What is the Origin of Everything?

  • Thread starter Eyesee
  • Start date
Everything came from nothing because it is the only thingthat doesn't come from anything." ... to... "But if you say that there was a state, called "nothing", that gave birth to "everything" you are wrong, because "nothing" is not a state or a thing."The meaning of the words are clear.Originally posted by EyeseeIn summary, everything in the universe can be traced back to the concept of "nothing", as it is the only thing that does not come from anything else. This idea is often debated and can be viewed as a joke or a serious philosophical concept. However, it is important to note that the concept of "nothing" is not a tangible thing or state, but rather a
  • #246
Originally posted by Alexander
Well, then why it (quantum physics) agrees with experiment to 12-13 digits accuracy? (and the accuracy is limited by errors of experiment, not by uncertainty of theory.)

Do you know any other theory being so accurate?

well, Alexander... I just feel it, in fact I am on the way of preparing myself to prove it is wrong... I hope you will read my new theories in a short time. I need first to improve my mathematical skills. At the moment I feel it but in the future I will show it...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Here's what will "solve the issue": eliminating the extraneous element of "God" and seeing the UNIVERSE Itself as a living Entity that is PART of the "natural world"...evolving by changing Its form(s) and assembling Its consciousness.

Wouldn't this "raise our understanding of Nature"? if it were true? And eliminate "the mystery of God" to boot!

The only approach made thus far with proven succes is that of science, and science is founded on materialism. It doesn't leave room for a "creator" (since the world isn't created, it is ever changing and moving in eternity).
 
  • #248
Originally posted by von_Bismarck
'Subconscious' refers to mental activity (esp. in humans) which is below the threshold of ordinary consciousness, but which still exists. Those objects which don't possesses consciousness (such as rocks) are 'unconscious', or more simply, 'not conscious'.

Right! I already stated the same myself.
 
  • #249
Originally posted by heusdens
The only approach made thus far with proven succes is that of science, and science is founded on materialism. It doesn't leave room for a "creator" (since the world isn't created, it is ever changing and moving in eternity).

May I take this as a point of AGREEMENT, then?
 
  • #250
Pelestration...

When this "page" of this thread ends, I will print it out, read it and get back to you.

Likewise, Heusdens on another thread.
 
  • #251
Thanks Gaspar,

I am sure that you will find a direction to your and sheldrakes goal. I will not go personnaly that far, but its not excluded.

Like I said supra: "This means also that spiritual energies (as emanations/infolding) of the basic energy (3+) has degrees of (relative) independence, which explain the possibilities in connectivity in consciousness systems."

Smile, look with the Eye of Ra and have fun ;)
 
  • #252


Originally posted by pelastration

The fundamental question is: can we imagine a kinetic mechanism that shows how a basic 'something' can create mass, energy, interactions, connectivity and still be valid on all degree of density, and explain also paradoxes like Trinity, QM, Einstein's shift between matter and energy, the coupling constant, quantum leap, etc.

That is almost exactly what scientists (mainly theoretical physicists) do for living. (But instead of using imagination they use math (=logic) to find what kind of world some proposed mechanism results in. Then they compare it with world around us and either accept or dismiss proposed mechanism).

The human enigma is that he can only 'observer' from the downside up: from the Eyes of the Monkey. For the monkey his surrounding is fixed and given, An Sich. For the monkey each observer unit is an fully isolated unity! (ps. don't be offended by the use of the monkey, it is just a symbol).
But not from the topside: The Eye of Ra. From the view of Ra all (everything) is just restructured membrane.

Scientists do not use ears, eyes, nose, tactile, etc senses. Senses are useless in investigating nature.

Indeed, to someone a mountain is seen huge, to someone else - tiny. So, scientists use INDEPENDENT from senses tools: a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, etc. This way whether you are a dino, an alien or a robot, the size of mountain is the same (say 1.5 miles +/- 0.3 mile) for all.

This dualism between Energy and Matter is the paradox created in our human understand (monkey view) and brings us to discussions like on these forums and opposing views like Materialism and Idealism.

