though it has whatever inside it, there must be something outside for it to exist in, i cannot conceive of anything residing in nothing and nowhere, it beggars the imagination!, not possible, all things must have somewhere to be,space to exist, this means nothing can be first other than the place to put them,space itself must be there whether it contains anything or not, also, it must ever have been there, for if it where removed another place must be found to put it.i believe that this is called catch twenty two,it appears that space is first and must always have been so,the one thing existing in and from itself, in all actual perfection.
imagine a universe consisting entirely of entities that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.
to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.
now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.
thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.
people say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist. what if they've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact. what if objects could interact in ways that are not space-like? like quantum entanglement for instance.
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthr...0176#post460176
imagine a universe consisting entirely of entities that have no other properties than a simple internal state that is either on or off. call them bits. each bit observes 2 other bits and changes its state (time itself would be discrete) according to what it sees. it does not matter 'where' these other 2 bits are at. (think quantum entanglement). in fact the whole concept of 'where' would be meaningless to them. space itself would not exist.
to make it more interesting we would have to imagine that the bits can somehow increase in numbers by dividing in two. we could imagine that the whole thing began with a single bit which divided repeatedly forming a vast chaotic sea of bits in which life could conceivably evolve.
now I dont know if such a universe does or even could exist but I do propose that the concept of 'space' might not be as fundamental as it is usually thought to be.
thousands of years ago it was common sense that the earth couldnt be round because everyone knew that objects would fall 'down' off the sides. we know now that they had it backwards. 'down' is whatever direction objects happen to be falling.
people say that its common sense that objects require 'space' to exist. what if they've got it backwards. maybe 'space' is just a description of how the objects that exist interact. what if objects could interact in ways that are not space-like? like quantum entanglement for instance.
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthr...0176#post460176
instead of asking 'what is the true fundamental nature of the universe and existence' maybe we should just ask 'how would we program a computer simulation to simulate the universe' assuming that wehad a computer large enough and powerful enough (it MIGHT have to be capable of computing things that are np hard) (or it might not)
the obvious starting point would be to divide space into tiny regions and dedicate one precessor to each region. each processor would communicate with its immediate neighbors.
the obvious starting point would be to divide space into tiny regions and dedicate one precessor to each region. each processor would communicate with its immediate neighbors.
The absolute concept is (drum roll 
) ....NOTHINGNESS! known as the Zero Point Field in current Physics but is actually a more profound idea that that.
The following is a response I posted elsewhere regarding Big Bang cosmology but it nicely fleshes out my ideas....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stop thinking of a beginning in space/time. Space and time originate from the Big Bang and not the other way around.
Asking what happened before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what happened before 1 + 1 = 2. Clearly Mathematics exists in an atemporal (eternal) reality and so does the Big Bang.Another notion that must be abandoned is the notion of a first cause. This notion is closely related to the notion of a beginning of time that I criticized in the previous paragraph.
The Big bang must be an ontological phenomenon. What I mean by this is that the Big Bang cannot be caused by some external influence but must instead be a phenomenon that must happen self referentially. Consider the flushing mechanism of a toilet bowl. This is a simple example of an ontological phenomenon. There is no outside influence causing the stoppage of the filling of water in the bowel. The toilet bowel mechanism, by its ontological nature, regulates itself
Another way of describing an ontological phenomenon is to call it a truism. For example, the statement that all tall people are not short is a truism. So indeed the toilet bowl mechanism is a truism, it regulates itself because by its very definition it must regulate itself.
The Big Bang is similarly a truism, it must come into being ontologically (or self referentially). What causes reality to refer to itself? There cannot be a cause so therefore the act of self reference must be ontological. The act of self reference must be the very essence of primordial reality.
I propose that reality is NOTHINGNESS. Now, NOTHINGNESS REFERS TO NOTHING BUT IT IS NOTHING SO IT IS REFERRING TO ITSELF! There you have an ontological self reference. There you have a "beginning" to reality without a first cause.
The actual process by which this feedback loop creates all we observe now can be understood by considering the teachings of Chaos theory. The Nothingness feedback loop (aka Big Bang) leads to Chaotic phase transitions, very similar to the transition of water to steam for example. The Big Bang can also be understood by studying Godel's Incompleteness theorem (IC). The meaning that arises from meaningless symbols in IC is equivalent to the feedback loops within Chaos Theory.
Now, if reality originates from Nothingness then I predict that the Big Bang cannot start as a point of infinite density because there is no mass at all at the start. I theorize that the Big Bang starts with zero mass and zero density. Furthermore, the Nothingness that starts this whole process must be conserved. Mass/energy must total to Nothing. Reality is a zero sum game.
) ....NOTHINGNESS! known as the Zero Point Field in current Physics but is actually a more profound idea that that.The following is a response I posted elsewhere regarding Big Bang cosmology but it nicely fleshes out my ideas....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stop thinking of a beginning in space/time. Space and time originate from the Big Bang and not the other way around.
Asking what happened before the Big Bang makes as much sense as asking what happened before 1 + 1 = 2. Clearly Mathematics exists in an atemporal (eternal) reality and so does the Big Bang.Another notion that must be abandoned is the notion of a first cause. This notion is closely related to the notion of a beginning of time that I criticized in the previous paragraph.
The Big bang must be an ontological phenomenon. What I mean by this is that the Big Bang cannot be caused by some external influence but must instead be a phenomenon that must happen self referentially. Consider the flushing mechanism of a toilet bowl. This is a simple example of an ontological phenomenon. There is no outside influence causing the stoppage of the filling of water in the bowel. The toilet bowel mechanism, by its ontological nature, regulates itself
Another way of describing an ontological phenomenon is to call it a truism. For example, the statement that all tall people are not short is a truism. So indeed the toilet bowl mechanism is a truism, it regulates itself because by its very definition it must regulate itself.
The Big Bang is similarly a truism, it must come into being ontologically (or self referentially). What causes reality to refer to itself? There cannot be a cause so therefore the act of self reference must be ontological. The act of self reference must be the very essence of primordial reality.
I propose that reality is NOTHINGNESS. Now, NOTHINGNESS REFERS TO NOTHING BUT IT IS NOTHING SO IT IS REFERRING TO ITSELF! There you have an ontological self reference. There you have a "beginning" to reality without a first cause.
The actual process by which this feedback loop creates all we observe now can be understood by considering the teachings of Chaos theory. The Nothingness feedback loop (aka Big Bang) leads to Chaotic phase transitions, very similar to the transition of water to steam for example. The Big Bang can also be understood by studying Godel's Incompleteness theorem (IC). The meaning that arises from meaningless symbols in IC is equivalent to the feedback loops within Chaos Theory.
Now, if reality originates from Nothingness then I predict that the Big Bang cannot start as a point of infinite density because there is no mass at all at the start. I theorize that the Big Bang starts with zero mass and zero density. Furthermore, the Nothingness that starts this whole process must be conserved. Mass/energy must total to Nothing. Reality is a zero sum game.
Hi all,
I wonder if anybody read the 8th May edition of New Scientist page 41 on entanglement where a Nature paper (vol454, p 861) was referred to. It concludes that if we have free will and if reality is as we think it is then the speed of the transfer of information between two photons, kilometres apart and deemed as entangled, was more than ten million times the cosmic speed limit we use in all of our calculations. Hence we need to find a TOE which fits !!
I've been thinking about this beginning point for ages and I know it's a physical property we are looking for and I tend to think that energy has to be a starting point as this must have been the driving force of the big bang and so must be contained in everything.
Hope my ramblings are not inane!
I wonder if anybody read the 8th May edition of New Scientist page 41 on entanglement where a Nature paper (vol454, p 861) was referred to. It concludes that if we have free will and if reality is as we think it is then the speed of the transfer of information between two photons, kilometres apart and deemed as entangled, was more than ten million times the cosmic speed limit we use in all of our calculations. Hence we need to find a TOE which fits !!
I've been thinking about this beginning point for ages and I know it's a physical property we are looking for and I tend to think that energy has to be a starting point as this must have been the driving force of the big bang and so must be contained in everything.
Hope my ramblings are not inane!
I always see what is referred to in the BB theory as "The Singularity" as the beginning point.
The singularity expanded and the universe was created. Because the singularity is everything contained in the universe, we can say it like this "The universe existed, then a change occurred and the universe started expanding. (very simplified I know)
In this sense, I now see the universe connected to the singularity. They are one. Galaxies and their phenomena are parts of the singularity constantly connected.
The term BB, always made me think of an explosion which would mean the singularity exploded creating the universe. End of the singularity.
Now, I see it differently. My new opinion has brought me into conflict with the some of the BB theory, and yet so much of what I have learnt of the BB (which is very little), still seems to fit.
I see this in my mind visually, so I am not sure it adheres to the rules of this forum (if they still exist), because I have not observed the science for myself, but have compiled this image from as much reading of scientists and laymen’s work as I have been able to do, and from day to day observations of phenomena around me.
Now, I see the singularity existing with the universe (they are connected and are one, I only define them differently to visualize easier). Our universe I see on the outer reaches of the singularity. An event (an imbalance of some kind I have yet to fathom) occurs to the singularity which causes an imbalance. The imbalance causes the singularity to expand, like a "burp" (I now name thee the burp theory), causing a gravitational shockwave to dislodge matter from the edge of the singularity pushing it outward.
The very outer parts of the singularity are made up of extremely light particles possibly what we call “space” (I lack the technical skills to define exactly what, but in essence the lightest of all stuff). Under the layer of space is matter and anti matter, and under that layer other stuff (possibly dark matter) getting denser as we near the core of the singularity.
As the shockwave hits the outer edge of the singularity it forces these various particles on the edges, to push into each other with tremendous force (could be the BB here), mixing and crashing parts of dark matter, anti matter, and matter together with “space” and the singularity expands by a percentage of some sort relative to the size of the singularity (age of the singularity). This is how I visualize the birth of the universe.
The singularity expands until all the momentum of the initial burp has been dissipated and gravity begins to win the war. Then all that was dislodged is pulled back toward the singularity and we wait for the singularity to “burp” again.
Although I visualise the singularity as spherical, it could technically be any shape.
Of course as much as I can find agreeing theory that would fit into this model, I can also see problems too. Hopefully constructive criticism will help me come to a clearer picture.
The singularity expanded and the universe was created. Because the singularity is everything contained in the universe, we can say it like this "The universe existed, then a change occurred and the universe started expanding. (very simplified I know)
In this sense, I now see the universe connected to the singularity. They are one. Galaxies and their phenomena are parts of the singularity constantly connected.
The term BB, always made me think of an explosion which would mean the singularity exploded creating the universe. End of the singularity.
Now, I see it differently. My new opinion has brought me into conflict with the some of the BB theory, and yet so much of what I have learnt of the BB (which is very little), still seems to fit.
I see this in my mind visually, so I am not sure it adheres to the rules of this forum (if they still exist), because I have not observed the science for myself, but have compiled this image from as much reading of scientists and laymen’s work as I have been able to do, and from day to day observations of phenomena around me.
Now, I see the singularity existing with the universe (they are connected and are one, I only define them differently to visualize easier). Our universe I see on the outer reaches of the singularity. An event (an imbalance of some kind I have yet to fathom) occurs to the singularity which causes an imbalance. The imbalance causes the singularity to expand, like a "burp" (I now name thee the burp theory), causing a gravitational shockwave to dislodge matter from the edge of the singularity pushing it outward.
The very outer parts of the singularity are made up of extremely light particles possibly what we call “space” (I lack the technical skills to define exactly what, but in essence the lightest of all stuff). Under the layer of space is matter and anti matter, and under that layer other stuff (possibly dark matter) getting denser as we near the core of the singularity.
As the shockwave hits the outer edge of the singularity it forces these various particles on the edges, to push into each other with tremendous force (could be the BB here), mixing and crashing parts of dark matter, anti matter, and matter together with “space” and the singularity expands by a percentage of some sort relative to the size of the singularity (age of the singularity). This is how I visualize the birth of the universe.
The singularity expands until all the momentum of the initial burp has been dissipated and gravity begins to win the war. Then all that was dislodged is pulled back toward the singularity and we wait for the singularity to “burp” again.
Although I visualise the singularity as spherical, it could technically be any shape.
Of course as much as I can find agreeing theory that would fit into this model, I can also see problems too. Hopefully constructive criticism will help me come to a clearer picture.
QUOTE (corsel+May 15 2010, 06:45 PM)
Hi all,
I wonder if anybody read the 8th May edition of New Scientist page 41 on entanglement where a Nature paper (vol454, p 861) was referred to. It concludes that if we have free will and if reality is as we think it is then the speed of the transfer of information between two photons, kilometres apart and deemed as entangled, was more than ten million times the cosmic speed limit we use in all of our calculations. Hence we need to find a TOE which fits !!
I've been thinking about this beginning point for ages and I know it's a physical property we are looking for and I tend to think that energy has to be a starting point as this must have been the driving force of the big bang and so must be contained in everything.
