View Single Post
Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Old
  (#22 (permalink))
Nobody
Blue Belt
Nobody is on a distinguished road
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 129
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 18x in 16 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Rep Power: 9
   
Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe - 09-14-2006, 03:50 AM

What quantized the initial energy/matter? I see only thermo-hydro-dynamics as the prime mover of all universal motion and actions. If no big-bang, what quantized energy/matter?

You say "initial" here, Lloyd, but initial implies a first/beginning and that conflicts with your saying "infinite/eternal" to create a paradox in itself. Yet, if the two perspectives exist simultaneously by combining Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, the paradox is solved because relative space-time can be illusively contained within an absolute reference frame when space-time is stretched through dilation. No literal movement is possible for relative thermodynamic laws to manifest because the universe as a whole has no concept of distance or speed - it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere in particular.

To give you a picture of what I mean, imagine a canvass painted completely with white paint. We can accurately say that every conceivable picture is already painted on it simultaneously, because white contains all possible colors and every point is already painted. We don't see the picture because there is no differentiation, which is the basis for both consciousness and relative space-time dilation. If we sensed all frequencies, we would cease to exist. Which is why I proclaim that the universe doesn't exist as a whole.

So, eventhough charges and energy states can't literally exist as a whole, through confinement we can have relative energy transfers by blocking out fractional charges from being conscious to give the impression of reality that we sense. It is blocked in the form of protons and neutrons which release two photons per particle/antiparticle annihilation, which in turn create the orbiting electrons that we are conscious of - two photons have been proven to create particle pairs - with its corresponding positron which is absorbed by the strong force.

Space and time are separate absolutes. Some say motion creates time, maybe true, but time still exists, all by it's lonesome, as the descriptor of infinite eternal energy/matter, before first star, before any possible sight of energy/matter's motion.

I disagree. I don't think time can exist by itself. It is dependent upon space and vice-versa, and is created by the illusion of motion which can be explained by objects being recreated incrementally over an infinite number of non-dimensional points.

The illusion can be verified by a simple moving of your hand in front of your face: you think or sense that your hand is moving, but because its composite particles consist of the same substance as space, there can be no movement possible; it has to be recreated at that sublevel incrementally to give the impression of moving through something.

It doesn't matter what speed light exists at, it's still the speed of light, and nothing changes. Light speed is absolute, no matter what speed.

There's a difference between absolute quantity and universally absolute. Light speed is a universal absolute because nothing can travel faster than light according to the relative natural laws of this particular universe. We can call it the absolute reference frame that Newton depicted - with it being infinite instead of 300,000 km/s - because those aforementioned energy transfers required for relative existence creates energy densities that result as the cmb which slows light down a heck of alot.

It is not zero, it is itself___always. As to "light creates matter and antimatter", what creates light is the proper question___what existed before first star light? As to "nothing," tis impossible, if we are going to have a logical universe functioning by the laws of physics, and it certainly does.

You're violating the Uncertainty Principle with your proclamations of certainty, Lloyd. Certain scenarios created from certain reference frames can create a logical world, but the universe as a whole doesn't have to conform to our limiting laws, and it can have little to do with the absolute nature of light.

I view it as infinite because, as I said before, there can be no such thing as time and distance, and no such thing as time and distance is the same as light travelling at infinite speed and not travelling at all.

The conservation laws of energy and matter require it to be infinite and eternal equilibriums of only different organizations of motions, also seen as finite matter.

I agree, but only in the illusory sense of the word. Without differentiation, there is no existence, and that is the state of absolute reality.
  
Reply With Quote