If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical differemce between them. Both are same entity with slightly different parameters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #253
Originally posted by LW Sleeth

Ah yes, the catatonic-finger-combined-with-NHB syndrome. But then you said "sin" drome -- a Freudian slip if I've ever heard one. It means you hate your mother (or something like that). I bet that's why you are a materialist too. [/B]

Sleeth, do not translate your own feelings/relationship to other people - people are different. What works well for you (hating your own mother) may not work well for others. Obviousely, I was raised not in so "free minded" society as you were (US, I presume). In my society we were taught to respect family members, and to care about elders, disabled and youngs. We were taught to respect other races and nations, and not to consider society a jungle. While in US views are way more diverse - more close to freedom of jungle (and sometimes to the extreme of shooting/blowing relatives and neighbors as frequently seen on TV), I do not share you wiew to hate own relatives, especially immediate ones. Hate is destructive to social life, not constructive. I think, materialistic (=pragmatic) position here is better: do not desire/do for others what you don't want to be done/desired to yourself. You may need a help from this other one some day, and if you hate him/her you can insted be hated too - not good for survival.

(As Marx said, freedom comes with responsibilities. So, do not abuse freedom.)
 
  • #254
Originally posted by Alexander
Sleeth, do not translate your own feelings/relationship to other people - people are different. What works well for you (hating your own mother) may not work well for others. Obviousely, I was raised not in so "free minded" society as you were (US, I presume). In my society we were taught to respect family members, and to care about elders, disabled and youngs. We were taught to respect other races and nations, and not to consider society a jungle. While in US views are way more diverse - more close to freedom of jungle (and sometimes to the extreme of shooting/blowing relatives and neighbors as frequently seen on TV), I do not share you wiew to hate own relatives, especially immediate ones. Hate is destructive to social life, not constructive. I think, materialistic (=pragmatic) position here is better: do not desire/do for others what you don't want to be done/desired to yourself. You may need a help from this other one some day, and if you hate him/her you can insted be hated too - not good for survival.


LOL! Alexander, I was joking! I worried whether you'd "get" my American teasing, but what I said is so silly I figured you would know. It was my way of welcoming you back to PF. You crazy Russian! If you read less Dostoyevski and Marx, and watch more Rodney Dangerfield, one day you will understand the humor of we savages of the freedom jungle.
 
  • #255
Matryoshka dolls are cosmic

Originally posted by Alexander
That is almost exactly what scientists (mainly theoretical physicists) do for living. (But instead of using imagination they use math (=logic) to find what kind of world some proposed mechanism results in. Then they compare it with world around us and either accept or dismiss proposed mechanism).
Thanks Alexander. If you think the pelastration concept is not perfect abstract logic we need discuss about that. I need only one postulate to explain a universal mechanism, how many do you need in QM just to start? Can you explain the quantum leap? I can ... and will show it soon on my website. (I mean show the image how the transaction goes ... all is ready just some other business now). And just like you do in QM I will predict some events (i.e. a gap between wave and particle which can maybe measured as a increasing particle value (?)).

If you believe that I don't check the world around ;-) ... and as I stated already in some threads before I like measuring (check discussions between Lifegraze and heusdens) ... and I check all questions and anomalies in your QM and other theories.

If you want to check again my website you will find out that Andrei Linde's monopoles and mini-universes are not so different from my 'islands'. My approach is however like the famous nesting Matryoshka doll boxes (inside, inside, inside, ...). So Linde's bubbles even keep their original integrity! Which is more ... logic and more TOE-ed.