Hope my ramblings are not inane!
No more than most posters here, so don't hold back!
You asked a better question than fredinjeddah sort of made words about, anyway.
I wonder if anybody read the 8th May edition of New Scientist page 41 on entanglement where a Nature paper (vol454, p 861) was referred to. It concludes that if we have free will and if reality is as we think it is then the speed of the transfer of information between two photons, kilometres apart and deemed as entangled, was more than ten million times the cosmic speed limit we use in all of our calculations. Hence we need to find a TOE which fits !!
I've been thinking about this beginning point for ages and I know it's a physical property we are looking for and I tend to think that energy has to be a starting point as this must have been the driving force of the big bang and so must be contained in everything.
Hope my ramblings are not inane!
No more than most posters here, so don't hold back!
You asked a better question than fredinjeddah sort of made words about, anyway.
fredinjeddah
In this Post
My opinion is that you should not ask for my opinion. I know very little. I haven’t even completely grasped GR. I’m trying to understand dark matter, but without a good background in GR, it’s too difficult for me to even understand the galactic rotation curve. I’ve read a lot of books, took some online courses, and I’ve watched many lectures, but that’s about it. I would never try to come up with a theory when I still struggle with even the standard models. My laywoman’s opinion of any “Theory of Everything” is that it seems impossible. That it shouldn’t be called a T.O.E., it should be called "The Fundamental Law." If there is a fundamental law, it would be this law, and the unimaginable number of accidents.
The “big bang” name is unfortunate because it suggest we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion. It also makes people think that it was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. There is no evidence for a center that might have exploded, or an event that triggered the expansion. I think the standard model aka, “Big Bang” picture only deals with the way the universe is now, and we trace its evolution back in time, with our observations and theories. If there is an instant, at a big bang, when the universe started expanding, it is not in the current theory, as far as I am aware. I don’t think that anyone has thought of a way to adduce objective evidence that such an event really happened. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong.
I’m not really sure how the scientific community treats speculative theories that are beyond the standard model of the Big Bang. The Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems require a BB singularity to have existed. When I try to read some of the speculative ideas, I get too confused. You can’t really imagine a singularity in a point of space, if space did not yet exist. Even though singularities are thought to exist in the centers of black holes, I think singularities still defy the current understanding of physics, as far as I know.
There have been many documented frivolous criticisms, which have been irrational and destructive. I think that most cosmologists would be delighted to abandon the “big bang”, if any alternative looked reasonably promising. The standard model is the best that we have at this point in time. I think everyone realizes that there is room for improvement and even revolutionary changes that might occur, due to the normal surprises that physics endures. Nature is capable of surprising us but in mature science it is rare. However, the expansion was surprising and most cosmologists agree that the standard model has to be pointing to another surprise of some kind. There are many contenders, dark matter, modified gravity theories, or maybe just our limited ability to detect all the mass.
If you have not already read it. The “Principle of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles is a great book. It starts at the development of cosmology, works through GR, then modern cosmology. That's the best I can do.
N/A
Penrose-Hawking Singularity
QUOTE
If you read it I know you will give me a truly balanced and honest opinion.
In this Post
My opinion is that you should not ask for my opinion. I know very little. I haven’t even completely grasped GR. I’m trying to understand dark matter, but without a good background in GR, it’s too difficult for me to even understand the galactic rotation curve. I’ve read a lot of books, took some online courses, and I’ve watched many lectures, but that’s about it. I would never try to come up with a theory when I still struggle with even the standard models. My laywoman’s opinion of any “Theory of Everything” is that it seems impossible. That it shouldn’t be called a T.O.E., it should be called "The Fundamental Law." If there is a fundamental law, it would be this law, and the unimaginable number of accidents.
The “big bang” name is unfortunate because it suggest we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion. It also makes people think that it was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. There is no evidence for a center that might have exploded, or an event that triggered the expansion. I think the standard model aka, “Big Bang” picture only deals with the way the universe is now, and we trace its evolution back in time, with our observations and theories. If there is an instant, at a big bang, when the universe started expanding, it is not in the current theory, as far as I am aware. I don’t think that anyone has thought of a way to adduce objective evidence that such an event really happened. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong.
I’m not really sure how the scientific community treats speculative theories that are beyond the standard model of the Big Bang. The Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems require a BB singularity to have existed. When I try to read some of the speculative ideas, I get too confused. You can’t really imagine a singularity in a point of space, if space did not yet exist. Even though singularities are thought to exist in the centers of black holes, I think singularities still defy the current understanding of physics, as far as I know.
There have been many documented frivolous criticisms, which have been irrational and destructive. I think that most cosmologists would be delighted to abandon the “big bang”, if any alternative looked reasonably promising. The standard model is the best that we have at this point in time. I think everyone realizes that there is room for improvement and even revolutionary changes that might occur, due to the normal surprises that physics endures. Nature is capable of surprising us but in mature science it is rare. However, the expansion was surprising and most cosmologists agree that the standard model has to be pointing to another surprise of some kind. There are many contenders, dark matter, modified gravity theories, or maybe just our limited ability to detect all the mass.
If you have not already read it. The “Principle of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles is a great book. It starts at the development of cosmology, works through GR, then modern cosmology. That's the best I can do.
N/A
Penrose-Hawking Singularity
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Jun 1 2010, 10:54 PM)
fredinjeddah
In this Post
In this Post
QUOTE
My opinion is that you should not ask for my opinion.
My opinion, is that asking others opinions is the only way to obtain a balanced perspective on any issue. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My opinion is that you should not ask for my opinion. |
My opinion, is that asking others opinions is the only way to obtain a balanced perspective on any issue.
I know very little. I haven’t even completely grasped GR. I’m trying to understand dark matter, but without a good background in GR, it’s too difficult for me to even understand the galactic rotation curve. I’ve read a lot of books, took some online courses, and I’ve watched many lectures, but that’s about it
I know very little. I haven’t even completely grasped GR. I’m trying to understand dark matter, but without a good background in GR, it’s too difficult for me to even understand the galactic rotation curve. I’ve read a lot of books, took some online courses, and I’ve watched many lectures, but that’s about it
Far more than I have done, so I can only learn from your experiences.
QUOTE
I would never try to come up with a theory when I still struggle with even the standard models.
Me neither. I am only laying out an opinion based on other peoples opinion and what my logic dictates. Ultimately it is only my opinion.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would never try to come up with a theory when I still struggle with even the standard models. |
Me neither. I am only laying out an opinion based on other peoples opinion and what my logic dictates. Ultimately it is only my opinion.
My laywoman’s opinion of any “Theory of Everything” is that it seems impossible. That it shouldn’t be called a T.O.E., it should be called "The Fundamental Law." If there is a fundamental law, it would be this law, and the unimaginable number of accidents.
My laywoman’s opinion of any “Theory of Everything” is that it seems impossible. That it shouldn’t be called a T.O.E., it should be called "The Fundamental Law." If there is a fundamental law, it would be this law, and the unimaginable number of accidents.
T.O.E I agree is a bad term.It almsot seems an impossiblity to create a T.O.E. I think it should be categorised more distinctly, for example, The T.O.E if you adhere to the BB model, or the T.O.E if you adhere to the "Inflation model" etc. Even then it would be difficult. Ultimately there is only a T.O.E for me and a T.O.E for you, and even that theory would constantly change (as has mine a few times), but in order to obtain my T.O.E, I need to see another T.O.E.
QUOTE
The “big bang” name is unfortunate because it suggest we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion.It also makes people think that it was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. There is no evidence for a center that might have exploded, or an event that triggered the expansion.
I agree, it is an unfortunate name for this model.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The “big bang” name is unfortunate because it suggest we are identifying an event that triggered the expansion.It also makes people think that it was an explosion localized in space. Both are wrong. There is no evidence for a center that might have exploded, or an event that triggered the expansion. |
I agree, it is an unfortunate name for this model.
I think the standard model aka, “Big Bang” picture only deals with the way the universe is now, and we trace its evolution back in time, with our observations and theories. If there is an instant, at a big bang, when the universe started expanding, it is not in the current theory, as far as I am aware.
I think the standard model aka, “Big Bang” picture only deals with the way the universe is now, and we trace its evolution back in time, with our observations and theories. If there is an instant, at a big bang, when the universe started expanding, it is not in the current theory, as far as I am aware.
On reflection, I think you are correct, the BB is a model of the universe, it is not a theory trying to explain the origins of the universe.
Of course, on reflection (and I am the guiltiest of all) it is incorrect to call it "The Big Bang theory", as no one scientist sat down and declared this a theory. It is a model.
I think various scientists are working on their own theories as to what caused the expansion, and these theories may prove what caused the expansion, and these theories either affirm or contradict the BB model (most times with more questions being created), but they are not the BB model.
Is the fact that the universe is expanding, not proof of an event happening. If an event did not happen, why was matter dispersed in an expansionary manner. What else could have caused this but an event? The only other logical opinion I can muster right now, is that the expansion is the process and nature of the universe. The universe always existed and what we observe is what the universe does, no event needed.
The universe is a constantly changing structure, and what we are observing now, is the expansion, and it may be that another phase will come and another and another. It is not a beginning of one and an end of another, it is a constant change in a constant universe?
Of course, on reflection (and I am the guiltiest of all) it is incorrect to call it "The Big Bang theory", as no one scientist sat down and declared this a theory. It is a model.
I think various scientists are working on their own theories as to what caused the expansion, and these theories may prove what caused the expansion, and these theories either affirm or contradict the BB model (most times with more questions being created), but they are not the BB model.
QUOTE
I don’t think that anyone has thought of a way to adduce objective evidence that such an event really happened. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong.
I think the great Carl Sagan was correct in saying, that the universe always existed. Until other objective evidence comes along, it should be considered the answer for now.Is the fact that the universe is expanding, not proof of an event happening. If an event did not happen, why was matter dispersed in an expansionary manner. What else could have caused this but an event? The only other logical opinion I can muster right now, is that the expansion is the process and nature of the universe. The universe always existed and what we observe is what the universe does, no event needed.
The universe is a constantly changing structure, and what we are observing now, is the expansion, and it may be that another phase will come and another and another. It is not a beginning of one and an end of another, it is a constant change in a constant universe?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don’t think that anyone has thought of a way to adduce objective evidence that such an event really happened. Someone can correct me, if I am wrong. |
I think the great Carl Sagan was correct in saying, that the universe always existed. Until other objective evidence comes along, it should be considered the answer for now.
Is the fact that the universe is expanding, not proof of an event happening. If an event did not happen, why was matter dispersed in an expansionary manner. What else could have caused this but an event? The only other logical opinion I can muster right now, is that the expansion is the process and nature of the universe. The universe always existed and what we observe is what the universe does, no event needed.
The universe is a constantly changing structure, and what we are observing now, is the expansion, and it may be that another phase will come and another and another. It is not a beginning of one and an end of another, it is a constant change in a constant universe?
You can’t really imagine a singularity in a point of space, if space did not yet exist. Even though singularities are thought to exist in the centers of black holes, I think singularities still defy the current understanding of physics, as far as I know.
Is the fact that the universe is expanding, not proof of an event happening. If an event did not happen, why was matter dispersed in an expansionary manner. What else could have caused this but an event? The only other logical opinion I can muster right now, is that the expansion is the process and nature of the universe. The universe always existed and what we observe is what the universe does, no event needed.
The universe is a constantly changing structure, and what we are observing now, is the expansion, and it may be that another phase will come and another and another. It is not a beginning of one and an end of another, it is a constant change in a constant universe?
You can’t really imagine a singularity in a point of space, if space did not yet exist. Even though singularities are thought to exist in the centers of black holes, I think singularities still defy the current understanding of physics, as far as I know.
Maybe the singularity only comes into existance at a certain phase of the universes life (maybe during a contracting phase) when matter condenses enough? Of course I am speculating that the universe contracts which is highly debatable although I believe this.
Magical.
Then don't post stupid stuff like...
Then don't post stupid stuff like...
5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
They don't "need" anything. It's a physical process.
We don't "need" your theory.
QUOTE
The standard model is the best that we have at this point in time. I think everyone realizes that there is room for improvement and even revolutionary changes that might occur, due to the normal surprises that physics endures
. Ditto!QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The standard model is the best that we have at this point in time. I think everyone realizes that there is room for improvement and even revolutionary changes that might occur, due to the normal surprises that physics endures |
. Ditto!
If you have not already read it. The “Principle of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles is a great book. It starts at the development of cosmology, works through GR, then modern cosmology. That's the best I can do.
If you have not already read it. The “Principle of Physical Cosmology" by P.J.E. Peebles is a great book. It starts at the development of cosmology, works through GR, then modern cosmology. That's the best I can do.
Thank you my queen. I truly appreciate your response, it all helps on my little journey. 
An example of a very short TOE. Everything is randomness. There is no model of randomness. If there would be a model it wouldnt be randomness. Order aka repetition is a subset of randomness. Thus order is a type of randomness something like mindless repetition. Repetition on top of repetition and you get an apparent order and even the laws of physics.Universe always exists aka energy always exists. Laws of physics are not eternal.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
QUOTE
As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
Magical.
