To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Where is the program?
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2

OldWoman1904
If the universe has a program---do you guys think that it is an existing program that is running? Or do you think it is being written? Or a combination of both?

If there was a program, a seed, a code, if you will. Where do you think this program is located?

Within atoms? Within photons?

Where is the information?

one more thing---i asked a question a few times here but never really got any answers...may I ask again?

when trying to find chaos in the universe---what are some examples? Cosmic rays?

What is an example of total chaos that I can observe?

Thanks.

biggrin.gif

Latrosicarius
it's probably on sourfeforge
DocN
Look at your clothes after the washing machine is done washing--is it chaos?
Where is the "plan" when you make, bake or eat a cake?
Regards,
Doc
OldWoman1904
the missing socks--that's chaotic
OldWoman1904
sourfeforge?

you mean proprietory software?

That's a place where the info is stored----

duh---

what is your theory on where that location could be?

The program.......


i don't think anyone is going to venture to guess...

all I want is a guess....
Lalbatros
The universe itself is the program.
kaneda
The programme is to make one very large super-massive black hole from hydrogen.
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Apr 14 2007, 03:50 PM)
The universe itself is the program.

Here's no factual evidence for this stance. The AWT leads to the nearly infinite chain of nested selfsimmilar black holes, forming the individual Universe generations. Heres no apparent reason to simulate the very same process a number of time.

user posted image
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 14 2007, 04:10 PM)
The AWT leads to the nearly infinite chain of nested selfsimmilar black holes, forming the individual Universe generations.

And what is your explanation for the progenitor universe and how it came into existence?
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 14 2007, 07:55 PM)
And what is your explanation for the progenitor universe and how it came into existence?

It can still be a result of God's accidental creation or random mutation of physical laws or whatever else. The another question is, whether whole the concept of beginning is relevant for nature and causality understanding. In Nature no true beginning never occurs, everything is just a phase transform. By AWT the Universe has no true beginning, just the infinitelly dense state extrapolated to the infinitelly old history of Universe. We're still at the very beginning of the Universe existence understanding.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 14 2007, 05:09 PM)
1. It can still be a result of God's accidental creation or random mutation of physical laws or whatever else.

2. In Nature no true beginning never occurs, everything is just a
phase transform.

3. By AWT the Universe has no true beginning, just the infinitely dense state extrapolated to the infinitely old history of Universe. We're still at the very beginning of the Universe existence understanding.

1. No no, Zephir, I'm not allowing you to get away with that one wink.gif You don't know the answer, because it's a big hole in your theory, and then you tell me GOD did it!? Holy smokes, get under the table, the creationists are incoming! laugh.gif

2. Beginnings occur all the time. Like when there's a desert area, and it becomes a forest, that's the beginning of the forest. Forest animals will begin to live there. The ground will begin to become soil, rather than sand. I mean, these are all natural beginnings. And what about life itself, that began at some point,

(Creationists stop reading from here)



...billions of years ago. So of course there are beginnings in nature, you can't just say "Oh no, it's a state change. I mean, when a state has never occurred before, and then it occurs, one might say that it is a beginning for that state. And what of the big bang? That is the ultimate beginning. I suppose you don't believe that either?

3. Oh so you do believe in beginnings after all, just only when it applies to the beginning of understanding something, riight? dry.gif

Furthermore, I would like you to explain how you can have an 'infinite' history, because wouldn't that place us at the end of the infinite right now, if it was infinite before us? Do you not see the flaw in saying there was infinite history before us? Or are you going to tell me we're somewhere in between an infinite past and an infinite future, which kinda invalidates itself.
Zephir, beginnings are one of the most fundamental events in the universe. Everything begins.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 14 2007, 08:25 PM)
Everything begins

Everything just transforms. Furthermore, every existence of something requires the less or more hidden existence of something much more larger, bigger and heavier on the background. The existence of Internet is unthinkable without human society, the existence of human is unthinkable without biosphere, the existence of biosphere is unthinkable without Sun, the existence of Sun is unthinkable without galaxy and the existence of galaxy in unthinkable without existence of the whole Universe. While all these steps appears a pretty causual so far, I don't think, the existence of the whole Universe will be a fundamental difference.
Bryn Richards
So Zephir, if a state change has never happened before, and it occurs. Then how is that not a beginning of a state? One might say that 'life' is a state change from minerals and chemicals, but if life never happened before, then one can say that it has 'begun' at the point where it state changed from minerals/chemicals. I mean, I see where you're coming from, but I think trying to get rid of any beginning, is wrongheaded.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 14 2007, 08:40 PM)
I mean, I see where you're coming from, but I think trying to get rid of any beginning, is wrongheaded.

I can give you a different advice. Try to forget to the big programmers, as such idea doesn't explains anything, in fact. It's just a modern idea of God. Instead of this you can try to think about AWT motivations, about the self-contained worlds of infinite dimensions and so on. Maybe you'll find, how all the meaningful quantities can be derived from itself, mutually - maybe not. But at this moment such thinking appears a more independent and meaningful, then the relying on some programmers of Universe.

We should see, "just a 3D" universe is not insintric state of Universe at all. Until we'll found some particular evidence, here's no reason to assume the zero or unlimited number of dimensions here. But how or causality and Universe understanding will change, if we'll consider the infinite number of dimensions as a natural state of Universe at the very beginning?

Well, significantly, at least. All these highly dense and energetic states of pre Big Bang Universe will become the natural state of the Universe at the very beginning. Because we have no reason to expect, the three dimensions are natural state of Universe at the very beginning. Why just three? Why not 248, or -3,245 for example?
Lalbatros
The AWT leads to the nearly infinite chain of nested selfsimmilar posts contributing to the whole nothingness.
Zephir
QUOTE (Lalbatros+Apr 14 2007, 10:46 PM)
The AWT leads to the nearly infinite chain of nested selfsimmilar posts contributing to the whole nothingness.

This is a good insight indeed, congrats. You've just started to think about things by "AWT"'s way... wink.gif
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 14 2007, 07:04 PM)
1. Maybe you'll find, how all the meaningful quantities can be derived from itself, mutually - maybe not. But at this moment such thinking appears a more independent and meaningful, then the relying on some programmers of Universe.

2. We should see, "just a 3D" universe is not intrinsic state of Universe at all. Because we have no reason to expect, the three dimensions are natural state of Universe at the very beginning. Why just three? Why not 248, or -3,245 for example?

1. What programmers (Clarify) are you referring to, which I apparently rely on?

2. Well we do see just a 3D universe. It is impossible to visualize anything in higher dimensions, because our brains aren't capable of it. Until it can be proven that higher dimensions exist, I see no reason why I should start believing in them. At the moment, theorising about higher dimensions, is just a fanciful activity.
We can visualize things 2 and 3 dimensions - The former because it is more primitive and can be visualized by our brains. Whilst 1 dimensional is impossible to see, because it is a point of infinitely small size. Albeit our brains are capable of thinking in terms of 1 dimensional space, just not capable of seeing.
So whilst there 'may' be 248 or whatever, until we are able to prove such dimensions exist, they are merely relegated to conjecture.