If you think Einstein can be called a scientist read this:

1. Einstein stood on the point that the notion of "space" designates "gravitational ether", which is a physical reality. "With regards to the general theory of relativity, space cannot be imagined without ether", says he in his "Ether and the Theory of Relativity"
2. According to Einstein, gravitational ether does not have the same properties as ponderable matter, that is why it cannot be described by notions such as "time" and "motion"
3.In the general theory, gravitational ether could be described by the curvedness of 4-dimensional space-time: the curvedness of space-time is a measure of the density of gravitational ether, which in its turn is dependent on the quantity of matter in a given volume of space-time. In the inter-galactic space, the density of gravitational ether is minimal, with maximums occurring in the centre of black holes
4. The speeds of changes are proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks. In gravitational ether, time does not run, and neither does it run on the surface of space bodies or in space ships. Experiments with clocks, these high precision pendulums, only record the speeds, durations and numerical order of changes taking place in the gravitational ether. Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational ether.

Now my pelastration concept talks about that.

And Michio Kaku wrote (http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml ) : "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping.

Nothing ... but bookkeeping. (Alexander ... remember I am not telling that ... )

So don't show me yet your math, but show me your picture ;-)
Tell me how how it might work. I am open, ... listening.

Originally posted by Alexander
Scientists do not use ears, eyes, nose, tactile, etc senses. Senses are useless in investigating nature.
seriously? I never figured out they were aliens ;-)
What about observing birds and flowers (Is biology a science? ).
Originally posted by Alexander
Indeed, to someone a mountain is seen huge, to someone else - tiny. So, scientists use INDEPENDENT from senses tools: a meter stick, a balance, a stopwatch, a spectrometer, etc. This way whether you are a dino, an alien or a robot, the size of mountain is the same (say 1.5 miles +/- 0.3 mile) for all.
As told ... measurement is an objective way to make 'repeatable' statements. We need them.
Originally posted by Alexander
If by matter you mean fermions and by energy - bosons, then there is not much mathematical differemce between them. Both are same entity with slightly different parameters.
All what we can observe today in CERN is in my opinion MATTER. But there is more. And you have not yet the tools to measure it :/
Neither do I. But all inventions starts with a dream, a picture ... only then we can start to materialize it.
;-)
Nice seeing you on this thread (or back on the forum?).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #256
Good job, Pelastration...

Originally posted by pelastration

And Michio Kaku wrote (http://www.mkaku.org/articles/becoming-a-physicist.shtml ) : "Einstein also said that behind every great theory there is a simple physical picture that even lay people can understand. In fact, he said, if a theory does not have a simple underlying picture, then the theory is probably worthless. The important thing is the physical picture; math is nothing but bookkeeping.

So don't show me yet your math, but show me your picture ;-)
Tell me how how it might work. I am open, ... listening.


Good job defending you theory (conjecture, hypothesis, speculation, idea, ruminations or whatever the "semantic police" will allow me to call it)...as well as your right to have one!

I've visited your website and do "get" what you're suggesting via the "picture".

Referencing Einstein's admonishment to mathheads...I better get myself a "picture", too. Unfortunately, what would be a "picture" of "consciousness"...of its evolution from "fragmentation" (just after the "Big Bang) into coherent systems within -- and extending OUT of -- ALL THINGS!

Don't tell me. I'll get it on my own. Meanwhile, all I've got at the moment is a concept -- shared by many -- with a NEW IDEA imbedded in it.

So I take heart from Kepler's quest...and folly: He came up with something USEFUL even as he pursued a geometric deadend!

Still, I'd settle for a small contribution to humanity's understanding of the nature and evolution of the Universe...a Theory of Everything that includes CONSCIOUSNESS!

How about you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #257


Originally posted by pelastration
4. The speeds of changes are proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks. In gravitational ether, time does not run, and neither does it run on the surface of space bodies or in space ships. Experiments with clocks, these high precision pendulums, only record the speeds, durations and numerical order of changes taking place in the gravitational ether. Time is not a physical reality, the past and the future exist only in human reasoning. Changes take place "here and now" in the gravitational ether.

You interchange here the concept of "time" with "change". However, "time" is not equal to (the rate of) "change", cause we measure the (rate of) change with time. This is only possible because time is something different then change.

A statement as "the speed of change is proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks" is therefore a nonsense statement. Because if all changes occur slower, also clocks run slower in a gravitational ether that is less dense.
So how could we ever measure that? The clock would just appear to run in an equal rate everywhere..
 