QUOTE (Majkl+Jun 9 2010, 08:09 PM)
An example of a very short TOE. Everything is randomness. There is no model of randomness. If there would be a model it wouldnt be randomness. Order aka repetition is a subset of randomness. Thus order is a type of randomness something like mindless repetition. Repetition on top of repetition and you get an apparent order and even the laws of physics.Universe always exists aka energy always exists. Laws of physics are not eternal.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
Crap.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
Crap.
Now, (don’t laugh) evolution1 applies to things that move (physics) and things that grow (biology). A real “TOE” might consider that panpsychism (an ancient concept that all things have consciousness) as defined by the following word meanings (Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary) is appropiate:
“Need – (1) to be in want, (2) to be needful or necessary.
Needful –(1) being in need, necessary or requisite (2) money”
As a very preliminary thrust in this direction, assume:
(1) Light moves at a constant velocity, ©, where time has little meaning.
(2) Mass grows from tiny particles by gravity attraction and other forces.
(3) Protons and neutrons appear “real”, have mass, and move at fractions of “c”.
(4) Electrons and photons are coupled, respectively moving near “c” and at “c”.
(5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
To follow up on the ideas in reference1 , where panpsychism, as a form of consciousness, was initiated, the use of several references is proving helpful. The coupling of light and mass as a steadily changing thermodynamic equilibrium, chemically and physically, is in process.
Matsas et al1 makes a comprehensive sum-up of the history for the debate, “How many dimensional fundamental constants are in Nature?” and concludes that two, no less or no more, are sufficient. So, a gravitational “protocol” can be used to eliminate mass such that the ratios of energy per unit volume, unit area, unit distance, unit mass, and unit frequency identified as respectively, pressure, surface tension, force, the square of light velocity, and Planck's constant can be expressed in terms of length and time with their ratio as a velocities, viz. light or speed).
(1)Erikson, T.A. , Panpsychism and Thermodynamics, Explored (I), pp. 153-8, THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION, June 2010.
(2) George E. A. Matsas et al, “The number of dimensional fundamental constants” arXiv:0711.4276v2 [physics.class-ph] 4 Dec 2007.
Comment and/or criticism invited before proceeding further here.
“Need – (1) to be in want, (2) to be needful or necessary.
Needful –(1) being in need, necessary or requisite (2) money”
As a very preliminary thrust in this direction, assume:
(1) Light moves at a constant velocity, ©, where time has little meaning.
(2) Mass grows from tiny particles by gravity attraction and other forces.
(3) Protons and neutrons appear “real”, have mass, and move at fractions of “c”.
(4) Electrons and photons are coupled, respectively moving near “c” and at “c”.
(5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
To follow up on the ideas in reference1 , where panpsychism, as a form of consciousness, was initiated, the use of several references is proving helpful. The coupling of light and mass as a steadily changing thermodynamic equilibrium, chemically and physically, is in process.
Matsas et al1 makes a comprehensive sum-up of the history for the debate, “How many dimensional fundamental constants are in Nature?” and concludes that two, no less or no more, are sufficient. So, a gravitational “protocol” can be used to eliminate mass such that the ratios of energy per unit volume, unit area, unit distance, unit mass, and unit frequency identified as respectively, pressure, surface tension, force, the square of light velocity, and Planck's constant can be expressed in terms of length and time with their ratio as a velocities, viz. light or speed).
(1)Erikson, T.A. , Panpsychism and Thermodynamics, Explored (I), pp. 153-8, THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION, June 2010.
(2) George E. A. Matsas et al, “The number of dimensional fundamental constants” arXiv:0711.4276v2 [physics.class-ph] 4 Dec 2007.
Comment and/or criticism invited before proceeding further here.
QUOTE (sdogv+Jun 10 2010, 11:49 AM)
Now, (don’t laugh) evolution1 applies to things that move (physics) and things that grow (biology). A real “TOE” might consider that panpsychism (an ancient concept that all things have consciousness) as defined by the following word meanings (Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary) is appropiate:
“Need – (1) to be in want, (2) to be needful or necessary.
Needful –(1) being in need, necessary or requisite (2) money”
As a very preliminary thrust in this direction, assume:
(1) Light moves at a constant velocity, ©, where time has little meaning.
(2) Mass grows from tiny particles by gravity attraction and other forces.
(3) Protons and neutrons appear “real”, have mass, and move at fractions of “c”.
(4) Electrons and photons are coupled, respectively moving near “c” and at “c”.
(5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
To follow up on the ideas in reference1 , where panpsychism, as a form of consciousness, was initiated, the use of several references is proving helpful. The coupling of light and mass as a steadily changing thermodynamic equilibrium, chemically and physically, is in process.
Matsas et al1 makes a comprehensive sum-up of the history for the debate, “How many dimensional fundamental constants are in Nature?” and concludes that two, no less or no more, are sufficient. So, a gravitational “protocol” can be used to eliminate mass such that the ratios of energy per unit volume, unit area, unit distance, unit mass, and unit frequency identified as respectively, pressure, surface tension, force, the square of light velocity, and Planck's constant can be expressed in terms of length and time with their ratio as a velocities, viz. light or speed).
(1)Erikson, T.A. , Panpsychism and Thermodynamics, Explored (I), pp. 153-8, THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION, June 2010.
(2) George E. A. Matsas et al, “The number of dimensional fundamental constants” arXiv:0711.4276v2 [physics.class-ph] 4 Dec 2007.
Comment and/or criticism invited before proceeding further here.
And more crap.
“Need – (1) to be in want, (2) to be needful or necessary.
Needful –(1) being in need, necessary or requisite (2) money”
As a very preliminary thrust in this direction, assume:
(1) Light moves at a constant velocity, ©, where time has little meaning.
(2) Mass grows from tiny particles by gravity attraction and other forces.
(3) Protons and neutrons appear “real”, have mass, and move at fractions of “c”.
(4) Electrons and photons are coupled, respectively moving near “c” and at “c”.
(5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
To follow up on the ideas in reference1 , where panpsychism, as a form of consciousness, was initiated, the use of several references is proving helpful. The coupling of light and mass as a steadily changing thermodynamic equilibrium, chemically and physically, is in process.
Matsas et al1 makes a comprehensive sum-up of the history for the debate, “How many dimensional fundamental constants are in Nature?” and concludes that two, no less or no more, are sufficient. So, a gravitational “protocol” can be used to eliminate mass such that the ratios of energy per unit volume, unit area, unit distance, unit mass, and unit frequency identified as respectively, pressure, surface tension, force, the square of light velocity, and Planck's constant can be expressed in terms of length and time with their ratio as a velocities, viz. light or speed).
(1)Erikson, T.A. , Panpsychism and Thermodynamics, Explored (I), pp. 153-8, THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION, June 2010.
(2) George E. A. Matsas et al, “The number of dimensional fundamental constants” arXiv:0711.4276v2 [physics.class-ph] 4 Dec 2007.
Comment and/or criticism invited before proceeding further here.
And more crap.
And more crap? Nice comment, crap head.
Well, using the G protocol of Matsas et al, analysis shows that the ratio of the active gravitational mass of a "charged" electron to it's normal mass is 0.25 x 10^27, which by Halliday et al (PHYSICS) comparing charge to gravitational forces is usually estimated at ~10^39. Fine structure constant is evolving by this technique. Taking a bit more time, but maybe shouldn't post here anymore. I was looking for constructive criticism.
Crap that it is, it sure explains how charged electrons repel by kinetic theory hard bounces rather than the softer charge effects.
Well, using the G protocol of Matsas et al, analysis shows that the ratio of the active gravitational mass of a "charged" electron to it's normal mass is 0.25 x 10^27, which by Halliday et al (PHYSICS) comparing charge to gravitational forces is usually estimated at ~10^39. Fine structure constant is evolving by this technique. Taking a bit more time, but maybe shouldn't post here anymore. I was looking for constructive criticism.
Crap that it is, it sure explains how charged electrons repel by kinetic theory hard bounces rather than the softer charge effects.
QUOTE
Well, using the G protocol of Matsas et al, analysis shows that the ratio of the active gravitational mass of a "charged" electron to it's normal mass is 0.25 x 10^27, which by Halliday et al (PHYSICS) comparing charge to gravitational forces is usually estimated at ~10^39. Fine structure constant is evolving by this technique. Taking a bit more time, but maybe shouldn't post here anymore. I was looking for constructive criticism.
Then don't post stupid stuff like...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Well, using the G protocol of Matsas et al, analysis shows that the ratio of the active gravitational mass of a "charged" electron to it's normal mass is 0.25 x 10^27, which by Halliday et al (PHYSICS) comparing charge to gravitational forces is usually estimated at ~10^39. Fine structure constant is evolving by this technique. Taking a bit more time, but maybe shouldn't post here anymore. I was looking for constructive criticism. |
Then don't post stupid stuff like...
5) Light “needs” mass for recognition and carries information (energy).
(6) Mass “needs” time to exist, i.e. a “lifetime”, a resonant process of growth/decay.
They don't "need" anything. It's a physical process.
We don't "need" your theory.
OK, will do. There is nothing "conscious" here that considers philosophy or life. 
Photon and electron structure and action are completely physically clear, eh?
Photon and electron structure and action are completely physically clear, eh?
When someone doesn't know crap about the subject, they usually bring up philosophy and life.
QUOTE (Majkl+Jun 10 2010, 01:09 AM)
An example of a very short TOE. Everything is randomness. There is no model of randomness. If there would be a model it wouldnt be randomness. Order aka repetition is a subset of randomness. Thus order is a type of randomness something like mindless repetition. Repetition on top of repetition and you get an apparent order and even the laws of physics.Universe always exists aka energy always exists. Laws of physics are not eternal.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
I do not believe repitition can be included in any randomness, or it is no longer random, but pattern. Unless it were repetitive randomness, which is really just randomness with the word repetitive in front of it.
In very short version - Reality is eternal randomness. No meaning, no reason to exist, no cause of existence. As far as we are concerned it all depends on what we beleive is true.
I do not believe repitition can be included in any randomness, or it is no longer random, but pattern. Unless it were repetitive randomness, which is really just randomness with the word repetitive in front of it.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jun 11 2010, 05:14 PM)
I do not believe repitition can be included in any randomness, or it is no longer random, but pattern. Unless it were repetitive randomness, which is really just randomness with the word repetitive in front of it.
I think we have a misunderstanding here. Repetition is just a special case of randomness in my opinion. Like I said – repetition is a subset of randomness. Given an infinite time thus eternal existence randomness can and does produce something coherent and its “signature” is ever present which shows in slight variations in all things in existence.
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be. Sustained repetition producing patterns with slight variations.
I think we have a misunderstanding here. Repetition is just a special case of randomness in my opinion. Like I said – repetition is a subset of randomness. Given an infinite time thus eternal existence randomness can and does produce something coherent and its “signature” is ever present which shows in slight variations in all things in existence.
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be. Sustained repetition producing patterns with slight variations.
QUOTE (Majkl+Jun 11 2010, 10:53 PM)
I think we have a misunderstanding here. Repetition is just a special case of randomness in my opinion. Like I said – repetition is a subset of randomness. Given an infinite time thus eternal existence randomness can and does produce something coherent and its “signature” is ever present which shows in slight variations in all things in existence.
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be. Sustained repetition producing patterns with slight variations.
Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination, and no way to determine any outcome or result.
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
I get what you are trying to say, but I still disagree to an extent. I do not believe it correct to attempt to link randomness with repetitiveness. I am not disagreeing for the sake of it, I think you raise an interesting debate.
To make things more simple for me to understand, I look to the very beginning. Hydrogen was effected by gravity which forced it to gather together and condense, forming stars that created heat with which fusion could take place (under high pressures), and helium was created. These are apparently the two biggest building blocks that we are thus far aware of.
We could argue that this was a random event, but because we have understood the process, it seems to be following a "law of physics", and is therefore not random but science. It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning. In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be. Sustained repetition producing patterns with slight variations.
Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination, and no way to determine any outcome or result.
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
I get what you are trying to say, but I still disagree to an extent. I do not believe it correct to attempt to link randomness with repetitiveness. I am not disagreeing for the sake of it, I think you raise an interesting debate.
To make things more simple for me to understand, I look to the very beginning. Hydrogen was effected by gravity which forced it to gather together and condense, forming stars that created heat with which fusion could take place (under high pressures), and helium was created. These are apparently the two biggest building blocks that we are thus far aware of.
We could argue that this was a random event, but because we have understood the process, it seems to be following a "law of physics", and is therefore not random but science. It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning. In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.
QUOTE
Given an infinite time thus eternal existence randomness can and does produce something coherent and its “signature” is ever present which shows in slight variations in all things in existence.