What we can assume, is that there are 3 dimensions. That much we know and can prove.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 14 2007, 11:22 PM)
What programmers (Clarify) are you referring to, which I apparently rely on?

If you're proposing a "program concept" of Universe, you should realize, every program considers the existence of some programmer (between many other things) - or not?

QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 14 2007, 11:22 PM)
..we do see just a 3D universe. It is impossible to visualize anything in higher dimensions, because our brains aren't capable of it...

Here's many hypersphere or tesseract models on the web. Furthemore, our ability to imagine something has nothing to do with the existence of something.

user posted image user posted image
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 14 2007, 08:24 PM)
1. If you're proposing a "program concept" of Universe, you should realize, every program considers the existence of some programmer (between many other things) - or not?

2. Here's many hypersphere or tesseract models on the web. Furthemore, our ability to imagine something has nothing to do with the existence of something.

1. I see where you're going with this, you are insinuating that for there to be a beginning, requires a creator. I've had similar things stated to me by religious people.
However, the way I've theorised the big bang, eliminates the need for a creator. Hence why I don't really have a problem answering such criticism. I'll elaborate the theory for you, if you want to hear it, as I don't shove it down peoples throats.

2. If they were truly pictures which could display 4 dimensions, then we would not be able to visualize them with our eyes, because our brains are not capable of processing anything 4 dimensional or above. Those pictures are 3 dimensional, albeit on a 2 dimensional screen laugh.gif Yes indeed, I can well imagine them as being 3 dimensional models.
Majkl
Infinite recursion appears if one treats matter or universe as a program. Like allready said here there would always be need for a program behind the program which leads to no conclusion.
Majkl
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Apr 13 2007, 02:04 PM)
What is an example of total chaos that I can observe?


Total chaos would be logically impossible to observe.
tlocity
Majkl
QUOTE
Infinite recursion appears if one treats matter or universe as a program. Like allready said here there would always be need for a program behind the program which leads to no conclusion.


Your view is only correct if you restrict the programmer to the time domain. Your view is correct that a being outside of time must have created the universe. The ability to understand or accept this fact is irrelevant to the fact. If you are able to accept this concept then a whole new view of the universe will open for you.
bukh
Everything begins --

Or something has always been -

And this something is the Potential - the potential of creating whatever.

That is what is called the informational world - presenting all kind of information which eventually can expres itsself in - again - anything.

Our physical world - the Universe - "started" when the informational world "Decided" to expres itsself into a physical world -

And one can easily imagine that other parts of the informational world parallel expresses itsself in many (any) other forms - forms that we as physical creatures never will be aware of.
tlocity
Bukh
QUOTE
Everything begins --

Or something has always been -

And this something is the Potential - the potential of creating whatever.

That is what is called the informational world - presenting all kind of information which eventually can expres itsself in - again - anything.

Our physical world - the Universe - "started" when the informational world "Decided" to expres itsself into a physical world -

And one can easily imagine that other parts of the informational world parallel expresses itsself in many (any) other forms - forms that we as physical creatures never will be aware of.


That is a lot of words to say that God created everything.
Vivlav
excuse my ignorance and if this has been stated in another way i apologize. but as I understand it non locality of every partice/wave in existance would have me understand that beginnings dont really exist. if every piece is a part of a whole, can you not go indefinately smaller or larger or longer or shorter?

I think that yes, a forest from a desert would be the "beginning" or something but that is only based on the perspective of the observer. And if there is a "master code" or the program version of reality than again with our inability to think infinately we can put a time of everything, but that is only relative again to a humans ability to interpret it.

with every year we learn new scientific principles our understanding (and perspective) on not just possibilities but "facts" changes. I think it is quite pointless to say no to any perspective thesis or antithesis that cannot be accepted or denied based on our limited perspective. To say one way is definately right in this case...whether it be the programmatic, godhead, or infinite model cannot be right or wrong but can only be determined by the observer and his ability to understand the world around him.
Zephir
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 15 2007, 10:16 AM)
Total chaos would be logically impossible to observe.

Yep, this is a good point. The actions of the constituents of such chaos will compensate mutually, so no true action can really exist at the distance.

Another point is, the harmonic motion in many dimensions will always appear like the chaotic motion, being observed in low dimensional space-time. As no upper limit for number of dimensions inside of Universe apparently exist, we can say, the Universe as such doesn't exist at all - it compensates itself at the distance.

Just because we are living in low dimensional space, we can observe something. The Universe as a whole cannot exist at all.
tlocity
Vivlav
If you look for answers using sound reason and logic you will get sound answers that are reasonable and logical. If you go off on a non-reality search that is what you will find.

Much of quantum mechanics has followed the not reality path. The reason for following this path is simple, the other path is more difficult and weird ideas get more press.

Simple observation will show you some of the many attributes of the universe. These include all the laws of physics and the attributes of man. Since there is no indication that, the requirement of cause and effect and the source can not be less then the result has ever been broken. It is clear that a source that has all or more then the attributes we see in the universe is by definition of God. Until a source that has less attributes then the universe, that caused the universe, is found, the answer for the cause of the universe is and must be God.
Vivlav
totally understood, and believe me my perspective on what the godhead is changes nearly daily, however, my faith which might not be a conversation for this forum has not changed. I see, even when my understanding and perspective of the universe, thought, and physical manifestation changes, I tend, maybe because of my prior beliefs, to incorporate that into my faith that god did "start" this creation....if you can say start or begin or whatever. Understanding what I do now, though i have not heard enough to say that for fact, that time does not exist....I say start to put it relatively. In fact, my "faith" in that reality increases with the more I know about science in general.

Zephir
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 15 2007, 11:37 AM)
Until a source that has less attributes then the universe, that caused the universe, is found, the answer for the cause of the universe is and must be God

The problem is, by which attributes the whole Universe differs from God? I can see no apparent difference. By such way, the Universe has created itself.
Vivlav
is the current understanding of physics that there are multiple universes? and if so, is there something even greater than a universe? I ask this seriously by the way lol. Anyway, if so, great this universe created itself, but there seems to be an infinately greater and greater mechanism, one after the other, I dont think the human mind could fathom that infinity, so I agree and disagree I guess that the universe created itself, im sure it did but I dont think that is but a spec onto the greater whole of actual existance, which i believe cannot be measured using any means known by any imagination. This infinateness and since things seemed to be somewhat ordered in this chaos, I can say that for me, I view this as one aspect of a larger order. And again, to me, I call this the godhead.

There is a lot more to this and im sure we could talk and debate such ideas for hours. I think that Zephir made a good point....we can perceive because of the level of reality we are on. I dont know or really care actually if you call the universe as existing or not existing it seems to all really be the same point either way, call it the universe creating itself, or part of a larger whole where a godhead created this universe.
Zephir
QUOTE (Vivlav+Apr 15 2007, 11:54 AM)
is the current understanding of physics that there are multiple universes?