  • #258
Originally posted by heusdens
You interchange here the concept of "time" with "change". However, "time" is not equal to (the rate of) "change", cause we measure the (rate of) change with time. This is only possible because time is something different then change.

A statement as "the speed of change is proportional to the density of gravitational ether, and they are recorded by means of clocks" is therefore a nonsense statement. Because if all changes occur slower, also clocks run slower in a gravitational ether that is less dense.
So how could we ever measure that? The clock would just appear to run in an equal rate everywhere..
Sorry Heusdens, I quoted Einstein.
The number 1 to 4 are his (or Einstein described by Sorli). I will check and give you the link.

Additional:
here is the link.
It's not really clear what is of Einstein and what of Sorli.
http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/gravity.html
I think Gaspar will like that. Consciousness, consciousness, ...
You Heusdens probably less :-)

This is also a nice approach (more math's) on wormholes:
Pitkanen: http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illua.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #259
Originally posted by pelastration
Sorry Heusdens, I quoted Einstein.
The number 1 to 4 are his (or Einstein described by Sorli). I will check and give you the link.

Additional:
here is the link.
It's not really clear what is of Einstein and what of Sorli.
http://www.mystae.com/streams/science/gravity.html
I think Gaspar will like that. Consciousness, consciousness, ...
You Heusdens probably less :-)

This is also a nice approach (more math's) on wormholes:
Pitkanen: http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~matpitka/illua.html

I did not hear before that Einstein thought that space was ether.

Space can be qualified as a gravitational field, caused by matter. Matter "curves" spacetime. This means simply this: without matter, neither there would be space/time (and vice versa).


In GR differences in the gravitational field also means a difference in IFR (inertial frame of reference). This comes from the analogy between a gravitational field and accelerated motion.

Clocks running slower or faster relative to each other, is a consequence of the space time curvature acc. to GR.

However, if you were unable of comparing clocks in different spacetime regions, one could never measure the difference in the "rate of change" for regions with different space-time curvatures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #260


Originally posted by heusdens
I did not hear before that Einstein thought that space was ether.

Here some on Einstein's idea and frustration on the gravitational ether. Einstein wanted a kinetic mechanism:

In a letter to Lorentz of 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote:"I agree with you that the general relativity theory admitsof an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity. The reason is that the state [...metric tensor] = Aether is not that of a rigid body in an independent state of motion, but a state of motion which is a function of position determined through the metrical phenomena."


Albert Einstein, in an address (Ether and the Theory of Relativity) delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden: "It is only with reluctance that man's desire for knowledge endures a dualism of this kind. How was unity to be preserved in his comprehension of the forces of nature? Either by trying to look upon contact forces as being themselves distant forces which admittedly are observable only at a very small distance and this was the road which Newton's followers, who were entirely under the spell of his doctrine, mostly preferred to take; or by assuming that the Newtonian action at a distance is only apparently immediate action at a distance, but in truth is conveyed by a medium permeating space, whether by movements or by elastic deformation of this medium. Thus the endeavour toward a unified view of the nature of forces leads to the hypothesis of an ether. This hypothesis, to be sure, did not at first bring with it any advance in the theory of gravitation or in physics generally, so that it became customary to treat Newton's law of force as an axiom not further reducible. But the ether hypothesis was bound always to play some part in physical science, even if at first only a latent part." (full text: http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/scientists/einstein.html )

Ludwik Kostro quotes Einstein who said in 1930 (L.Kostro, 1988, p.239, “Einstein and the ether”): "[…] that now it appears that space will have to be regarded as a primary thing and that matter is derived from it, so to speak, as a secondary result. Space is now having its revenge, so to speak, and is eating up matter".
Einstein didn't found although the picture how a mechanical (kinetical) gravitational system could work, and in next text you will feel his frustration and dissapointment. He knew ... but could not express it.