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given an infinite time thus eternal existence randomness can and does produce something coherent and its “signature” is ever present which shows in slight variations in all things in existence. |
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
Universe for example could be a bubble in the "sea of randomness" making it semi random because it is isolated to some degree and repetition can be sustained which is what our reality would be.
Of course everything we cannot observe and study, could potentially be random, such as the existence of a "sea of randomness", and maybe these random things are the things we will never understand which is why they are random.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
So in a long winded way, I think I agreed on most of your statement even though I disagreed.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
So in a long winded way, I think I agreed on most of your statement even though I disagreed.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 10 2010, 09:59 PM)
When someone doesn't know crap about the subject, they usually bring up philosophy and life.
That would be because we hate your *** guts.
Get it? Or do you want me to spell it?
That would be because we hate your *** guts.
Get it? Or do you want me to spell it?
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Jun 12 2010, 10:21 PM)
That would be because we hate your *** guts.
Get it? Or do you want me to spell it?
I feel honored. If the a$$hole cranks hate you, you must be doing something right.
Get it? Or do you want me to spell it?
I feel honored. If the a$$hole cranks hate you, you must be doing something right.
QUOTE fredinjeddah "...randomness...repetitiveness..."
Repetitious, as in "fractal-like"? A random "stacking" of residue?
...It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning.
It is my understanding that the temperatures allow for basic hydrogen, with some helium, and lithium, in the early primordial mix (before any "random" first star explosions brought about further particle combination "complexity").
This limits the initial available quark dynamics, hints at it's configuration, without inferring any initial involvement of preordained organization.
In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.You bandy that word "definitely" in a haphazardly random way. At this time, there is no evidence to conclude our existence as other than baryonic (4%?) "residue of some minor process"
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
???
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random.
Given such a finite request of course.
Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction
Pretty conclusive, as of late, to be "infinite expansion" only.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
Yet Galaxies are situated with seemingly random placement. Unless the wide field structure of galactic clusters hint to you of some hidden order? A minuscule amount of normal baryonic matter (4%?). The dark matter (22%?) models look equally as "naturally rugged" in random undesign.
Repetitious, as in "fractal-like"? A random "stacking" of residue?
...It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning.
It is my understanding that the temperatures allow for basic hydrogen, with some helium, and lithium, in the early primordial mix (before any "random" first star explosions brought about further particle combination "complexity").
This limits the initial available quark dynamics, hints at it's configuration, without inferring any initial involvement of preordained organization.
In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.You bandy that word "definitely" in a haphazardly random way. At this time, there is no evidence to conclude our existence as other than baryonic (4%?) "residue of some minor process"
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
???
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random.
Given such a finite request of course.
Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction
Pretty conclusive, as of late, to be "infinite expansion" only.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
Yet Galaxies are situated with seemingly random placement. Unless the wide field structure of galactic clusters hint to you of some hidden order? A minuscule amount of normal baryonic matter (4%?). The dark matter (22%?) models look equally as "naturally rugged" in random undesign.
QUOTE (keith*+Jun 13 2010, 07:11 AM)
QUOTE fredinjeddah "...randomness...repetitiveness..."
Repetitious, as in "fractal-like"? A random "stacking" of residue?
...It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning.
It is my understanding that the temperatures allow for basic hydrogen, with some helium, and lithium, in the early primordial mix (before any "random" first star explosions brought about further particle combination "complexity").
This limits the initial available quark dynamics, hints at it's configuration, without inferring any initial involvement of preordained organization.
In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.You bandy that word "definitely" in a haphazardly random way. At this time, there is no evidence to conclude our existence as other than baryonic (4%?) "residue of some minor process"
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
???
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random.
Given such a finite request of course.
Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction
Pretty conclusive, as of late, to be "infinite expansion" only.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
Yet Galaxies are situated with seemingly random placement. Unless the wide field structure of galactic clusters hint to you of some hidden order? A minuscule amount of normal baryonic matter (4%?). The dark matter (22%?) models look equally as "naturally rugged" in random undesign.
Repetitious, as in "fractal-like"? A random "stacking" of residue?
...It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning.
It is my understanding that the temperatures allow for basic hydrogen, with some helium, and lithium, in the early primordial mix (before any "random" first star explosions brought about further particle combination "complexity").
This limits the initial available quark dynamics, hints at it's configuration, without inferring any initial involvement of preordained organization.
In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.You bandy that word "definitely" in a haphazardly random way. At this time, there is no evidence to conclude our existence as other than baryonic (4%?) "residue of some minor process"
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
???
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random.
Given such a finite request of course.
Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction
Pretty conclusive, as of late, to be "infinite expansion" only.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
Yet Galaxies are situated with seemingly random placement. Unless the wide field structure of galactic clusters hint to you of some hidden order? A minuscule amount of normal baryonic matter (4%?). The dark matter (22%?) models look equally as "naturally rugged" in random undesign.
QUOTE
In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.[color=blue]You bandy that word "definitely" in a haphazardly random way
I apologise for the use of the word "definitely" and substitute it with "probably" and add to everything I say........."in my opinion"
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Jun 13 2010, 12:03 AM)
Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination, and no way to determine any outcome or result.
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
I get what you are trying to say, but I still disagree to an extent. I do not believe it correct to attempt to link randomness with repetitiveness. I am not disagreeing for the sake of it, I think you raise an interesting debate.
To make things more simple for me to understand, I look to the very beginning. Hydrogen was effected by gravity which forced it to gather together and condense, forming stars that created heat with which fusion could take place (under high pressures), and helium was created. These are apparently the two biggest building blocks that we are thus far aware of.
We could argue that this was a random event, but because we have understood the process, it seems to be following a "law of physics", and is therefore not random but science. It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning. In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
Of course everything we cannot observe and study, could potentially be random, such as the existence of a "sea of randomness", and maybe these random things are the things we will never understand which is why they are random.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
So in a long winded way, I think I agreed on most of your statement even though I disagreed.
You seem to be puting order into fundamentals of reality while i am puting randomness. Dont know how to put this but i will say that there is no perfect order and how do you get randomness out of order?
You seem to be puting order into fundamentals of reality while i am puting randomness. Dont know how to put this but i will say that there is no perfect order and how do you get randomness out of order?
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
You are doing it again puting order into fundamentals of reality. While you say that things appear to be random i say that things appear to have order behind it. Thus for you the randomness is an illusion while for me the order is an illusion.
By saying that everything is random i am questioning our very reasoning-comprehension which seems to be heavily biased towards some kind of underlining order. Reality must be consistent from top to bottom otherwise it aint possible. I disagree. The way we think and reason are patterns that dictate patterns like themselves. Self enforcing patterns. This is not easy to describe. But it is all based on repetition, Entire science for example is based on repeating the experiments which depends on repeatable charcteristics of reality. Thus science is confirming repetition by repating it itself. Kind of funny when you look at it from such perspective.
By saying that everything is random i am questioning our very reasoning-comprehension which seems to be heavily biased towards some kind of underlining order. Reality must be consistent from top to bottom otherwise it aint possible. I disagree. The way we think and reason are patterns that dictate patterns like themselves. Self enforcing patterns. This is not easy to describe. But it is all based on repetition, Entire science for example is based on repeating the experiments which depends on repeatable charcteristics of reality. Thus science is confirming repetition by repating it itself. Kind of funny when you look at it from such perspective.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive
I dont beleive every factor can be accounted for in physical reality because everything is randomness. Thus it is not possible to isolate randomness in my opinion because it is fundamental stuff.
We seem to disagree fundamentally but it is nothing that couldnt be expected. Exchange of ideas. But as Ninestein said - expect the unexpected.
Then you're asking us to avoid a fact of the physical universe and carry on a discussion on that basis. It's a no-go.
Then you're asking us to avoid a fact of the physical universe and carry on a discussion on that basis. It's a no-go.
That is why I asked people to consider the two-photon-and-upper-atom-mirror OWN 'perspectives'.....for that is the only actual 'event' spacepath/time HISTORY that counts in reality as to what actually occurs, and what the spacepath/time travel/outcome of the two photons IS in reality
What makes one perspective more valid than the other?
You're saying, ignore what is, and discuss what is-not.
Sorry, I reject your preconditions as not being physically real.
Each photon is traveling at c, and so no time passes for them. Therefore the hypothetical riders see nothing.
Nope, crap is crap. And both you and RC keep spewing it.
Learn some physics, instead of making up nonsense.
Nope, crap is crap. And both you and RC keep spewing it.
Learn some physics, instead of making up nonsense.
My "philosophy and crap" is starting to make sense with more "open-minded" scientists.
Sorry, I reject your preconditions as not being physically real.
Each photon is traveling at c, and so no time passes for them. Therefore the hypothetical riders see nothing.
Exactly, I read that yesterday. I clearly shows the person who wrote that doesn't understand basic concepts that results in the spacetime geometry of relativity.
dTau_light = 0 and the proper velocity of light is infinite. So we always chose to evaluate the speed of light from a local or remote coordinate frame.
Hi brucep. Please try to remember that the "spacetime geometry of relativity" was NOT YET "known" when Einstein did his early gedanke "riding the photon" to get some new insights/perspectives which LED to his relativity theory.
So here in THIS gedanken we must ALSO pretend that his relativity theory is still to come.....and do the exercise and think through the situations/considerations I outlined.....WITHOUT RECOURSE TO a theory which EINSTEIN HIMSELF did not yet have when HE "gedanked" riding the photon point of view.
So please don't bring your own preconclusions based on relativity into THIS 'pre-relativity' gedanken....just do like Einstein also HAD to do FIRST.
OK mate? Forget about Einstein Relativity Theory based PRE-CONCLUSIONS and just THINK IT THROUGH as Einstein had to do without the theory THEN.
Take a week or two to think it throug from the start as outlined and as discussed/clarified with AlexG in the meantime.
Cheers.
RC.
.
I don't need to think it through because I know what Einstein's conclusions were. Why don't you state what your conclusions are? You told Alex to forget about the coordinate frame and pretend he and rpenner are riding on a photon . So what is your conclusion? Would it conflict with an analysis conducted from the coordinate frame? ??
Don't wait up. I'm not taking part in this discussion.
Don't wait up. I'm not taking part in this discussion.
Me either. Feels like Bukh cubed.
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
I get what you are trying to say, but I still disagree to an extent. I do not believe it correct to attempt to link randomness with repetitiveness. I am not disagreeing for the sake of it, I think you raise an interesting debate.
To make things more simple for me to understand, I look to the very beginning. Hydrogen was effected by gravity which forced it to gather together and condense, forming stars that created heat with which fusion could take place (under high pressures), and helium was created. These are apparently the two biggest building blocks that we are thus far aware of.
We could argue that this was a random event, but because we have understood the process, it seems to be following a "law of physics", and is therefore not random but science. It seems that everything that was needed for hydrogen to create helium, was provided at the very beginning. In as far as our existence and universe is concerned, this was definitely not random.
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive.
I think if we had all the variables, we could even calculate where the next universe with our organic material will end up one day (time to plan those indestructible nano robots that will re-create us in the next cycle) If we had all the variables (this being the 1st huge obstacle) and the computer capacity (the 2nd huge obstacle), this would be achievable. But its not. So for now, I can concede, that the expansion and contraction model of the universe would always be random for us. (your sea of randomness)
Of course everything we cannot observe and study, could potentially be random, such as the existence of a "sea of randomness", and maybe these random things are the things we will never understand which is why they are random.
Even black holes were considered at one stage to be random anomalies. Now it is being proposed, that every galaxy has a black hole at its center which I am sure we will figure out is there for a very good reason in the life of the universe.
So in a long winded way, I think I agreed on most of your statement even though I disagreed.
QUOTE
Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination, and no way to determine any outcome or result.
You seem to be puting order into fundamentals of reality while i am puting randomness. Dont know how to put this but i will say that there is no perfect order and how do you get randomness out of order?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Randomness is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination, and no way to determine any outcome or result. |
You seem to be puting order into fundamentals of reality while i am puting randomness. Dont know how to put this but i will say that there is no perfect order and how do you get randomness out of order?
I do not believe that anything is random. It is only our lack of information that limits our understanding of that which seems to be random.
You are doing it again
puting order into fundamentals of reality. While you say that things appear to be random i say that things appear to have order behind it. Thus for you the randomness is an illusion while for me the order is an illusion.QUOTE
I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware.
By saying that everything is random i am questioning our very reasoning-comprehension which seems to be heavily biased towards some kind of underlining order. Reality must be consistent from top to bottom otherwise it aint possible. I disagree. The way we think and reason are patterns that dictate patterns like themselves. Self enforcing patterns. This is not easy to describe. But it is all based on repetition, Entire science for example is based on repeating the experiments which depends on repeatable charcteristics of reality. Thus science is confirming repetition by repating it itself. Kind of funny when you look at it from such perspective.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think anything coherent can be random. Once we comprehend it, it ceases to be random, unless it is the only such randomness that exists, and no such single randomness exists thus far as far as I am aware. |
By saying that everything is random i am questioning our very reasoning-comprehension which seems to be heavily biased towards some kind of underlining order. Reality must be consistent from top to bottom otherwise it aint possible. I disagree. The way we think and reason are patterns that dictate patterns like themselves. Self enforcing patterns. This is not easy to describe. But it is all based on repetition, Entire science for example is based on repeating the experiments which depends on repeatable charcteristics of reality. Thus science is confirming repetition by repating it itself. Kind of funny when you look at it from such perspective.