By AWT our Universe is formed by black hole sitting inside of another, more dense Universe, which is formed by the same way, so its better to say, here are rather Universe generations of some "meta/hyper Universe".

user posted image user posted image

The trick is, the outer Universe must be smaller and more dense, then the inner Universe which is sitting inside of it. By such way, the whole "meta/hyper Universe" is infinitely small from outer observer perspective, while it's an infinitely large from inner observer perspective. The idea of large object sitting inside of smaller one appear strange at the first sight, but in fact it doesn't violate the Newtonian or relativity theory at all at the high gravity field curvatures. It's even quoted in the novel The Good Soldier Svejk from Jaroslav Hasek, which has known prof. Einstein personally. By such way, by reading of Hasek's book you can learn, how our Universe is made. wink.gif
Vivlav
as you told me in another thread...definately going to have to get information on AWT.....though i have read a bit about this stuff....most seems to be out of date in terms of new revelations....thanks!
Vivlav
Zephir:
ust because we are living in low dimensional space, we can observe something. The Universe as a whole cannot exist at all.


can you explain this a bit? I mean based on perspective does it not exist? I agree that there is something much bigger and our interpretation of the universe being this physical mass is definately incorrect....but what does exist if the "universe" does not? if nothing, and I definately mean this in a non cynical way, then what is tha approach you take to thought being manifest as reality? PK and other such phenomena as stigmatics, etc show that imagination can be perceived reality based on the multiple receptors points in our immune and skeletal (bone regeneration) and other systems that have yet to be defined.

Im not saying think of a flying pink elephant and it will exist, but can you really put a limit on imagination as being reality....is that not perception in the first place?
tlocity
QUOTE
The problem is, by which attributes the whole Universe differs from God? I can see no apparent difference. By such way, the Universe has created itself.


From your viewpoint, you are correct. The point you must consider is that the universe or anything else can be self-creating in a condition of time. There is always a time before a time….

The only possible solution is that all things in the universe and even time it self is the result of an action out side of time. This is referred to as eternity. It is a condition without time. Everything in eternity is now, all at once. This is also in perfect agreement with the nature of God. It was best stated by God Himself “I am who am”.

If we can see and accept this then it makes our understanding of the nature of the universe much easier to understand.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The problem is, by which attributes the whole Universe differs from God? I can see no apparent difference. By such way, the Universe has created itself.


From your viewpoint, you are correct. The point you must consider is that the universe or anything else can be self-creating in a condition of time. There is always a time before a time….

The only possible solution is that all things in the universe and even time it self is the result of an action out side of time. This is referred to as eternity. It is a condition without time. Everything in eternity is now, all at once. This is also in perfect agreement with the nature of God. It was best stated by God Himself “I am who am”.

If we can see and accept this then it makes our understanding of the nature of the universe much easier to understand.


is the current understanding of physics that there are multiple universes? and if so, is there something even greater than a universe? I ask this seriously by the way lol. Anyway, if so, great this universe created itself, but there seems to be an infinately greater and greater mechanism, one after the other, I dont think the human mind could fathom that infinity, so I agree and disagree I guess that the universe created itself, im sure it did but I dont think that is but a spec onto the greater whole of actual existance, which i believe cannot be measured using any means known by any imagination. This infinateness and since things seemed to be somewhat ordered in this chaos, I can say that for me, I view this as one aspect of a larger order. And again, to me, I call this the godhead.

There is a lot more to this and im sure we could talk and debate such ideas for hours. I think that Zephir made a good point....we can perceive because of the level of reality we are on. I dont know or really care actually if you call the universe as existing or not existing it seems to all really be the same point either way, call it the universe creating itself, or part of a larger whole where a godhead created this universe.


When we accept that the universe is a condition of time and time is dynamic, always changing requires that all things in the universe are dynamic. There is nothing that is static. Space and time are of the same nature. Our experience of space is not that space is changing but that we move in space. Time is the same. Time is not changing but we perceive our motion as the passing of time. The condition of space and time we call dimensions. The relationship between these two dimensions is seen in the speed of light. The speed of light gives an absolute relationship between space and time. Light will travel one Planck distance in one Planck time.

I can go on and on but this is intended to be just an example of accepting reality and knowing the difference between absolute and relative relations.
Zephir
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 15 2007, 12:28 PM)
There is always a time before a time….

Yes, but nobody says, whether the previous time will be more slower, then the subsequent time. And nobody says, how such series of times will converge into infinity in subsequent universe generations, while going more a more deeply into Universe history. While we know, the infinitelly dense Universe is infinitelly chaotic and dimensional, the time speed will slow down to the zero for such Universe.
tlocity
Zephir
QUOTE
Yes, but nobody says, whether the previous time will be more slower, then the subsequent time. And nobody says, how such series of times will converge into infinity in subsequent universe generations, while going more a more deeply into Universe history. While we know, the infinitelly dense Universe is infinitelly chaotic and dimensional, the time will slow down to the zero for such Universe.


I need to disagree with you. nothing is known about the early universe and the nature of chaos in a condition or uniform plasma. There is every indication that the early universe followed all the laws of physics and therefore could not be considered chaotic.

Time is not something that slows down or speeds up just as space does not slow down or speed up.

The universe has infinite number of dimensions and is a framework. None of the dimensions change, only actions in a dimension change. Time is motion in a direction we consider the time dimension. There is nothing different about the time dimension then any other dimension. The only thing that makes the time dimension different is that we are moving in that dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. That motion gives us a reference for all other actions that take place in our universe.

The motion in the time dimension started at the big bang and all that is the universe has continued outward at a rate equal to the speed of light.

In the early universe, there was no gravity. Gravity is the result of mass objects and the early universe had no mass objects. Gravity also does not act directly on functions of time.
Zephir
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 15 2007, 01:24 PM)
... that the early universe followed all the laws of physics and therefore could not be considered chaotic....

The chaos existence is not in contradiction of physical laws as tall - on the contrary. For example, the center of dense object becomes hot and chaotic just because of physical laws.

user posted image

I'm extrapolating the early state of Universe just from existing laws (which can be the source of potential problem, indeed). And the chaotic state is not noncausual at all, it just undulates in many dimensions, while remaining a perfectly causal and deterministic from such perspective.

You didn't read/understood the AWT very much, do you?

QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 15 2007, 01:24 PM)
... The only thing that makes the time dimension different is that we are moving in that dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light....

Why not. Why yes? Why?? How did you come into it??? Without reasoning you can still be right, but your stance becomes a non causual, chaotic atemporal babbling. It hasn't inertial effects, it doesn't attract or repulse anything or anybody, it doesn't exist at all in general perspective by the same way, like the Universe as a whole... wink.gif
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (tlocity+Apr 15 2007, 09:28 AM)
There is always a time before a time

There was no Time before Time began, because Time cannot exist until it has begun.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 15 2007, 02:49 PM)
There was no Time before Time began, because Time cannot exist until it has begun.