Einstein in The Evolution of Physics (1938): "The Galilean relativity principle is valid for mechanical phenomena. The same laws of mechanics apply to all inertial systems moving relative to each other. Is this principle also valid for nonmechanical phenomena, especially for those for which the field concepts proved so very important? All problems concentrated around this question immediately bring us to the starting point of the relativity theory.
...
Is the ether carried with [a] room as the air [is]? Since we have no mechanical picture of the ether it is extremely difficult to answer this question. If the room is closed, the air inside is forced to move with it. There is obviously no sense in thinking of ether in this way, since all matter is immersed in it and it penetrates everywhere. No doors are closed to ether. The 'moving room,' now means only a moving CS [coordinate system] to which the source of light is rigidly connected. It is, however, not beyond us to imagine that the room moving with its light source carries the ether along with it just as the sound source and air is carried along in the closed room. But we can equally well imagine the opposite: that the room travels through the ether as a ship through a perfectly smooth sea, not carrying any part of the medium along but moving through it. In our first picture, the room moving with its light source carries the ether. An analogy with a sound wave is possible and quite similar conclusions can be drawn. In the second, the room moving with its light source does not carry the ether. No analogy with a sound wave is possible and the conclusions drawn in the case of a sound wave do not hold for a light wave. These are the two limiting possibilities. We could imagine the still more complicated possibility that the ether is only partially carried by the room moving with its light source. But there is no reason to discuss the more complicated assumptions before finding out which of the two simpler limiting cases experiment favors
...
Every attempt to explain the electromagnetic phenomena in moving Coordinate Systems (CS) with the help of the motion of the ether, motion through the ether, or both these motions, proved unsuccessful.
Thus arose one of the most dramatic situations in the history of science. All assumptions concerning ether led nowhere! The experimental verdict was always negative. Looking back over the development of physics we see that the ether, soon after its birth, became the 'enfant terrible' of the family of physical substances.

First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused, to a great extent, the breakdown of the mechanical point of view.
Second, we had to give up hope that through the presence of the ether-sea one CS would be distinguished and lead to the recognition of absolute, and not only relative, motion.
This would have been the only way, besides carrying the waves, in which ether could mark and justify its existence. All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name. We shall say: our space has the physical property of transmitting waves, and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid.
The omission of a word from our vocabulary is, of course, no remedy. Our troubles are indeed much too profound to be solved in this way!"

Einstein: "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears it ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of the mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison."

QB (after talking with) Kostro: "Einstein's 4-dimensional ether, if we wish to call it so, cannot provide the same natural causal explanations which, on the contrary, could be supplied by the introduction of a physical "fluid", filling up the whole 3-dimensional space. The action, and properties, of this universal medium could, in principle, rationally explain all physical phaenomena by means of a simple mechanical analogy (in which, for instance, a force can be interpreted only as a vis a tergo, a field as a perturbation of the space, etc.). Einstein's ether, instead, cannot be thought of but in four dimensions, which means that time must be included in the structure of "space" itself (which is in fact more properly called space-time). This circumstance implies that it is absolutely impossible for the human mind to make an intuitive image of it, and to give any simple meaning for instance to expressions like: "dynamical ether", which would have, vice versa, an easy interpretation with respect to a 3-dimensional fluid ether. As a matter of fact, an ether "moving" with respect to what time?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #261


Originally posted by heusdens

In GR differences in the gravitational field also means a difference in IFR (inertial frame of reference). This comes from the analogy between a gravitational field and accelerated motion.
Thought experiment.

Thinking of gravitation.
What the essence of it?
Isn't it interconnectivity?
A molecule in my Jupiter finger should be in some way directly or indirectly be connected with each star in the Orion space zone, etc.

Image there would be only two objects in space: you, Heusdens and one sun in Orion.

After some millions of years you would be more and more attracted to that sun and finally would fall in it.
Now what's your relations with that sun?

How is it possible that you are attracted?
To me the only valid mechanism is an elastic fundamental connection (embedded in your structure and also embedded in that sun or in parts of that sun) or you believe it will be separate units/particles interlinked?
 