Even the throwing of several dice, could be calculated if every factor was accounted for, which mathematics and physics has done, so even this could never be considered random. Of course on a cosmic scale, if one believes in a expansion and contraction and further infinite expansion and contraction, could the cosmos be random or repetitive
I dont beleive every factor can be accounted for in physical reality because everything is randomness. Thus it is not possible to isolate randomness in my opinion because it is fundamental stuff.
QUOTE
So in a long winded way, I think I agreed on most of your statement even though I disagreed.
We seem to disagree fundamentally but it is nothing that couldnt be expected. Exchange of ideas. But as Ninestein said - expect the unexpected.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jun 11 2010, 01:59 AM)
When someone doesn't know crap about the subject, they usually bring up philosophy and life.
In an attempt to explain everything relative to their experiences.
type **everything** into wikipedia and we all might learn something as long as its all in good fun(=
In an attempt to explain everything relative to their experiences.
type **everything** into wikipedia and we all might learn something as long as its all in good fun(=
damn ya'll are good... so where is everything else???
still putting it together???
[Moderator: Banned.]
still putting it together???
[Moderator: Banned.]
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 26 2010, 11:12 PM)
.
Hello again everyone.
My apologies for being absent from the forum for so long. In short, I had a mild stroke and it took some months to recover.
Hello again everyone.
My apologies for being absent from the forum for so long. In short, I had a mild stroke and it took some months to recover.
Good to hear the heart still beats.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 26 2010, 06:12 PM)
.
Hello again everyone.
My apologies for being absent from the forum for so long. In short, I had a mild stroke and it took some months to recover. Then my longstanding allergy/optics problems recurred and kept me longer away from screen work and most other reading/writing activities. No sooner was I starting to recover from that when an old and very good friend died and I have been much involved in helping his executor with funeral etc arrangements and get a handle on his life/service history as well as other estate matters.
Anyhow, I'm almost ready to resume where I left off at Physforum....but not quite yet.
My eyesight is not yet strong/painless enough to endure extended screenwork etc.
And also I have much to catch up with my own life/work activities/commitments which have been on the backburner for many months now because of all the above.
.
However, I recall a promise I made to provide AlexG with a 'gedanken' to illustrate a point in the "moving system" of parallel mirrors situation regarding the photon path dependence/independence question.
Here it is AlexG........
Imagine the parallel mirror system you referenced in that other thread (can't remember which thread). Now imagine that mirror system moving to the right along the x axis so that the 'bottom' mirror is ON the x axis and the 'top' mirror is co-moving with it along a line one 'y' unit above the x axis line along which the bottom co-moving mirror is moving.
Now imagine that as the parallel mirror pair 'system' moves through x=0 position, ie both mirrors aligned facing each other on the vertical y-axis line, a photon is sent between the parallel 'co-moving system' (from bottom to top mirror)....WHILE AT THAT same moment a stationary emitter AT x=0 ALSO emits a photon aimed slightly AHEAD (to the right) such that it will coincide with the position that the UPPER mirror will pass through a moment later.
Note that the first photon is supposedly sent WITHIN a 'co-moving system', and according to you/others, that photon will "move WITH that system".
But now picture the whole illustration as presented, and describe to yourself the TWO separate photons' paths/propagation times etc. according to what is actually happening here......
(1) The photon sent between the mirrors ( from bottom mirror to top mirror traverses ONE 'y-unit' between the two-mirror 'co-moving system'....meanwhile however......the other (EXTERNAL to the moving system) photon ALSO sent from x=0 position will ALSO coincide at some point along the y= one unit line BUT slightly to the RIGHT of the vertical y-axis.
Now we have the situation where a photon sent within the moving system (between the co-moving parallel mirror system) travels supposedly only ONE y-unit from one mirror to the other....WHILE THE OTHER PHOTON sent 'externally' to coincide with the SAME (upper) mirror has travelled the 'diagonal' distance to the position where it strikes the upper mirror where it will be a moment later when the INTERNALLY SENT photon also (supposedly) reaches the mirror THERE.
So we have TWO photons, one supposedly sent straight ACROSS the mirror system that supposedly travels across a space path ONE unit distance WITHIN the system while the other photon travels an EXTERNAL (to the co-moving system) space path (DIAGONAL) distance that is effectively GREATER than one y-unit long.
How do we reconcile the fact that external longer space path photon has reached the mirror at the same time?....we DON'T.
Why?.....because the first (internal to the system) photon did NOT proceed WITH the system) to meet the upper mirror at the same location as the diagonally sent photon.
Imagine this.....if EACH of the two mirrors were reduced to ONE atom such that the 'internal' photon is sent between the lower emitting atom and the upper receiving atom.....then the photon would NOT strike the upper atom at all....but would miss it and continue in the original y-axis (straight across) path which it was given upon emission at x=0 position.
Why must this be?.....because otherwise we would have to 'conclude' the self-evidently contradictory idea that a photon travelling diagonally to reach the point in space where the upper atom coincides with it has travelled the same distance as the photon which has supposedly travelled one y-unit 'straight across' between the two co-moving atoms!
Your thoughts AlexG?
Eyes sore. Cheers for now.
Will be back tomorrow with some posers for you and rpenner which relate to some other outstanding business which got interrupted when I fell ill.
PS....What's happened to the forum?....it's almost like coming back to a ghost town. Where are all the interesting discussions which I would have expected to come back to? Cheers all!
RC.
.
The parallel mirror pair system is moving. The photon emitted in your point 1 partakes of this movement. It travels one 'y-unit' between mirrors as seen by the reference frame consisting of the moving mirrors. As seen by an external observer, one at rest with the x=0 coordinate, the photon will travel a distance greater than 1 y unit, which can be calculated using Pythagoras' theorem. As seen by this external observer, the photon bouncing between the mirrors will travel the same distance, in the same time, as the photon emitted by the stationary x=0 emitter, arriving simultaneously.
We reconcile the difference with a different rate of time in the two different frames.
It's all Relative.
BTW, the light clock is a very well known gendankenexperiment, given by Einstein.
Hello again everyone.
My apologies for being absent from the forum for so long. In short, I had a mild stroke and it took some months to recover. Then my longstanding allergy/optics problems recurred and kept me longer away from screen work and most other reading/writing activities. No sooner was I starting to recover from that when an old and very good friend died and I have been much involved in helping his executor with funeral etc arrangements and get a handle on his life/service history as well as other estate matters.
Anyhow, I'm almost ready to resume where I left off at Physforum....but not quite yet.
My eyesight is not yet strong/painless enough to endure extended screenwork etc.
And also I have much to catch up with my own life/work activities/commitments which have been on the backburner for many months now because of all the above.
.
However, I recall a promise I made to provide AlexG with a 'gedanken' to illustrate a point in the "moving system" of parallel mirrors situation regarding the photon path dependence/independence question.
Here it is AlexG........
Imagine the parallel mirror system you referenced in that other thread (can't remember which thread). Now imagine that mirror system moving to the right along the x axis so that the 'bottom' mirror is ON the x axis and the 'top' mirror is co-moving with it along a line one 'y' unit above the x axis line along which the bottom co-moving mirror is moving.
Now imagine that as the parallel mirror pair 'system' moves through x=0 position, ie both mirrors aligned facing each other on the vertical y-axis line, a photon is sent between the parallel 'co-moving system' (from bottom to top mirror)....WHILE AT THAT same moment a stationary emitter AT x=0 ALSO emits a photon aimed slightly AHEAD (to the right) such that it will coincide with the position that the UPPER mirror will pass through a moment later.
Note that the first photon is supposedly sent WITHIN a 'co-moving system', and according to you/others, that photon will "move WITH that system".
But now picture the whole illustration as presented, and describe to yourself the TWO separate photons' paths/propagation times etc. according to what is actually happening here......
(1) The photon sent between the mirrors ( from bottom mirror to top mirror traverses ONE 'y-unit' between the two-mirror 'co-moving system'....meanwhile however......the other (EXTERNAL to the moving system) photon ALSO sent from x=0 position will ALSO coincide at some point along the y= one unit line BUT slightly to the RIGHT of the vertical y-axis.
Now we have the situation where a photon sent within the moving system (between the co-moving parallel mirror system) travels supposedly only ONE y-unit from one mirror to the other....WHILE THE OTHER PHOTON sent 'externally' to coincide with the SAME (upper) mirror has travelled the 'diagonal' distance to the position where it strikes the upper mirror where it will be a moment later when the INTERNALLY SENT photon also (supposedly) reaches the mirror THERE.
So we have TWO photons, one supposedly sent straight ACROSS the mirror system that supposedly travels across a space path ONE unit distance WITHIN the system while the other photon travels an EXTERNAL (to the co-moving system) space path (DIAGONAL) distance that is effectively GREATER than one y-unit long.
How do we reconcile the fact that external longer space path photon has reached the mirror at the same time?....we DON'T.
Why?.....because the first (internal to the system) photon did NOT proceed WITH the system) to meet the upper mirror at the same location as the diagonally sent photon.
Imagine this.....if EACH of the two mirrors were reduced to ONE atom such that the 'internal' photon is sent between the lower emitting atom and the upper receiving atom.....then the photon would NOT strike the upper atom at all....but would miss it and continue in the original y-axis (straight across) path which it was given upon emission at x=0 position.
Why must this be?.....because otherwise we would have to 'conclude' the self-evidently contradictory idea that a photon travelling diagonally to reach the point in space where the upper atom coincides with it has travelled the same distance as the photon which has supposedly travelled one y-unit 'straight across' between the two co-moving atoms!
Your thoughts AlexG?
Eyes sore. Cheers for now.
Will be back tomorrow with some posers for you and rpenner which relate to some other outstanding business which got interrupted when I fell ill.
PS....What's happened to the forum?....it's almost like coming back to a ghost town. Where are all the interesting discussions which I would have expected to come back to? Cheers all!
RC.
.
The parallel mirror pair system is moving. The photon emitted in your point 1 partakes of this movement. It travels one 'y-unit' between mirrors as seen by the reference frame consisting of the moving mirrors. As seen by an external observer, one at rest with the x=0 coordinate, the photon will travel a distance greater than 1 y unit, which can be calculated using Pythagoras' theorem. As seen by this external observer, the photon bouncing between the mirrors will travel the same distance, in the same time, as the photon emitted by the stationary x=0 emitter, arriving simultaneously.
We reconcile the difference with a different rate of time in the two different frames.
It's all Relative.
BTW, the light clock is a very well known gendankenexperiment, given by Einstein.
QUOTE
Just as I suspected, you have brought in a pre-existing 'perspective' of 'observers'.....something which I explicitly asked granpa and all to avoid
Then you're asking us to avoid a fact of the physical universe and carry on a discussion on that basis. It's a no-go.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just as I suspected, you have brought in a pre-existing 'perspective' of 'observers'.....something which I explicitly asked granpa and all to avoid |
Then you're asking us to avoid a fact of the physical universe and carry on a discussion on that basis. It's a no-go.
That is why I asked people to consider the two-photon-and-upper-atom-mirror OWN 'perspectives'.....for that is the only actual 'event' spacepath/time HISTORY that counts in reality as to what actually occurs, and what the spacepath/time travel/outcome of the two photons IS in reality
What makes one perspective more valid than the other?
QUOTE
Think it through without 'preconceived' ideas by 'relative observers' etc.......
You're saying, ignore what is, and discuss what is-not.
RC, I'm not going to try to teach relativity 101.
You seem to completely misunderstand what is meant by the word relative. You have an observer, or any kind of measuring device, which is at rest RELATIVE to the mirrors. You have an observer in motion relative to the mirrors. The observer at rest wrt the mirrors sees the bouncing photon over a distance of 1 y unit. The observer in motion wrt the mirrors sees the same photon cover a distance greater than 1 y.
Both observations are valid, both see a photon cover a difference distance. Given the constancy of c in all reference frames, a varying rate of time explains the observations. This has been experimentally verified many times.
I guess I am teaching relativity 101.
You seem to completely misunderstand what is meant by the word relative. You have an observer, or any kind of measuring device, which is at rest RELATIVE to the mirrors. You have an observer in motion relative to the mirrors. The observer at rest wrt the mirrors sees the bouncing photon over a distance of 1 y unit. The observer in motion wrt the mirrors sees the same photon cover a distance greater than 1 y.
Both observations are valid, both see a photon cover a difference distance. Given the constancy of c in all reference frames, a varying rate of time explains the observations. This has been experimentally verified many times.
I guess I am teaching relativity 101.