The concept of "beginning" always assumes the existence of some another time in history. The semantic doesn't supply some usable clue for the decision/solution of this paradox, because its all based on the tautology. After all, whole the concept of time is pretty symmetric and observer dependent, in fact. We can say easily, the time dimension has never appeared, as the early universe has contained an infinite number of time dimensions in equillibrium in spatial dimensions instead, which have had compensated mutually. We should realize, here wasn't any conceptual difference between the space and time dimensions in early stages of Universe. And here are a many possible ways, how to scramble the situation at the very beginning... wink.gif
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 15 2007, 11:55 AM)
The concept of "beginning" always assumes the existence of some another time in history. The semantic doesn't supply some usable clue for the decision/solution of this paradox, because its all based on the tautology. After all, whole the concept of time is pretty symmetric and observer dependent, in fact. We can say easily, the time dimension has never appeared, as the early universe has contained an infinite number of time dimensions in equillibrium in spatial dimensions instead, which have had compensated mutually. We should realize, here wasn't any conceptual difference between the space and time dimensions in early stages of Universe. And here are a many possible ways, how to scramble the situation at the very beginning... wink.gif

Not really Zephir, I still don't think you've given any good reason to discredit a beginning of Time. It sounds fine to me, Time began at 0s. There was nothing before, but there was, from that point onwards. I see no problem with this. It's such a simple explanation and solves the problem of conservation of energy, because energy did not exist until Time began. Think about it; if Time hasn't begun; if Time isn't active, then literally nothing can exist, because everything requires Time, in order to exist.
I don't see where you got the idea that the concept of a beginning, requires the existence of something before the beginning, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous, as if anything exists before the beginning, then it invalidates the whole beginning because the very nature of a beginning, requires that nothing occur before it. Hence why I say, nothing actually did occur before Time began, hence why it is fine as a theory.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 15 2007, 03:26 PM)
There was nothing before, but there was, from that point onwards.

But it seems, the Universe was in so dense state at the very beginning, the energy spreading and all processes have occurred by infinite low speed. By such way, we can say, the Universe is infinitely old anyway and no real time beginning has ever occurred at all. Well, even if we detect some beginning accidentally, I can still say, we aren't observing the very original generation of Universe.... wink.gif And so on...

In fact, whole the discussion about origin of time appears a tautological for me, because it solely depends on the semantic, which I can choose for its "reasoning". I'm afraid, here's no way, how to understand the Universe beginning. In fact, I can say, the Universe formation is the continuous process insomuch, that in every moment every point of Aether can evolve in new, fully fledged Universe sometimes later. Maybe we are swimming in the ocean of the newly evolving Universes like inside of caviar can, who knows?

User posted image
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 15 2007, 12:58 PM)
But it seems, the Universe was in so dense state at the very beginning, the energy spreading and all processes have occurred by infinite low speed. By such way, we can say, the Universe is infinitely old anyway and no real time beginning has ever occurred at all. Well, even if we detect some beginning accidentally, I can still say, we aren't observing the very original generation of Universe.... wink.gif And so on...

What you say, is merely based upon the assumption that all matter in the universe, spread outwards at an 'infinitely slow' rate. You have given no logic to back up such a claim of infinite slowness in outward spreading. Obviously you are trying to insinuate that if all matter was focused on one point, that the gravity of that point, would be so strong that a black hole would form, basically stopping all matter from expanding outwards. To this, I say that even thought there may have been the density of matter at that time, in order to create a black hole. In order to understand my explanation for a way around this, we'll need to consider my own theories on black holes and fundamental particles: There were unfortunately no higher forms of matter at the moment of the big bang, and even shortly afterwards, which could be effectively held by a black hole. I am not a believer in the old saying "Nothing can escape a black hole", because I fully believe that it can. Some say that photons cannot escape a black hole, but I think they don't, mostly because when they enter the singularity, they are recycled into more more fundamental particles, before they can escape again.
Therefore, in the beginning, the state change from energy to the most fundamental particle, would be such that a black hole could not hold anything, nor recycle anything because it was already the most recycled form of matter (A fundamental particle).
If matter began as 'atoms', then maybe a black hole would form and your whole 'infinite slowness' would occur, however, they did not begin as atoms, they began as particles which black holes simply cannot hold, nor recycle. Even if a black hole did form, and managed to swallow whatever higher forms of particles had formed, the black hole would merely recycle them down to fundamental particles, whilst the vast majority of matter would still be fundamental, and therefore have the time to escape outwards in all directions, diffusing into 'empty space', which we know, is the quickest kind of diffusion. Basically, by the time matter started to become in the majority, higher forms of matter; it was already too late to stop the matter with a black hole. Matter had already expanded beyond reach, and has continued to do so until the present day.

This is my theory of it, anyway. So yes, a beginning IS possible.
bukh
Hej Tiocity

--"That is a lot of words to say that God created everything."

Well - I think I made it short - but any idea put forward about the beginning must be related to what each individual finds most palatable. If you like - please - you can have God involved.

OldWoman1904
Kaneda.....................shut up ohmy.gif




Ok, that's a possiblity......... unsure.gif

do you have another theory.........
OldWoman1904
Anyone read that news the theory of the stars of the universe being arranged like beads on a necklace?

I don't know how to post the link...but if you guy's google it....

it's so very interesting....

when I think of the core of the stars.....don't you think they have to be related to a gyroscope? How can the center be a sphere? The vertical axes? Is it crazy to think that they have to be a rigid body? A bar? A cylinder? A ring?

ring dry.gif

The center of the universe.......has a vertical axis...and all the suns of the Milky Way orbit the center? Is that how it goes? And planets orbit those suns?

When I was trying to physically imagine this in my mind, the theory of the beaded necklace seemed logical......

Now, several times I've read news that the universe seems to be organized in vast sheets of matter.....

But the question was, where is the program......the code, if you will....

I guess that it is in the nucleus......the proton......the core......

but what is processing the information?
OldWoman1904
Hey, you guys remember when I was asking the question about chaos.....

Nobody gave me an answer really....... blink.gif

An example of something totally chaotic that I could observe? From every perspective chaotic?

Someone suggested mutations? Is that chaotic? Cosmic rays? Are they chaotic?

What causes mutations? A mistake in processing? Or programming?

Or is it a result of interference or interaction of some sort?

Anyone?
OldWoman1904
ohmy.gif

precession.....

on a gyroscope.......one end of the spin axis is fixed.....it must be...

one end fixed to a point with no friction.....

am i talking to myself.....

I'm asking you guys for theories but mostly you guys just want to give me facts.....

blink.gif
OldWoman1904
Have you guys heard of Plasmonics?



bukh
Hej OldWomen 1904

--"But the question was, where is the program......the code, if you will....
I guess that it is in the nucleus......the proton......the core......
but what is processing the information?"

I would say that the code is in everything - it is in the nucleus.

Origen is the Informational World - containing all and any possible information - all and any requirement for expressing anything. Informational orld has always been -

Our Universe is the expression of that little part of Informational World into this particular physical world which happens to be our Universe.

In order for the Informational World to express itsself into Universe - the very first thing the Informational World (or part of it) has to do - is to take the form of physical world. Informational World must take a physical space - it must make a volume, and Informational World must Particle-late.