  • #262
whew, whadda oval race. 260 laps and growing. Who's on leading lap? I'm hopelessly late here..

pelastration, you seem to have done some work. Why not start your own thread?
 
  • #263
Originally posted by string_theory
well, Alexander... I just feel it, in fact I am on the way of preparing myself to prove it is wrong... I hope you will read my new theories in a short time. I need first to improve my mathematical skills. At the moment I feel it but in the future I will show it...
ROTFLMAO!
This really needs to be framed and put into some sort of display...
 
  • #264


Originally posted by pelastration
Thought experiment.

Thinking of gravitation.
What the essence of it?
Isn't it interconnectivity?
A molecule in my Jupiter finger should be in some way directly or indirectly be connected with each star in the Orion space zone, etc.

Image there would be only two objects in space: you, Heusdens and one sun in Orion.

After some millions of years you would be more and more attracted to that sun and finally would fall in it.
Now what's your relations with that sun?

I think I would become a comet in that solar system.

How is it possible that you are attracted?

As a human being, how can I not be attracted by "stars"?

To me the only valid mechanism is an elastic fundamental connection (embedded in your structure and also embedded in that sun or in parts of that sun) or you believe it will be separate units/particles interlinked?

Ok. This time for serious.

I still envision the "curved spacetime" model of gravitation. The curvature of space around a massive object, causes me to "fall" into the centre of gravity.

This model of curved space, is action at a distance. The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity.

I think your idea of a membrane that connect everything with anything, although seemingly applies to this ununderstood issue of "action on a distance" fails in some ways.
What is the membrane itself consisting of? And how is that stuff "bound to itself" then?

I see no difference in quarks that are bound together by gluon forces, as massive particels that are bound together by gravitation forces. Only the scale of the acting force is different.


And some comments on your "everything is connected hypothese".

I think the source of your hypothese/thought that everything is connected, which in your "pelastration" theory has the form of one huge membrane that literally connects everything to evereything else, is a fundamental thought, which reflects on the world in total, and our being in this world.

The way I think of that connection, and reasoned about that within, can be found in the topic https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876". In that way I could "connect" the existence of everything within my own existence.

This forms a reasoned ground for "beliefs" regarding the interconnectedness of everything to everything. But this connectedness only exists within my reasonings. I don't assume that the material world itself should be in a material way interconnected (at least no more then physics has shown those connections by postulating the material interactions in the form of the 4 fundamental forces). I don't think that some physical substance is causing me to be drawn to a star, other then the spacetime curvature/gravitational force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #265
Pela, what is the speed of gravity in your hypothesis? Is it instant or c?

Also, what is the difference between your unbreakable all-encompassing meduim and not found Lorentsian (or Maxwellinan - don't remember who was stronger proponent of it) aethir?
 
  • #266


Originally posted by pelastration

seriously? I never figured out they were aliens ;-)

What makes you think they are aliens? And what difference does it makes who is doing observation - alien, robot, monkey, etc? Mountain is still 1.5 km +/-0.2 km tall for ALL of them.

What about observing birds and flowers (Is biology a science? ).

It depends on HOW you observe them. Watching/hearing them is not a science yet. Science starts with numbers. So, measuring the frequency of bird's voice or the size (or wavelength) of flower is where science starts.

And no senses here, please ("what a big flower..." or "what a nice tweet...", "what a sweet smell", etc). Not of much use.
 
  • #267
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #268
Originally posted by wimms
whew, whadda oval race. 260 laps and growing. Who's on leading lap? I'm hopelessly late here..

pelastration, you seem to have done some work. Why not start your own thread?
Thanks Wimms, might be a good idea.
 
  • #269


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Re "B Nothing 133:

Talk about "pure meta-physics"!

The post about Hegel, are texts of Hegel, and don't show my opinion on the issue. I can't help Hegel is a meta-physicists.
 