QUOTE
Unfortunately it is not relevant in our exercise.....since there is NO CLOCK nor OBSERVER in our exercise.....once the photons are emitted and in transit, ONLY THE TWO PHOTONS (and their 'riders' AlexG and rpenner of course) are the telling viewpoints.
Sorry, I reject your preconditions as not being physically real.
Each photon is traveling at c, and so no time passes for them. Therefore the hypothetical riders see nothing.
Based on the response(s) of Alex G to RealityCheck, it is obvious that anything that does not agree with AlexG's "learned position" is crap.
I see RealityCheck back in the swing of things and might he go back to comment on what I posted (a page or 2 back), said by Alex G to be "philosophy and crap". I might actually become active again. My "philosophy and crap" is starting to make sense with more "open-minded" scientists.
(He was a bit kinder to you, RC.)
I see RealityCheck back in the swing of things and might he go back to comment on what I posted (a page or 2 back), said by Alex G to be "philosophy and crap". I might actually become active again. My "philosophy and crap" is starting to make sense with more "open-minded" scientists.
(He was a bit kinder to you, RC.)
QUOTE
Based on the response(s) of Alex G to RealityCheck, it is obvious that anything that does not agree with AlexG's "learned position" is crap.
Nope, crap is crap. And both you and RC keep spewing it.
Learn some physics, instead of making up nonsense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Based on the response(s) of Alex G to RealityCheck, it is obvious that anything that does not agree with AlexG's "learned position" is crap. |
Nope, crap is crap. And both you and RC keep spewing it.
Learn some physics, instead of making up nonsense.
My "philosophy and crap" is starting to make sense with more "open-minded" scientists.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 28 2010, 04:36 AM)
Sorry, I reject your preconditions as not being physically real.
Each photon is traveling at c, and so no time passes for them. Therefore the hypothetical riders see nothing.
Exactly, I read that yesterday. I clearly shows the person who wrote that doesn't understand basic concepts that results in the spacetime geometry of relativity.
dTau_light = 0 and the proper velocity of light is infinite. So we always chose to evaluate the speed of light from a local or remote coordinate frame.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 28 2010, 11:32 PM)
Hi brucep. Please try to remember that the "spacetime geometry of relativity" was NOT YET "known" when Einstein did his early gedanke "riding the photon" to get some new insights/perspectives which LED to his relativity theory.
So here in THIS gedanken we must ALSO pretend that his relativity theory is still to come.....and do the exercise and think through the situations/considerations I outlined.....WITHOUT RECOURSE TO a theory which EINSTEIN HIMSELF did not yet have when HE "gedanked" riding the photon point of view.
So please don't bring your own preconclusions based on relativity into THIS 'pre-relativity' gedanken....just do like Einstein also HAD to do FIRST.
OK mate? Forget about Einstein Relativity Theory based PRE-CONCLUSIONS and just THINK IT THROUGH as Einstein had to do without the theory THEN.
Take a week or two to think it throug from the start as outlined and as discussed/clarified with AlexG in the meantime.
Cheers.
RC.
.
I don't need to think it through because I know what Einstein's conclusions were. Why don't you state what your conclusions are? You told Alex to forget about the coordinate frame and pretend he and rpenner are riding on a photon . So what is your conclusion? Would it conflict with an analysis conducted from the coordinate frame? ??
QUOTE
And AlexG hasn't had the chance to answer my last question to him,
Don't wait up. I'm not taking part in this discussion.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 29 2010, 03:39 AM)
Don't wait up. I'm not taking part in this discussion.
Me either. Feels like Bukh cubed.
Why the heck did you bring my name into it.
The correct way to perform a thought experiment is to learn physics, and use that knowledge to imagine the world as viewed by progressively higher speeds. Einstein knew Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations and could work out the consequences -- the consequences that said the two physics were not compatible with each other.
What RC proposes is to start imagining in a realm where he has no data, and where he rejects all inferences from hundreds of years of experiments at lower speeds. That's not physics, but day-dreaming.
Sorry to hear about your stroke, but I view this forum as a aberration that has not produced anything like it's stated goals. I see a distinct lack of education of what all the experiments say, and I don't think that the subject matter is physics.
The correct way to perform a thought experiment is to learn physics, and use that knowledge to imagine the world as viewed by progressively higher speeds. Einstein knew Newtonian physics and Maxwell's equations and could work out the consequences -- the consequences that said the two physics were not compatible with each other.
What RC proposes is to start imagining in a realm where he has no data, and where he rejects all inferences from hundreds of years of experiments at lower speeds. That's not physics, but day-dreaming.
Sorry to hear about your stroke, but I view this forum as a aberration that has not produced anything like it's stated goals. I see a distinct lack of education of what all the experiments say, and I don't think that the subject matter is physics.
I believe I've already rejected your basic premise and indicated that I will not take part in this Nicht-Gedankexperiment.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 29 2010, 07:13 PM)
PS....Please while I've got your attention, could you arrange to re-instate my Special Project Sub-forum (only) moderator status so that I can clean out some of the unwanted spam etc when I get the time. Thanks.--
Seriously?
I've always considered the fact that RealityCheck has his own subforum to be one of the great mysteries of this website.
Seriously?
I've always considered the fact that RealityCheck has his own subforum to be one of the great mysteries of this website.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2010, 03:24 AM)
Seriously?
I've always considered the fact that RealityCheck has his own subforum to be one of the great mysteries of this website.
I read several early posts and he's lucky I'm not the moderator because I would delete the entire thread based on the nonsense factor . IE five years of continuous nonsense is enough already. Seems like a propensity for attempting to evaluate non existent physical phenomena.
I've always considered the fact that RealityCheck has his own subforum to be one of the great mysteries of this website.
I read several early posts and he's lucky I'm not the moderator because I would delete the entire thread based on the nonsense factor . IE five years of continuous nonsense is enough already. Seems like a propensity for attempting to evaluate non existent physical phenomena.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 30 2010, 09:57 PM)
The point was NOT whether yo actually 'saw' anything while riding the photon, but that, given the co-moving parallel-mirror and photon setup YOU referenced back then in that other thread, whether you can IMAGINE what would happen IF that assembly was stopped dead an instant after the internal photon was emitted towards the upper mirror
The dead reappear!!!!! Good to see you, RC.
Yes, I can. The suddenly-stopped assembly would emit black-body radiation. Look:
"Not ever" is the negation of verb "to see". Therefore it was included in the equation from the start since every verb can be its own negation. Since what was no longer is AND since the commitment to the future is still there from the very start because if it weren't, then the experiment would be dealing with the impossible, AND if at one point the commitment of "meeting" or "seeing" was there and at another it wasn't, THE at the precise moment the "not ever" happens, the future is broken by the assembly, and it would emit black-body radiation proportional to the differences between the distance that it is from the "meeting point" that will never be in relation to the radius of the photonic structure.
Afaik, there is no such thing as TWO photons since a photon can't both be stopped in time and interfere with itself by occupying space twice at the same time (it can interfere with itself, but not in this zoom level... that would be another soap box speech, I guess). It's kind of like judges: at any one time only one judge in the world can be a son of a bitch; two or more are all the sons of the same bitch, no matter how many mothers. (But I am just trying to be subtle... I can be a subtle guy too, see?)
In the experiment there was "one" photon emitted in the direction x such and such; if it was directed at x and it has a radius, then its radius is "infinity"; but since there are "two" directed photons at the same time, then both are part of the same photonic structure. Since "one" photon missed its target, the photonic structure itself is out of order and will correct itself by reordering its inner parts. The photon that "missed" its target will be occupying the black-body radiation emitted so that it doesn't interfere with itself so that the future is not broken.
So the "radius" of the complete photonic structure included both photons from the very start.
"Not ever" is the negation of verb "to see". Therefore it was included in the equation from the start since every verb can be its own negation. Since what was no longer is AND since the commitment to the future is still there from the very start because if it weren't, then the experiment would be dealing with the impossible, AND if at one point the commitment of "meeting" or "seeing" was there and at another it wasn't, THE at the precise moment the "not ever" happens, the future is broken by the assembly, and it would emit black-body radiation proportional to the differences between the distance that it is from the "meeting point" that will never be in relation to the radius of the photonic structure.
Afaik, there is no such thing as TWO photons since a photon can't both be stopped in time and interfere with itself by occupying space twice at the same time (it can interfere with itself, but not in this zoom level... that would be another soap box speech, I guess). It's kind of like judges: at any one time only one judge in the world can be a son of a bitch; two or more are all the sons of the same bitch, no matter how many mothers. (But I am just trying to be subtle... I can be a subtle guy too, see?)
In the experiment there was "one" photon emitted in the direction x such and such; if it was directed at x and it has a radius, then its radius is "infinity"; but since there are "two" directed photons at the same time, then both are part of the same photonic structure. Since "one" photon missed its target, the photonic structure itself is out of order and will correct itself by reordering its inner parts. The photon that "missed" its target will be occupying the black-body radiation emitted so that it doesn't interfere with itself so that the future is not broken.
So the "radius" of the complete photonic structure included both photons from the very start.
We should re-do these type of experiment
"Snakes!"
"You go fast, Indy".
The slingshot effect is true, it's caused by the black-body radiation, but I only have a faint notion of what you have in mind and it won't work. Whatever mathematics are needed are single, ugly-as-hell girls (:-), unmarried, and they have to be matched point by point --therefore canceled out-- by black-body radiation mathematics. Or is it red-shift? Or magnetism? I know that the information of all types of married maths must be exactly equal, and we know that "not ever" is the negation of the verb, so all I can say with certainty is that one type of mathematics must be exactly match the opposite types in number of rotations in n-space, except in another direction and I have no idea what I am saying at this point except that your predictive power should increase, not decrease.
(Foursome maths sounden gutten to me, but I no longer "know". You should know that that mind-set is gone permanently for me. GONE, I TELLS YOU!)
"Just 're-think about it' is all I wished to convey' with this gedanken":
You are not the boss of me. Make me think. Make me, I dare you! MAKE ME! MAKE M...
BTW - what is a photon - what is a particle - ?
I favor the idea that spacetime best can be imagined as QFT - infinitely diluting into smaller and smaller with no well defined smallest -
This implicate that there must be a kind of integration in order to establish a "particle" and that the existence of particles is inevitably dependent on a kind of observer acting as the integrator, one that can integrate "events" = field-configurations - cinematographically over time into a movie-strip defining a particle.
So instead of thinking in terms of particle interactions and concepts of motion of particles - I favor the idea of thinking in terms of re-configurations of entities in scale-wise arranged grid-like structures with sharp transitions from one scale to the next - giving rise to total entanglement - no free void - only re-configurations - the latter resulting in the illusion of motion of particles.
Spacetime is the matrix defining physical Universe, and human is a part of this matrix - with the ability of self-perceiving. Fundamentally it is about how part of Universe(human) observes the surrounding Universe and construct a vivid impression of a "real physical world", via our physical senses, which is one scale in such a QFT construct.
IMO we need to step a little aside and redefine our perceiving metaphors - is the idea of smallest building blocks viable -or is it better to dig one step deeper and restart on a more fundamental level - ?
In such a more fundamental construct a photon will be a repetitive wave-like reconfiguration of smaller entities, which also can be defined as a certain and well defined information qubit and in the scale of the human physical sense of vision.
If this is seen as a totally non-relevant intrusion to the ongoing discussion in this thread - please ignore.
.
BTW - what is a photon - what is a particle - ?
No one has the remotest idea what a photon is supposed to be. Mathematics tell you how it works, not what it is (same thing with the electron). You try to "see" the photon and you are left with the original atom except at a higher zoom. You end up with verbal tenses and angles of deviation from the future, and with orbitals, and (sub)information theory and otherwise a smelly soup of theories. When you say "where the photon would have met" the assembly you are describing the second orbit because the first orbit would be "would meet", not "would have met". (Technically, the right way to say it is "will have met if", but who is splitting beans?)
It depends on the reading you are taking, that is, it depends on your interpretation. A "photon" is supposed to be you falling into the past, I guess. (This is not religion, this is still a gedaken, getten?) If you are "going to hell" and hell moves away, you'd fall into that not-hell space that hell previously occupied and that was supposed to enclose you. The point of making a photon simultaneously inside out and outside in is that if hell moves and doesn't enclose you, you will enclose it. Similarly, and for the same reason, you can make it infinitely small of infinite sized. Guess that is the physics version of karma...
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking".
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
IMO we need to step a little aside and redefine our perceiving metaphors - is the idea of smallest building blocks viable -or is it better to dig one step deeper and restart on a more fundamental level - ?
I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me...
Oh, sure, now you tell me that... I won't put up with it. Take that back, Buhk!
This is just one little piece of nonsense among a much larger piece of nonsense.
This is just one little piece of nonsense among a much larger piece of nonsense.
Fortunately, I don't give a *** what you think. Nor will I shut up. Go run to the mods, would you?