Particle-lation in physical world has a lower limit - defined by kolmogorov scale - and this has to be obeyed. So fundamental shape will contain Informational World (or holographic part of it) inside a physical form where the boundaries (walls) are physical - because they fulfill the requirement of smallest size in physical world - and inside, the nucleus - yes the inside contains the code - but in a form which is not physical in the sense that it can be envisaged - because it cannot be part of physical world. Exactly as suggested in the thread "Particles have mass--" - by Ivars and undersigned.
Vivlav
the study of holographic interpretations of reality can explain a lot in my very uneducated opinion on the subject.....
Zephir
QUOTE (Vivlav+Apr 16 2007, 11:11 AM)
...the study of holographic interpretations of reality can explain a lot in my very uneducated opinion on the subject.....

Which one, for example?
bukh
Hej Zephir

"QUOTE (Vivlav @ Apr 16 2007, 11:11 AM)
...the study of holographic interpretations of reality can explain a lot in my very uneducated opinion on the subject.....

Which one, for example?"

That we do not know as yet.

A good working hypothesis must be as complete as possible - and falsifications are the onle way forward.

The lack of all present hypothesis is the lack of including anything about information.

Perhaps information is the basis of Everything.

Let us start with the whole concept of Energy?

If we say that Energy involves Motion, then motion is based upon some kind of definition of one "Being" to another "Being", one physical expression to another physical expression, and that means that it is necessary to be able to define/describe one well-defined expression (particle - wave - whatever) to another and well-defined expression, and this relates intimately to INFORMATION.

So when we are talking about "high/very high/hard to understand high" concentrations/densities of energy in the primordial matter/elementary particles/fundamental shapes - or whatever we choose to say, then it perhaps on the bottom line is a matter of INFORMATION.

So Yes - information is a surprisingly overlooked phenomenon in this context. And BTW not included in AWT




OldWoman1904
Bukh-- blink.gif I love you.

OldWoman1904
But I don't get the part about the code not being in the physical world.
Inside the nucleus, the code----what do you mean it is not in the physical world?
It has to be. You're suggesting it is an image of this code? From a non-physcial realm of information......

But I totally absorbed everything else you said......you're a genius person.....
bukh
Dear OldWoman 1904

Thank you for your kind words-

And Yes - I understand that you cannot accept my phrasing that Informational world on one hand is part of physical world and on the other hand that it is not

This is namely the beautiful triggy problem - that on one side Informational World is in the nucleus - inside - fundamental shape - but because fundamental shape is the smallest "shall we call it particle" that can exist in physical world - the nucleus cannot have anything related to physical world - exept - and listen - except that informational world has to take the form of a volume -

And if you read the thread "Particles Have mass How" you will find more about this new concept by Ivars and I.
OldWoman1904
INFORMATION

"knowledge communicated or received about a particular subject"

"data, collected through experiment......."

huh.gif

Stored where? And how? Is all universe information stored as binary units?

A code-a line of organized bits---organized in a specific physical structure as to be processed by.........

Processed by.............. blink.gif

by what?

OldWoman1904
QUOTE (bukh+Apr 16 2007, 01:42 PM)
except that informational world has to take the form of a volume -

And if you read the thread "Particles Have mass How" you will find more about this new concept by Ivars and I.

the informational world blink.gif

ok

has to take the form of a volume dry.gif ...............this is the communication part?

ok...I guess maybe I don't get the informational part............the world of information.....data......

Guess that does leave me at the question about the programmer--

what collected and organized the "stuff" to create the data?

What is the "stuff" if there is no "stuff" to experiment upon?

But ok, I will go read the Particles have Mass....
bukh
OldWoman

"Is all universe information stored as binary units?"

why do you suggest binary units -?

--"A code-a line of organized bits---organized in a specific physical structure as to be processed by.........
Processed by..............
by what?"

no - not organized in a specific physical structure - Information is without space - but has taken the form of space/volume.

--"What is the "stuff" if there is no "stuff" to experiment upon?"

Informational World is not open for our eyes - can be "seen" only indirectly via its physical expression
Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+Apr 16 2007, 02:31 PM)
...Yes - information is a surprisingly overlooked phenomenon in this context. And BTW not included in AWT...

You're right, the AWT doesn't use the information concept at all. Simply because my understanding is, no information can be exchanged without carrier, represented usually by countable wave packets of Aether, i.e. the particles. Therefore I simply bother just by matter, not by the information.

The concept of information can still be deduced from AWT as a sort of abstraction of quantized particles (quabits) in apparently void environment, i.e. the dual model of the whole observable Universe. But by my understanding, the information cannot have mass or weight as such, it cannot have the energy, it cannot influence the physical world. And the existence of another world has no meaning in AWT, until you prove the opposite.

Even the most abstract concepts, developed by people are serving to the only target: to intensify the mass/energy spreading and exchange through civilization in the future, so even these Platonic ideas are driven by Newtonian dynamic and they're behaving like Aether density fluctuation in hyperspace, formed by human society. We are just a giant particles, exchanging the ideas by the same way, like the fermions are exchanging the bosons to improve their fitness. Here are many analogies between information and energy/matter spreading. The ideas are attracting and aligning the human thinking, like the spongeous density fluctuations are attracting the energy, which is spreading via surface waves. Therefore the ideas are the analogy of density fluctuations in the social consciousness environment. Or superstrings, if u wan't to use the modern terminology, which hides the true nature of these artifacts, indeed.
bukh
hej Zephir

--"But by my understanding, the information cannot have mass or weight as such, it cannot have the energy, it cannot influence the physical world. And the existence of another world has no meaning in AWT, until you prove the opposite."

How would you like to express / explain such qualities as mass - weight - energy - if you are requested to come up with a good bet.
Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+Apr 16 2007, 08:18 PM)
How would you like to express / explain such qualities as mass - weight - energy - if you are requested to come up with a good bet.

The existence of few quantities is just a particular problem. By my understanding, the mass and energy follows from the formal model of infinite number od dimensions of geometric space completely, i.e. the formal number theory is able to describe these quantities completely.

But it still doesn't explain, why is it so.... wink.gif Why the Universe behaves like the infinitely chaotic piece of smart dust? Why some dimensions exist at all?

We just aren't able to handle the numbers smaller then zero or larger then infinity. We can add a dimensions. We can add a dimensions of dimensions, and so on.

The theory still remains recursive. wink.gif
Vivlav
which holographic interpretation? well i didnt want to say theory as it is not a theory in and of itself by its own admission.....

just as when you take a holographic image onto holographic paper...then you take a piece of that paper, does not matter how small or large...then you use it as the medium for the hologram....it will display the whole image of the original hologram.....non locality as it is called.....each piece of hte paper doesnt contain the small piece of the picture as in a piece of paper you would write on....but actually contains the entire image in each small piece....and it can go on and on....however the more you go on....the less defined the image will be....

if we are at a very low dimension of space....then we are a very undefined image of the whole....though again...each peice of us...each quanta contains the entire program as well....using the holographic model......and on the flip side....we are just a piece compared to the universe and so on and so on.....

i guess soemthing that i want to know is.....out side of the infiniteness that the holographic model represents....and other theories and postulates represent.....is there anything? not that this can ever be proven and really only every postulated on or whatever....but i am always thinking about that.
Zephir
QUOTE (Vivlav+Apr 16 2007, 08:53 PM)
....we are just a piece compared to the universe and so on and so on...