  • #270


[/B][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Alexander
What makes you think they are aliens? And what difference does it makes who is doing observation - alien, robot, monkey, etc? Mountain is still 1.5 km +/-0.2 km tall for ALL of them.
Biology and most science started with observation of the "reality".
Observations give the finding of similarities/differences, making classes, groups and catalogizing. That's all part of science. In a number sciences the human senses are used as a basic analyzing system. What about chemistry? The color of a solution, the smell, etc.
Robots maybe equipped with sensors and detectors but finally it will be the human brain that will interpret the data in function of a goal. Hubble can make billions of photo's but if there is no human to interpret it has no sense.
Originally posted by Alexander
It depends on HOW you observe them. Watching/hearing them is not a science yet. Science starts with numbers. So, measuring the frequency of bird's voice or the size (or wavelength) of flower is where science starts.
Your idea about science is very restricted. What did Mendel? Did he used numbers? So he was no scientist?
 
  • #271


Originally posted by heusdens
The post about Hegel, are texts of Hegel, and don't show my opinion on the issue. I can't help Hegel is a meta-physicists.

What was your purpose in posting his views if you do not align with them? (And don't shoot back that one does not have to align with views that one posts...because I know that. But you must have been trying to make SOME point...and I am asking what that point IS.
 
  • #272


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
What was your purpose in posting his views if you do not align with them? (And don't shoot back that one does not have to align with views that one posts...because I know that. But you must have been trying to make SOME point...and I am asking what that point IS.

The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.
 
  • #273


Originally posted by heusdens
The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.

When you say "incomprehensible" do you mean that it is "impossible" or do you mean that it is possible, but we could never understand how it might be so?

Careful. This is a trick question.
 
  • #274


Originally posted by heusdens
The point I was making that even to an exponent of objective idealism it is incomprehensible to state that everything could come from nothing.

I thought idealism was SUBJECTIVE! Wrong again?
 
  • #275


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I thought idealism was SUBJECTIVE! Wrong again?

Solipsism is subjective idealism. The "Absolute Idea" (God) is objective idealism.
 
  • #276


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
When you say "incomprehensible" do you mean that it is "impossible" or do you mean that it is possible, but we could never understand how it might be so?

Careful. This is a trick question.

It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world really works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality really is, but we will never have a complete understanding.
 
  • #277


Originally posted by heusdens
It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world really works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality really is, but we will never have a complete understanding.

Ah, FINALLY: a point of AGREEMENT.
 
  • #278


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Ah, FINALLY: a point of AGREEMENT.

We better find a point of disagreement, it will be better for the thread.
 
  • #279


Originally posted by heusdens
We better find a point of disagreement, it will be better for the thread.

Not to worry.

Later.
 
  • #280
Originally posted by Alexander
Pela, what is the speed of gravity in your hypothesis? Is it instant or c?

Also, what is the difference between your unbreakable all-encompassing meduim and not found Lorentsian (or Maxwellinan - don't remember who was stronger proponent of it) aethir?

Alexander, to answer your question about the speed of gravity I need to explain more about the nature of the layering caused by pelastration. It's a different way of looking to nature then you are used to. When you want to appreciate this new approach you need to put some other spectacles. If you stick on the superiority of maths you will be not able to see it. But that will be your problem not mine. ;-)

In Pelastration approach the (unbreakable but very strong elastic) membrane is present in everything because it is the essence of everything. It fact: it is the basic structure of everything.

As such the membrane MAKES basic BOXES by the pelastration manifolding. That manifold is like a "white hole' which connects two type of hyperspaces in a NEW COMBINATION. As long as the white hole connection exists as long the two hyperspaces are connected making thus a NEW UNITY (= a new box). The two hyperspace are connected but have each another "position" in the new unity (in a separate dimensions = higher or large dimension in the new unity).
Although they are jointed they still keep there INTEGRITY (their quality of previous layerings = History).

As such there exist in the pelastration approach not the traditional vision of 'fusion'.
What we observe as 'fusion' is a new restructuring of hyperspaces in a new layering combination. (thus elements de-connect [= black hole decay] to become back separate (original) hyperspaces and then - in combinations with other hyperspace restructure in a new white hole (become a plasma white hole for the observer).