No one has the remotest idea what a photon is supposed to be. Mathematics tell you how it works, not what it is (same thing with the electron). You try to "see" the photon and you are left with the original atom except at a higher zoom. You end up with verbal tenses and angles of deviation from the future, and with orbitals, and (sub)information theory and otherwise a smelly soup of theories. When you say "where the photon would have met" the assembly you are describing the second orbit because the first orbit would be "would meet", not "would have met". (Technically, the right way to say it is "will have met if", but who is splitting beans?)
It depends on the reading you are taking, that is, it depends on your interpretation. A "photon" is supposed to be you falling into the past, I guess. (This is not religion, this is still a gedaken, getten?) If you are "going to hell" and hell moves away, you'd fall into that not-hell space that hell previously occupied and that was supposed to enclose you. The point of making a photon simultaneously inside out and outside in is that if hell moves and doesn't enclose you, you will enclose it. Similarly, and for the same reason, you can make it infinitely small of infinite sized. Guess that is the physics version of karma...
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking".
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me...
Oh, sure, now you tell me that... I won't put up with it. Take that back, Buhk!
Physical reality - well - not easy to know what physical reality is about - except to ask the mind of oneself -
Oh, stupid me - the simplest will of course be to ask people who knows -
Yes - agreed - Photon vs particle is about different scales (zoom level) of observation, and Qubits taking the same amount of space contain the same amount of information. Yes - if You by collapse implicate the transformation of photon wave trajectory into electron wave trajectory, it is a kind of copy-paste function, translating kinetic into so-called potential energy (information) - the information is the same but now being "stored" into a repetitive system.
Yes - agreed - Photon vs particle is about different scales (zoom level) of observation, and Qubits taking the same amount of space contain the same amount of information. Yes - if You by collapse implicate the transformation of photon wave trajectory into electron wave trajectory, it is a kind of copy-paste function, translating kinetic into so-called potential energy (information) - the information is the same but now being "stored" into a repetitive system.
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
Yeah - or perhaps better say that photon is information in transit and electron (particle) is information in situ.
It is not the soup disagreeing - it is the guest who cannot imagine the more subtle and lees obvious ingredients - and how these ingredients taste. Physicists are a bit like gourmands as opposed to gourmets.
It is not the soup disagreeing - it is the guest who cannot imagine the more subtle and lees obvious ingredients - and how these ingredients taste. Physicists are a bit like gourmands as opposed to gourmets.
Take that back, Buhk!
Sorry - I have this bad habit of placing the most important last.
So the question is:
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Answer 1:
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
Has anyone else noticed that if not all then nearly all equations describing the interactions within the universe are almost exclusively multiplication with many numbers squared, does anyone else think this may be significant?
this is due to the fact that units are arbitrary.
it follows from dimensional analysis.
The dead reappear!!!!! Good to see you, RC.
Yes, I can. The suddenly-stopped assembly would emit black-body radiation. Look:
QUOTE
for anyone interested, some interesting insights which would have come from fully considering the scenario embodied in my last question to you....
Now then, if the assembly is stopped dead an instant after the internal photon is emitted, then the upper 'atom-mirror' will NOT EVER 'see' that photon because that photon is STILL headed to where that upper atom-mirror WOULD have been if the assembly had been allowed to proceed to that 'forward' location
Now then, if the assembly is stopped dead an instant after the internal photon is emitted, then the upper 'atom-mirror' will NOT EVER 'see' that photon because that photon is STILL headed to where that upper atom-mirror WOULD have been if the assembly had been allowed to proceed to that 'forward' location
"Not ever" is the negation of verb "to see". Therefore it was included in the equation from the start since every verb can be its own negation. Since what was no longer is AND since the commitment to the future is still there from the very start because if it weren't, then the experiment would be dealing with the impossible, AND if at one point the commitment of "meeting" or "seeing" was there and at another it wasn't, THE at the precise moment the "not ever" happens, the future is broken by the assembly, and it would emit black-body radiation proportional to the differences between the distance that it is from the "meeting point" that will never be in relation to the radius of the photonic structure.
Afaik, there is no such thing as TWO photons since a photon can't both be stopped in time and interfere with itself by occupying space twice at the same time (it can interfere with itself, but not in this zoom level... that would be another soap box speech, I guess). It's kind of like judges: at any one time only one judge in the world can be a son of a bitch; two or more are all the sons of the same bitch, no matter how many mothers. (But I am just trying to be subtle... I can be a subtle guy too, see?)
In the experiment there was "one" photon emitted in the direction x such and such; if it was directed at x and it has a radius, then its radius is "infinity"; but since there are "two" directed photons at the same time, then both are part of the same photonic structure. Since "one" photon missed its target, the photonic structure itself is out of order and will correct itself by reordering its inner parts. The photon that "missed" its target will be occupying the black-body radiation emitted so that it doesn't interfere with itself so that the future is not broken.
So the "radius" of the complete photonic structure included both photons from the very start.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| for anyone interested, some interesting insights which would have come from fully considering the scenario embodied in my last question to you.... Now then, if the assembly is stopped dead an instant after the internal photon is emitted, then the upper 'atom-mirror' will NOT EVER 'see' that photon because that photon is STILL headed to where that upper atom-mirror WOULD have been if the assembly had been allowed to proceed to that 'forward' location |
"Not ever" is the negation of verb "to see". Therefore it was included in the equation from the start since every verb can be its own negation. Since what was no longer is AND since the commitment to the future is still there from the very start because if it weren't, then the experiment would be dealing with the impossible, AND if at one point the commitment of "meeting" or "seeing" was there and at another it wasn't, THE at the precise moment the "not ever" happens, the future is broken by the assembly, and it would emit black-body radiation proportional to the differences between the distance that it is from the "meeting point" that will never be in relation to the radius of the photonic structure.
Afaik, there is no such thing as TWO photons since a photon can't both be stopped in time and interfere with itself by occupying space twice at the same time (it can interfere with itself, but not in this zoom level... that would be another soap box speech, I guess). It's kind of like judges: at any one time only one judge in the world can be a son of a bitch; two or more are all the sons of the same bitch, no matter how many mothers. (But I am just trying to be subtle... I can be a subtle guy too, see?)
In the experiment there was "one" photon emitted in the direction x such and such; if it was directed at x and it has a radius, then its radius is "infinity"; but since there are "two" directed photons at the same time, then both are part of the same photonic structure. Since "one" photon missed its target, the photonic structure itself is out of order and will correct itself by reordering its inner parts. The photon that "missed" its target will be occupying the black-body radiation emitted so that it doesn't interfere with itself so that the future is not broken.
So the "radius" of the complete photonic structure included both photons from the very start.
We should re-do these type of experiment
"Snakes!"
"You go fast, Indy".
QUOTE
with a PARTICULAR aim of 'detecting' whether it is VELOCITY VECTOR ADDITION which sends the internal photon at the angle necessary to coincide with the forward position; OR whether it may be that there is some MOVING EMITTING ATOM 'SLINGSHOT EFFECT' which actually sends the photon at a 'forward' angle
The slingshot effect is true, it's caused by the black-body radiation, but I only have a faint notion of what you have in mind and it won't work. Whatever mathematics are needed are single, ugly-as-hell girls (:-), unmarried, and they have to be matched point by point --therefore canceled out-- by black-body radiation mathematics. Or is it red-shift? Or magnetism? I know that the information of all types of married maths must be exactly equal, and we know that "not ever" is the negation of the verb, so all I can say with certainty is that one type of mathematics must be exactly match the opposite types in number of rotations in n-space, except in another direction and I have no idea what I am saying at this point except that your predictive power should increase, not decrease.
(Foursome maths sounden gutten to me, but I no longer "know". You should know that that mind-set is gone permanently for me. GONE, I TELLS YOU!)
"Just 're-think about it' is all I wished to convey' with this gedanken":
You are not the boss of me. Make me think. Make me, I dare you! MAKE ME! MAKE M...
QUOTE
OR whether it may be that there is some MOVING EMITTING ATOM 'SLINGSHOT EFFECT' which actually sends the photon at a 'forward' angle.
BTW - what is a photon - what is a particle - ?
I favor the idea that spacetime best can be imagined as QFT - infinitely diluting into smaller and smaller with no well defined smallest -
This implicate that there must be a kind of integration in order to establish a "particle" and that the existence of particles is inevitably dependent on a kind of observer acting as the integrator, one that can integrate "events" = field-configurations - cinematographically over time into a movie-strip defining a particle.
So instead of thinking in terms of particle interactions and concepts of motion of particles - I favor the idea of thinking in terms of re-configurations of entities in scale-wise arranged grid-like structures with sharp transitions from one scale to the next - giving rise to total entanglement - no free void - only re-configurations - the latter resulting in the illusion of motion of particles.
Spacetime is the matrix defining physical Universe, and human is a part of this matrix - with the ability of self-perceiving. Fundamentally it is about how part of Universe(human) observes the surrounding Universe and construct a vivid impression of a "real physical world", via our physical senses, which is one scale in such a QFT construct.
IMO we need to step a little aside and redefine our perceiving metaphors - is the idea of smallest building blocks viable -or is it better to dig one step deeper and restart on a more fundamental level - ?
In such a more fundamental construct a photon will be a repetitive wave-like reconfiguration of smaller entities, which also can be defined as a certain and well defined information qubit and in the scale of the human physical sense of vision.
If this is seen as a totally non-relevant intrusion to the ongoing discussion in this thread - please ignore.
.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 1 2010, 07:34 PM)
BTW - what is a photon - what is a particle - ?
No one has the remotest idea what a photon is supposed to be. Mathematics tell you how it works, not what it is (same thing with the electron). You try to "see" the photon and you are left with the original atom except at a higher zoom. You end up with verbal tenses and angles of deviation from the future, and with orbitals, and (sub)information theory and otherwise a smelly soup of theories. When you say "where the photon would have met" the assembly you are describing the second orbit because the first orbit would be "would meet", not "would have met". (Technically, the right way to say it is "will have met if", but who is splitting beans?)
It depends on the reading you are taking, that is, it depends on your interpretation. A "photon" is supposed to be you falling into the past, I guess. (This is not religion, this is still a gedaken, getten?) If you are "going to hell" and hell moves away, you'd fall into that not-hell space that hell previously occupied and that was supposed to enclose you. The point of making a photon simultaneously inside out and outside in is that if hell moves and doesn't enclose you, you will enclose it. Similarly, and for the same reason, you can make it infinitely small of infinite sized. Guess that is the physics version of karma...
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking".
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
QUOTE
I favor the idea that spacetime best can be imagined as QFT - infinitely diluting into smaller and smaller with no well defined smallest
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I favor the idea that spacetime best can be imagined as QFT - infinitely diluting into smaller and smaller with no well defined smallest |
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
IMO we need to step a little aside and redefine our perceiving metaphors - is the idea of smallest building blocks viable -or is it better to dig one step deeper and restart on a more fundamental level - ?
I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me...
QUOTE
If this is seen as a totally non-relevant intrusion to the ongoing discussion in this thread - please ignore
Oh, sure, now you tell me that... I won't put up with it. Take that back, Buhk!
QUOTE
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level
This is just one little piece of nonsense among a much larger piece of nonsense.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 3 2010, 02:33 PM)
This is just one little piece of nonsense among a much larger piece of nonsense.
Fortunately, I don't give a *** what you think. Nor will I shut up. Go run to the mods, would you?
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Oct 3 2010, 02:17 PM)
Fortunately, I don't give a *** what you think. Nor will I shut up. Go run to the mods, would you?
Did I ask you to shut up? I simply pointed out that garbage you post has no relationship to physical reality.
You're free to post as much nonsense as you please. It is fortunate that you don't care for the opinions of anyone who actually knows something, because it will be continually pointed out that your posts are empty of any physics content.
Did I ask you to shut up? I simply pointed out that garbage you post has no relationship to physical reality.
You're free to post as much nonsense as you please. It is fortunate that you don't care for the opinions of anyone who actually knows something, because it will be continually pointed out that your posts are empty of any physics content.
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Oct 3 2010, 05:16 PM)
No one has the remotest idea what a photon is supposed to be. Mathematics tell you how it works, not what it is (same thing with the electron). You try to "see" the photon and you are left with the original atom except at a higher zoom. You end up with verbal tenses and angles of deviation from the future, and with orbitals, and (sub)information theory and otherwise a smelly soup of theories. When you say "where the photon would have met" the assembly you are describing the second orbit because the first orbit would be "would meet", not "would have met". (Technically, the right way to say it is "will have met if", but who is splitting beans?)
It depends on the reading you are taking, that is, it depends on your interpretation. A "photon" is supposed to be you falling into the past, I guess. (This is not religion, this is still a gedaken, getten?) If you are "going to hell" and hell moves away, you'd fall into that not-hell space that hell previously occupied and that was supposed to enclose you. The point of making a photon simultaneously inside out and outside in is that if hell moves and doesn't enclose you, you will enclose it. Similarly, and for the same reason, you can make it infinitely small of infinite sized. Guess that is the physics version of karma...
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking".