And the Universe can appear as a piece with compare to us from outside.... wink.gif The program for generation of the whole universe is easy: the change of energy density is the matter density, the change of matter density serves as a energy energy. All changes are cumulative.
bukh
Hej Zephir

--"By my understanding, the mass and energy follows from the formal model of infinite number od dimensions of geometric space completely, i.e. the formal number theory is able to describe these quantities completely."

For me this answer is difficult to decode!

--"We just aren't able to handle the numbers smaller then zero or larger then infinity."

Are you seriously claiming that you can handle numbers up to infinity - and then no bigger!

And please feel free - I really do not expect an answer on this.
Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+Apr 16 2007, 10:50 PM)
the mass and energy follows from the formal model of infinite number of dimensions of geometric space ....For me this answer is difficult to decode!

Try to imagine the particle, which is undulating in many directions at the same time. The projection of its motion into 3D space will appear chaotic. While we are saying, such particle has a "high energy", from high dimensional perspective it's still a cool lazy particle, which undulates in many dimensional space. The Fourier transform of chaotic noise can be converted into superposition of many harmonic motions. The very same result can be achieved by collapsing of many inertial points into singularity. These particles will move randomly, which is result of the fact, every particle of space is surrounded by the nearly infinite number of particles at the same time.

user posted image

By such way, the high energetic noncausual motion of many hot & dense particles can be converted into inertial low energy motion in sufficiently high number of spatial dimensions. We can just live in 3D dimensions, so that the conditions inside of physical singularity aren't very friendly for us. But as we cannot expect, the Universe is limited in upper number of dimensions, we should suppose, such form of Universe existence is very natural, in fact. How many dimensions such Universe should have, if not zero (from outside view) or infinite (from inside perspective)?

QUOTE (bukh+Apr 16 2007, 10:50 PM)
Are you seriously claiming that you can handle numbers up to infinity - and then no bigger!

How much is + 1 = ?
bukh
OK Zeph

--"How much is ? + 1 = ?"

Thank you anyhow, I choose not to take it too serious.
OldWoman1904
i really want to understand what the heck you people are saying.....

I need time to read these posts........Lots of time.....

But I am at work.........

I'll be back ph34r.gif

Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 16 2007, 05:35 PM)
We just aren't able to handle the numbers smaller then zero

That's like saying you want "Less than nothing". You should really stop and listen to yourself sometimes.
OldWoman1904
less than nothing.....

an electron hole......

a big one.....

ph34r.gif


lemme ask you guys something--

how do you stay sane and study physics at the same time.....

it's insane...........

INSANE I SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

blink.gif

Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 17 2007, 12:32 AM)
That's like saying you want "Less than nothing".

But this is exactly how the Universe causality is working. We should handle the laws of infinite recursion here. The existing math models of infinity are still very rough and primitive here.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 16 2007, 09:42 PM)
But this is exactly how the Universe causality is working.

Well it must be wrong then, because 'less than nothing' sounds ridiculous.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Apr 16 2007, 09:42 PM)
lemme ask you guys something--
how do you stay sane and study physics at the same time.....
it's insane...........

For me it's..

Firstly, by staying away from as much Maths as possible.
Secondly, by approaching all things in Physics, with logic and reason.
Thirdly, by not accepting anything crazy, until the craziness has been shown to be quite well-thought out and backed-up with some evidence, thus making it un-crazy.
Fourthly, by having some good old fashioned common-sense, as your intellectual compass.

Not too hard.
OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 16 2007, 11:06 PM)
Well it must be wrong then, because 'less than nothing' sounds ridiculous.

huh.gif what?

ridiculous........

most of science sounds ridiculous......
OldWoman1904
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 16 2007, 11:21 PM)
For me it's..


Not too hard.

Bryan,

bullcaca ok?

you cannot tell me that these ideas do not monopolize your thoughts-----

proof.......evidence.................


unsure.gif

yea right......
Ivars
The program of Universe is maintained in the middle phase of Aether which handles the transformation between information and Real physical spaces.

This program is basically constrained mathematics. The constraints come from Monster group which arises from the need to have concrete geometric figure - Klein bottle and may be other Mobius surfaces - triangulated with a given HUGE number of few geometric shapes. Projective Maths = surface structure of this Klein bottle - act as a holographic lens projecting Information space into real in totallity, so it establishes the global structure of what is.

That program is all powerful as nothing can pass it if it wishes to cross the chasm between spaces. To realize a thought requires complying with the program of Universe.
Zephir
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 17 2007, 02:06 AM)
Well it must be wrong then, because 'less than nothing' sounds ridiculous.

But this is quite common in physics. When the dropplet of water evaporates, all math laws describing its behavior will converge to the zero/infinity. While nothing never remains in real case, just the vapor resulting from the dropplet.
Latrosicarius
Man, I wish I found this thread earlier--I could not keep from laughing when reading through.

I find it a bit odd that you are all trying to get Zepher to explain the beginning of time with AWT, when nobody has ever successfully explained it with ANY theory.

Whenever somebody does have an answer, it's more philosophical than scientific. I really do question your sanity when you try to "prove" it with a straight face.

I have yet to see a single compelling scientific hypothesis on the beginning of the universe. At this point, the most logical and convincing argument is that something or someone "not of this reality" (whatever that means) created it.

Nearly every scientific law prevents the creation of something from nothing. What does this mean? Either:

1.) something that is not bound by the "laws" created it, or
2.) our "laws" are all wrong.

Either way, it's a complete failure on the part of science. Take it or leave it.

If you have a better way to look at it, please explain, but I doubt it's anything more than another philosophical point of view. You might as well be battling different religions for all the scientific value that is presented.


.
Zephir
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 05:44 PM)
I find it a bit odd that you are all trying to get Zepher to explain the beginning of time with AWT, when nobody has ever successfully explained it with ANY theory.

The AWT explains the time as the surface (compactified Aether gradient or spatial dimension) of foamy density fluctuations formed inside of another more dense foam recursively. The most dense foam is formed by the interior of eternal pinpoint physical singularity of infinitesimal size. The more dense such environment is, the more slowly occurs the energy spreading. We can imagine the Universe so dense, it will freeze the time arrow effectively.

Therefore, the beginning of time can still exist, but it will become undefined indeterminate form by the same way, like the 0/0 ratio.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 17 2007, 03:02 PM)
(compactified Aether gradient or spatial dimension)

Zeph, you missed the point, but I do enjoy your new term "compactified". It's quite useful in many situations, such as this example:

Zepher, your skull must be pretty compactified if you think your explanation of the beginning of time explains anything at all.

Assumption: the universe existed in a "compactified" form.

1.) Where did the compactified form come from?
2.) What caused it to start becoming uncompactified?
3.) Why/how did it uncompactify itself?

Remember, in every explanation of the beginnings of the universe you have to remember 2 basic elements.

- Conservation of mass and energy as dictated by the laws of thermodynamics: MASS/ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, BUT CONVERTED INTO ONE ANOTHER FOLLOWING E=MC^2.