Now Motion in one hyperspace in a new unity influences also the other inter-connected hyperspace because the are layered. (Image: when you move your arm you textile sleeve will follow your arm. = unit internal friction).

What we call thus a human observers:'reality or pseudo-reality' are various manifestations (spiritual levels, material levels, ...) of the membrane. They are the result of combinations in the basic layerings, this means the 'restructuring' of the membrane. This restructuring creates apparent "isolated" island or multi-layered boxes. (cfr. Andrei Linde's monopoles).

"Gravity" is thus the result of the restructuring and is NOT a "separate force". For the moment our scientists look after a separate force and tries to calculate the effects in the hope to predict how the separate force will work.
What we call "Gravity" is directly related to the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The degree of stretchability of a unite will depend from the number of layers which are combined internally. So each UNITY (or island or monopole) has it's own degree of combined stretchability. This makes why "light" has it's speed limit in our universe. Thus the degree of stretchability of the membrane determinates a number of our observed constants.
Experimentally found proprieties of electro-weak (photons acting Quarks and Leptons), strong (gluons acting on Quarks and gluons), etc. indicate which membrane levels are combined (and interact) and thus explain the fundamental (level) differences between quarks, leptons and bosons. Because the membrane is the fundamental essence or "material/tissu" of quarks, leptons and bosons it is obvious that these fundamental particles act within the limits offered by the membrane stretchability.
Interesting in this approach is that also mass-less particles can be understood as a concept.

Now the alpha-constant or coupling constant (Freynman's magic number) is probably the mathematical expression of the manifolding mechanism itself, and indicates the bending proprieties of the membrane.

In one box there are thus several layers of the membrane. This mapping of the membrane explains thus also the boundaries between manifestations levels -> explaining the incredible size difference between atoms, electrons, protons, ... Remember: Atoms (10^-10), the nucleus (10^-14), protons (10^-15) and Quarks and electrons (10^-18 or less), and ask yourself "why is there nothing at i.e. 10^-16-level"?

Membrane: from unity the manifold creates internal separation, but creates NEW UNITS (which appears to an observer) as coming from Nothing (but in fact coming from two 'invisible' hyperspaces which are jointed). Each of these hyperspaces have also a number of 'historic' layers, etc.

So my conclusion about the "speed of gravity': the membrane is the essence of everything and has does not have speed, it 'IS'. "Speed" is only a human definition of a repeatable or unique observation between two or more "units" which interact, and thus question: "with what velocity they interfere given a certain observed location". This implicates that an action or motion in a certain 'island' provoke also DIRECT actions by which surface changes in the whole membrane but also INDIRECT vibrational changes in the contacting (local) layers within the island.

PS: Now there is a level that I not touched yet which is that of the dynamics within islands. I will just tell you for the moment that the rotations of tubes (caused by moves of the composing previous hyperspaces) can create (dynamo type) excitation inside sub-layers, next to the length friction of expanding or decaying tubes and next to the inter-vibrations caused by internal events in a, island. So there are three basic movements related to the membrane inside pelastrated islands.

Chaos theory will approach this surface changes and depth interactions from a mathematical model trying to find patterns of behavior, and using fuzzy logic. Synchronicity of CG Jung tried to explain it by referring to causal but non-observable inter-relationships. Kaku explains it with the world of the carp.

To give the essence in a simple image: "If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are EMPTY ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

On Lorentz. H A Lorentz' hypothesis that everything contracted as it moved through the ether. His ether was fixed in the universe: matter consisted of changes of state of the ether, a change in one sense at the front of a particle being balanced by one in the opposite sense at the back.
That's fundamentally different from our approach.
"Theory of Electrons". He comes to the conclusion that he must reluctantly accept that the Earth contracts (everything contracts) in its direction of motion. But he also says that if we could find a way around two problems with Stokes' theory, it would give a very neat solution, with none of the maths -- no "Lorentz" transformation. Source: http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/Essays/aether.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
865
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
890
Replies
6
Views
501
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
482
Back
Top