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
Or "bigger and bigger". Agreed. At least informationally it is. However, I had to wiki "QTF" to know what it was. Unfortunately, that was blue moons ago and I already forgot.
I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me...
Oh, sure, now you tell me that... I won't put up with it. Take that back, Buhk!
Physical reality - well - not easy to know what physical reality is about - except to ask the mind of oneself -
Oh, stupid me - the simplest will of course be to ask people who knows -
QUOTE
What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking".
Yes - agreed - Photon vs particle is about different scales (zoom level) of observation, and Qubits taking the same amount of space contain the same amount of information. Yes - if You by collapse implicate the transformation of photon wave trajectory into electron wave trajectory, it is a kind of copy-paste function, translating kinetic into so-called potential energy (information) - the information is the same but now being "stored" into a repetitive system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What I know is that a photon is a copy of the atom at another zoom level, and can't have any more nor any less information than what emitted it. Nor can it have more nor less information than what the "seer" can compute or otherwise informationally handle. The "photon" collapses when you have more information here at the receiver than there at the emitter, and you are left with the atom that did the "looking". |
Yes - agreed - Photon vs particle is about different scales (zoom level) of observation, and Qubits taking the same amount of space contain the same amount of information. Yes - if You by collapse implicate the transformation of photon wave trajectory into electron wave trajectory, it is a kind of copy-paste function, translating kinetic into so-called potential energy (information) - the information is the same but now being "stored" into a repetitive system.
So... photon is what is, there, and particle is what you look at, here.
Yeah - or perhaps better say that photon is information in transit and electron (particle) is information in situ.
QUOTE
I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me...
It is not the soup disagreeing - it is the guest who cannot imagine the more subtle and lees obvious ingredients - and how these ingredients taste. Physicists are a bit like gourmands as opposed to gourmets.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I need less ingredients in the soup, not more. Unfortunately, the soup doesn't agree with me... |
It is not the soup disagreeing - it is the guest who cannot imagine the more subtle and lees obvious ingredients - and how these ingredients taste. Physicists are a bit like gourmands as opposed to gourmets.
Take that back, Buhk!
Sorry - I have this bad habit of placing the most important last.
Correction
If anyone should be in doubt, the first two lines is of course directed to my friend Alex -
If anyone should be in doubt, the first two lines is of course directed to my friend Alex -
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 3 2010, 03:41 PM)
fortunate that you don't care for the opinions of anyone who actually knows
Wow! Maybe you didn't understand as I only said "Run to the mods" in English.
Here it is in good Klingon:
Do not expect to ever NOT be insulted in no uncertain terms by me. I am sick and tired of you and oily and alpha.
DIE, YUPPY SCUM. DIE RIGHTIST SCUM, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE D...
Sooooo... time for you to run to the modess.
Wow! Maybe you didn't understand as I only said "Run to the mods" in English.
Here it is in good Klingon:
QUOTE
"E entao, sangrando profusamente, o alex generico correu pro Modess igualzinho o alfafa."
Do not expect to ever NOT be insulted in no uncertain terms by me. I am sick and tired of you and oily and alpha.
DIE, YUPPY SCUM. DIE RIGHTIST SCUM, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE D...
Sooooo... time for you to run to the modess.
QUOTE (IAMoraes+Oct 3 2010, 11:44 PM)
Wow! Maybe you didn't understand as I only said "Run to the mods" in English.
Here it is in good Klingon:
Do not expect to ever NOT be insulted in no uncertain terms by me. I am sick and tired of you and oily and alpha.
DIE, YUPPY SCUM. DIE RIGHTIST SCUM, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE D...
Sooooo... time for you to run to the modess.
You should consider the possibility your head will collapse once the steam inside your empty skull starts to condense.
Here it is in good Klingon:
Do not expect to ever NOT be insulted in no uncertain terms by me. I am sick and tired of you and oily and alpha.
DIE, YUPPY SCUM. DIE RIGHTIST SCUM, DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE D...
Sooooo... time for you to run to the modess.
You should consider the possibility your head will collapse once the steam inside your empty skull starts to condense.
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 3 2010, 08:42 PM)
You should consider the possibility your head will collapse once the steam inside your empty skull starts to condense.
Get off this thread, mutherfuker.
[Moderator: Suspended 30 days for getting angry during a teachable moment.]
Get off this thread, mutherfuker.
[Moderator: Suspended 30 days for getting angry during a teachable moment.]
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 3 2010, 07:42 PM)
You should consider the possibility your head will collapse once the steam inside your empty skull starts to condense.
You think it hasn't happened yet? Read his posts.
You think it hasn't happened yet? Read his posts.
IAMoraes:
Just a humble 2 cents:
I think most of us aren't even qualified to accurately determine the unknown, because it is non-intuitive, and requires massive learning of the ways of reality just to make less mistakes; it's a maze that we can't fly above and see the entirety, not in 3D anyway. But where the data has led us to thus far, well you can't just toss that aside - the most brilliant minds we have had, have all contributed to where we are now. They deserve respect. Meanwhile, we can speculate all we want, as we are qualified at least to do that. But it's good to remember that our speculations are like a fireflies tail next to the midday sun of proven data. Even if a speculation proves right in some distant future, and no one here but you thought of it now, it still means nothing without the science to back it up. Intuitively seamless-looking theories can easily fall apart when you put them through the obstacle course. Those obstacles are very important.
Just a humble 2 cents:
QUOTE
No one has the remotest idea what a photon is supposed to be.
Lots of people have their idea of what a photon is supposed to be. What it actually is, is another thing. How can you say what it is, beyond what our observations and measurements and applied uses have determined, so far, what it actually is? "Is" may not be approachable, because it is an absolute. Physics delves closer to 'is-ness', and aspects and tangents of this we gather and struggle to make sense of. Maybe we figure the enchilada out, maybe we don't. I think most of us aren't even qualified to accurately determine the unknown, because it is non-intuitive, and requires massive learning of the ways of reality just to make less mistakes; it's a maze that we can't fly above and see the entirety, not in 3D anyway. But where the data has led us to thus far, well you can't just toss that aside - the most brilliant minds we have had, have all contributed to where we are now. They deserve respect. Meanwhile, we can speculate all we want, as we are qualified at least to do that. But it's good to remember that our speculations are like a fireflies tail next to the midday sun of proven data. Even if a speculation proves right in some distant future, and no one here but you thought of it now, it still means nothing without the science to back it up. Intuitively seamless-looking theories can easily fall apart when you put them through the obstacle course. Those obstacles are very important.
"All we are saying - is give peace a chance" -
Peace be with all those who both accept and forgive all wrongs of past history. We learn to move on to bigger and better objects.
These photons go through a rather strange and helical obstical corse from their relative perspective. Spinning and traveling through many objects. It also has waves moving beyond its influence.
These photons go through a rather strange and helical obstical corse from their relative perspective. Spinning and traveling through many objects. It also has waves moving beyond its influence.
I love this. I love it!
I read the intro - measured, really trying hard to do something positive in difficult theoretical circumstances, and then wanted to see where the thread had got to. It has descended into infantile squabbling and parental-style chastisement.
Might I assume that no sensible progress on this project was made? Which is a shame. Is there a page with 'This is how far we got'? Dear Originator, is there something theoretical or procedural we can learn from this?
'QUESTION 1' reminded me of the comment in the last chapter of Gravitation, that 'Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple' is the way to go. It's a great idea, but I've never had any success in approaching the problem that way.
So, come on, what have we learned?
I read the intro - measured, really trying hard to do something positive in difficult theoretical circumstances, and then wanted to see where the thread had got to. It has descended into infantile squabbling and parental-style chastisement.
Might I assume that no sensible progress on this project was made? Which is a shame. Is there a page with 'This is how far we got'? Dear Originator, is there something theoretical or procedural we can learn from this?
'QUESTION 1' reminded me of the comment in the last chapter of Gravitation, that 'Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple' is the way to go. It's a great idea, but I've never had any success in approaching the problem that way.
So, come on, what have we learned?
QUOTE (retaskeeter+Oct 21 2010, 08:53 PM)
I love this. I love it!
I read the intro - measured, really trying hard to do something positive in difficult theoretical circumstances, and then wanted to see where the thread had got to. It has descended into infantile squabbling and parental-style chastisement.
Might I assume that no sensible progress on this project was made? Which is a shame. Is there a page with 'This is how far we got'? Dear Originator, is there something theoretical or procedural we can learn from this?
'QUESTION 1' reminded me of the comment in the last chapter of Gravitation, that 'Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple' is the way to go. It's a great idea, but I've never had any success in approaching the problem that way.
So, come on, what have we learned?
The idea of an absolute concept is founded in the same realm as modern physics, the quantum.
The idea of everything beginning with an absolute concept does not have to therefore presuppose a beginning and an end.
Instead deal with everything as an interconnected whole.
I read the intro - measured, really trying hard to do something positive in difficult theoretical circumstances, and then wanted to see where the thread had got to. It has descended into infantile squabbling and parental-style chastisement.
Might I assume that no sensible progress on this project was made? Which is a shame. Is there a page with 'This is how far we got'? Dear Originator, is there something theoretical or procedural we can learn from this?
'QUESTION 1' reminded me of the comment in the last chapter of Gravitation, that 'Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple' is the way to go. It's a great idea, but I've never had any success in approaching the problem that way.
So, come on, what have we learned?
The idea of an absolute concept is founded in the same realm as modern physics, the quantum.
The idea of everything beginning with an absolute concept does not have to therefore presuppose a beginning and an end.
Instead deal with everything as an interconnected whole.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 18 2005, 10:30 PM)
So the question is:
QUESTION 1: WHAT IS THE ONLY ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT STARTING (PHYSICAL) CONCEPT FROM WHICH WE MAY BEGIN DEFINING ALL THOSE RELATIVE THINGS, LIKE ‘TIME’; MOTION; TEMPERATURE; WEIGHT; ORIENTATION; DISTANCE; AREA; VOLUME; AND SO ON?
Answer 1:
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
QUOTE (mpc755+Jan 25 2011, 04:53 PM)
Answer 1:
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.
The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. This causes the aether, where the airplane flies, to have the affect of 'flowing' east to west with respect to the surface of the Earth.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...tiv/airtim.html
"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations."
Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster.
Aether has mass.
Aether is displaced by matter.
Aether is not at rest when displaced.
Displaced aether exerts force towards matter.
Force exerted towards matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.
In a double slit experiment the particle travels a single path and enters and exits a single slit. It is the associated aether displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The aether displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits. It is this interference which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes a loss of coherence between the particle and its associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
There is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.
A change in state of that which has mass is energy.
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the force of the aether in which it exists.
The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is less connected to the Earth where the airplanes fly in the 'Hafele and Keating Experiment' than it is to the surface of the Earth. This causes the aether, where the airplane flies, to have the affect of 'flowing' east to west with respect to the surface of the Earth.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE...tiv/airtim.html
"Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations."
Flying with the Earth's rotation, eastward, is flying against the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a greater aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick slower. Flying against the Earth's rotation, westward, is flying with the 'flow' of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, causing a lower aether force on the atomic clock causing the atomic clock to tick faster.
OK lets see if I can get ignored again, I thought a forum was a place of disscussion and at least some of you guys seem to know what you are talking about. Third time lucky?
Any TOE needs to explain constants like the speed of light. It needs to explain where mass comes from. It needs to explain what the cause of the BB was and how to make something out of nothing at that point. It needs to explain gravity better than any current theory. It needs to explain the strange happenings at the quantum level. It needs to explain things like why does light from a candle travel at the same velocity as light from the sun the only difference is in intensity so what pushes or pulls energy to light speed.
It does not need - it nearly works so if I add some ficticious dimensions or the like I can make it work.
Remember maths is a way of describing the real world it is the interpretation that matters.
Has anyone else noticed that if not all then nearly all equations describing the interactions within the universe are almost exclusively multiplication with many numbers squared, does anyone else think this may be significant?
Finally I do have the frameworck of an idea that covers many of the things above.
Any TOE needs to explain constants like the speed of light. It needs to explain where mass comes from. It needs to explain what the cause of the BB was and how to make something out of nothing at that point. It needs to explain gravity better than any current theory. It needs to explain the strange happenings at the quantum level. It needs to explain things like why does light from a candle travel at the same velocity as light from the sun the only difference is in intensity so what pushes or pulls energy to light speed.
It does not need - it nearly works so if I add some ficticious dimensions or the like I can make it work.
Remember maths is a way of describing the real world it is the interpretation that matters.
Has anyone else noticed that if not all then nearly all equations describing the interactions within the universe are almost exclusively multiplication with many numbers squared, does anyone else think this may be significant?
Finally I do have the frameworck of an idea that covers many of the things above.
QUOTE (Ewol+Feb 7 2011, 01:46 AM)
Has anyone else noticed that if not all then nearly all equations describing the interactions within the universe are almost exclusively multiplication with many numbers squared, does anyone else think this may be significant?
this is due to the fact that units are arbitrary.
it follows from dimensional analysis.
universalelasticity.weebly.com
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.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.