- Causality: CAUSE BEFORE EFFECT. EVERY ACTION HAS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION.

Even the big-bang / string theory / QM / Stephen Hawking does not stand up to either of these points. And nothing you say does either.
OldWoman1904
[URL=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-square-nebula.html]

Look huh.gif

Those two monkeys are fighting.......

One is really mad.....I wonder what all that jibberish means...I think they have a little language....aw!! that is so cute.... tongue.gif

But youre absolutely right, this is all philisophical....

But hey, check this out...the link up top....explain THAT to me!! Bet you can't..Bet you can't tell me that you understand gravity after you check out that post..

everything you guys told me about gravity and "globulation" is wrong and I can prove it...PROVE I SAY!

Two words....Square Nebula.


True Relativity
IMHO the answer to where the code that brought in the existence and runs this Universe is located in the true understanding of time itself. Space is a by-product to the flow of time and only a clear understanding of time will unlock all the secrets of the physics of this Universe including the conquering of gravity.

As far as I am aware I am the only person who has ever mathematically modelled the events leading up to the big bang, the big bang itself and the following expansion of the Universe using only one equation and the ideal gas law.
I am able to do this because I view time differently from that of the mainstream.

So in my opinion that code you are searching for is hidden in the true understanding of time but who am I to argue with those who think they know best.

Tony
Zephir
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 06:24 PM)
Assumption: the universe existed in a "compactified" form.

1.) Where did the compactified form come from?
2.) What caused it to start becoming uncompactified?
3.) Why/how did it uncompactify itself?

1) By AWT the compactified state of Universe with zero/infinite number of dimensions is very natural, as here's no apparent reason, why the Universe should have some particular number of dimensions, for example 3D or 4.18D.

2) Nothing, the Universe has no true beginning, the time beginning appears "blurry" in this model. The Universe appears infinitely old, but it's given by the fact, the speed of information spreading is very slow, too.

3) Why/how did it uncompactify itself?

The Universe basically doesn't change - it's just the limited speed of energy spreading, which reveals more and more Universe history for us. The Universe as such remains static pinpoint singularity from the outside perspective.

Of course, such model is still very rough, but I don't think, without incorporation of another insights/ hidden laws we can achieve it's improving and generalization.

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 06:24 PM)
mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed, but converted into one another following e=mc^2

The Universe as such has no apparent mass/energy from outside. These quantities are the result of the multidimensional perspective. The longer we are observing such artifact, the more hidden dimension we can see, the more energetic/heavy the Universe appears. But this is just an illusion, because we are living inside of 12D history bubble, limited by the speed of energy spreading.
OldWoman1904
Look, those two monkeys named one another!!!Amazing!!

they are REALLY angry....

huh.gif

Hey, monkeys, I have a little "test" for you...

Let's see who is really the smartest monkey. (laugh.gif)

check out this link, Square Nebula..and give us your "theory"





laugh.gif


SquareNebula
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 02:44 PM)
I find it a bit odd that you are all trying to get Zepher to explain the beginning of time with AWT, when nobody has ever successfully explained it with ANY theory.

I have yet to see a single compelling scientific hypothesis on the beginning of the universe. At this point, the most logical and convincing argument is that something or someone "not of this reality" (whatever that means) created it.

Nearly every scientific law prevents the creation of something from nothing.

If you have a better way to look at it, please explain, but I doubt it's anything more than another philosophical point of view.

I actually have a theory for how the universe came into existence at the beginning of Time, in a way that beats your criticisms. However, I cannot do that, if you are going to simply label it as a 'philosophical' explanation, most likely on the basis of me not using maths or equations in my explanation, and discard the theory sad.gif
Farsight
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 02:44 PM)
..I find it a bit odd that you are all trying to get Zephir to explain the beginning of time with AWT, when nobody has ever successfully explained it with ANY theory..
Whoa. I have. And I'm not the first. Aristotle got in first. There is no beginning to time. And no end. And no middle, and no flow, or arrow, or length. They're all figures of speech that you take for granted. Time is a derived effect of motion, like heat is. It's not actually fundamental. Einstein knew this in 1949. It's reasonable to talk about 3+1 dimensions but not 4 dimensions, because you can't move through time. No way not ever. Time travel is bunk. I'm serious about all this. See TIME EXPLAINED.
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Farsight+Apr 17 2007, 06:27 PM)
There is no beginning to time. And no end. And no middle, and no flow, or arrow, or length.

By your logic then, we are not having this conversation right now, and when I press the submit button, my post will not have been posted in the past, such that you can access it and reply to it in the future.

Furthermore, what else do you want to say doesn't exist, whilst you're at it? How about Space, Distance, Consciousness, Life, Light, Energy, etc - There you go, there's a nice list of things to start denying the existence of. Get to it!
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Apr 17 2007, 04:47 PM)
I actually have a theory for how the universe came into existence at the beginning of Time, in a way that beats your criticisms. However, I cannot do that, if you are going to simply label it as a 'philosophical' explanation, most likely on the basis of me not using maths or equations in my explanation, and discard the theory sad.gif

So, let me get this straight.... You have a theory that can beat all my criticisms.... but you won't post it because you are afraid I will criticize it??

-.-

If it beats my criticisms then you shouldn't be afraid of me criticizing it, now should you?

tongue.gif
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Farsight+Apr 17 2007, 06:27 PM)
Whoa. I have. And I'm not the first. Aristotle got in first. There is no beginning to time. And no end. And no middle, and no flow, or arrow, or length. They're all figures of speech that you take for granted. Time is a derived effect of motion, like heat is. It's not actually fundamental. Einstein knew this in 1949. It's reasonable to talk about 3+1 dimensions but not 4 dimensions, because you can't move through time. No way not ever. Time travel is bunk. I'm serious about all this. See TIME EXPLAINED.

To my point precisely, Farsight. Aristotle was a Greek _______ (what?). Answer: PHILOSOPHER.

Not that dreaming up concepts is a bad thing... but I've noticed that you seem quite certain of the preponderance of your theories--enough to inform everyone else as if you were reporting fact.

I too have mulled over the idea that time is nothing more than the perception one sees by observing of the relative motions of objects. I'm sure many people have as well. There is nothing new to "your" concept.

And how does this explain the origin of the universe anyway?
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 17 2007, 03:54 PM)
1) By AWT the compactified state of Universe with zero/infinite number of dimensions is very natural, as here's no apparent reason, why the Universe should have some particular number of dimensions, for example 3D or 4.18D.

2) Nothing, the Universe has no true beginning, the time beginning appears "blurry" in this model. The Universe appears infinitely old, but it's given by the fact, the speed of information spreading is very slow, too.

3) Why/how did it uncompactify itself?

The Universe basically doesn't change - it's just the limited speed of energy spreading, which reveals more and more Universe history for us. The Universe as such remains static pinpoint singularity from the outside perspective.

Of course, such model is still very rough, but I don't think, without incorporation of another insights/ hidden laws we can achieve it's improving and generalization.


The Universe as such has no apparent mass/energy from outside. These quantities are the result of the multidimensional perspective. The longer we are observing such artifact, the more hidden dimension we can see, the more energetic/heavy the Universe appears. But this is just an illusion, because we are living inside of 12D history bubble, limited by the speed of energy spreading.

1. In case you didn't understand what I was saying before, "compactify" is not a word. You can use "compact", "compacted", "compacting", etc instead.


2. Even if you propose that the universe has been around for ever, it still does nothing to answer the basic questions... again:

- causality - something cannot occur without a previous cause. We obviously have complex systems occurring all around us... from the orbital mechanics of stars and planets, to the functions of living organisms on earth. How did all that start? Assuming the universe has always existed, assumes a completely unchanging and static system. There would be no motion, no entropy, no nothing. It would have to be completely static, otherwise there would be infinite entropy, and nothing would exist. Even protons and other subatomic particles would have degraded by now.

- conservation of matter and energy - the key phrase to remember here is "matter and energy cannot be created...". So where did it all come from?


3. You and your "infinites". tongue.gif Things either exist or they don't. There's no blurry beginning to anything. There's little evidence to support that infinities and infinitesimals exist at all in the real world.

LOL and, what's this about a 4.18D? Are you just making stuff up here?
Bryn Richards
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 07:02 PM)
So, let me get this straight.... You have a theory that can beat all my criticisms.... but you won't post it because you are afraid I will criticize it??

If it beats my criticisms then you shouldn't be afraid of me criticizing it, now should you?

I'm not afraid of criticism. In fact, I welcome it, because it is only through criticism that a theory can be improved and refined.

What I said, was that there is little point to posting my theory here, if you are not even going to accept it on the same intellectual level, as theories which you do not consider philosophical.

The way you should view them, is just as plain 'theories', rather than labelling them as philosophical / non-philosophical, and thus not-reading / reading them.

If you want to hear my theory, then I'll give you the low-down via private message, but first I merely want you to accept it as a theory, and not as philosophy. That is my ultimatum, as I do not want to waste my time in writing something you will not read.
Zephir
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 10:53 PM)
...In case you didn't understand what I was saying before, "compactify" is not a word..

OK, I'll consider it. But why even the encyclopedia uses such word, after then? Why it doesn't talk about compaction? Where I can obtain the relevant semantic reference?

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 10:53 PM)
...causality - something cannot occur without a previous cause..

The problem is, the causality relies on the time concept. In compactified state the Universe has an infinite number of dimensions, where no true difference between the spatial and time dimensions exist at all. No time: no causality. After all, the AWT demonstrates a many physical situations, where the causality is less or more reversed even in much more mild conditions, for example during fall of matter into black hole. At the case of the whole Universe, some anthropocentric understanding of causality isn't relevant clue at all.

QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 17 2007, 10:53 PM)
...So where did it all come from..?

We can suppose, whole the Universe is the place composed from particles so hot and dense, their mutual interactions will compensate even at the very small distances, so the infinite energy cannot be observed at all. The assumption of infinite dimensions of Universe makes such understanding a quite natural, because every chaotic motion can be considered as a low dimensional projection of the low energy harmonic motion occurring in sufficient number of spatial dimensions.
Ivars
QUOTE (Farsight+Apr 17 2007, 06:27 PM)
Whoa. I have. And I'm not the first. Aristotle got in first. There is no beginning to time. And no end. And no middle, and no flow, or arrow, or length. They're all figures of speech that you take for granted. Time is a derived effect of motion, like heat is. It's not actually fundamental. Einstein knew this in 1949. It's reasonable to talk about 3+1 dimensions but not 4 dimensions, because you can't move through time. No way not ever. Time travel is bunk. I'm serious about all this. See TIME EXPLAINED.

I have to agree with Farsight and Aristotle here. Motion of Aether current , its flow is eternal. By pure philosophical logic, it can not be anything else. (As it runs like mobius strip it is not so odd) . Tao knew it as well (FLOW) , as did probably most ancient philosophies.

This motion creates time when events creating things stabilizing that flow happen. Tick on the flow.

The reason why stabilizing structures appear and create marks for time with their changes is simple: Aether currents strive for harmony- they want to move as fast as possible but they do not want to become turbulent; The only way to do it is to sacrifice part of the harmonious laminar flow to create small stabilizing vortex breakdown structures which hang on Aether flow and feed on it, at the same time reducing its speed, causing heat loss but preventing from going into turbulence.
Zephir
QUOTE (Ivars+Apr 17 2007, 11:27 PM)
Aether currents strive for harmony- they want to move as fast as possible but they do not want to become turbulent...

How can you know, what the Aether currents really want, you can tell me? Maybe they're want to become turbulent as much as possible by their very nature, because they're enjoy it .. wink.gif
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 17 2007, 08:15 PM)
even the encyclopedia uses such word, after then...

I suppose you are right. I was not familiar with this niche use if the word. Although, scientists routinely make up words so you have to be careful. But you win.
Ivars
QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 17 2007, 09:02 PM)
How can you know, what the Aether currents really want, you can tell me? Maybe they're want to become turbulent as much as possible by their very nature, because they're enjoy it .. wink.gif

From the RESULTS of their actions which we observe and applying intuition. It leads to a principle of harmony instead of principle of least action as a governing principle.

Harmony of a laminar flow in a infinite cylinder can be expressed as H/R where H is deviation of velocity profile from flat surface , R is the radius of cylinder.

Every process in Nature strives to reach a certain value of H/R, including the flow of Aether currents. Expressions for first level harmony I have found are:

H^2/R^2 = Pi/2

Or

H/R = Sgrt ( pi/2)

However, no cylinder is infinite, which leads to constraints and need to have breaking eddies in addition to laminar flow. Each of eddy scales generate sub-harmonics, so Harmony of a process is a sum of all.
Zephir
QUOTE (Ivars+Apr 18 2007, 08:03 AM)
From the RESULTS of their actions which we observe and applying intuition.

You cannot explain some concepts by their own results, Ivars. This would be just a circular reasoning.
bukh
Hej Zephir

--"You cannot explain some concepts by their own results, Ivars. This would be just a circular reasoning."

Would you prefer to propose concepts on non-related observations / results?
Zephir
QUOTE (bukh+Apr 18 2007, 12:40 PM)
Would you prefer to propose concepts on non-related observations / results?

You should use the different results as a evidence of theory, then those, which this theory predicts - or you'll fall into circular reasoning. In fact it's a just a consequence of the not very high IQ of yours, you cannot realize it. In general, the posts of yours are mostly an incoherent babbling. Some things you're proposing aren't even fully wrong, but the problem is, they're not followed by some applications, i.e. the testable predictions.

For the rest of people is quite irrelevant, whether the aether can be described by the aether currents, Reynold's numbers, flat tori or something else. They're just interested, what testable can be derived/predicted from such models.

At the moment, you cannot supply some coherent predictions, the claims of your's are solely useless for the rest of civilization, face it.
Ivars
hej bukh

Now You see why strategic planning is needed. People do not see obvious things, but when shown, get nasty.
bukh
Hej Ivars

--"Now You see why strategic planning is needed. People do not see obvious things, but when shown, get nasty."

Well I think that they exhibit their own limitations - sad story -
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.