David, I agree the only proper way to proceed is to take it much slower, as the ideas are profound and take time to settle, as we seem to be coming at the problems and solutions from different aspects of the spectrum___you maybe, I don't know, from high temperature physics and myself from low temperature physics. If you prefer to change the post title, that's fine with me___I just want to boil out the facts. David, I've gone through this post to state where I have a few problems with the 3rd axiom. We will need to clarify this fundamental difference. I'm fully willing to listen to any scientific explanation, even conjectures, if that's what it takes to finally uncover the more hidden sciences. So please check out my points, and maybe we can proceed with the axioms, as I do agree this is the best way to proceed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing  Hi Lloyd;
May I suggest we start a little slower and take one issue at a time and keep our posts a reasonable size that can be responded to. Let’s start by looking at what we both, and hopefully others, recognize as flaws in the current BB and try to define the fundamental substance and its properties; Then we can go on to discuss the more complex issues.
PRIOR TO THE UNIVERSE EVENT:
As I see it, we have agreed on an axiomatic concept of existence that states:
Axiom 1.. An infinite void or place does exist. (Absolute void)
Axiom 2.. An entity that promotes physical phenomena exists. (Fundamental matter)
We could call this substance “Dark Matter”, but dark matter is defined as producing gravity. At this phase there is no mechanism to produce gravity. So let’s go on and define our concepts of “FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES” of this substance.
I have expressed one property as being the property of “Bonding”. In my view this is just a function that the substance will adhere to itself upon contact. You interpreted it as saying it had quantum field properties.[I was referring to linear quantum field properties, or really non-quantum properties___just linear motion___really just trying to see where our different definitions meet] Quantum interpretations do not come into play at this phase.[I agree] QED does not come into effect until the substance evolves into structure and interactions of structures.[I agree](thermodynamics[Is eternally present, IMO] and wave mechanics[linear wave mechanics is eternally present, IMO___absolute motion])
If this “Bonding” property is agreed upon, then we can state it as a third axiomatic concept of “SELF-AFFINITY”. If not, then let’s continue to discuss fundamental properties and debate our differences.[IMO, at the absolute fundamental level of universal evolution, what you are defining as self-affinity is too axiomatic, in and of itself, to be supported by the integrity and symmetry of the laws of physics, IMO, without further realizing the absolute eternal thermal condition of zero temperature assisting any possible self-affinity at this early period___I have doubts as to whether any self-affinity is needed to exist at the absolute fundamental level___IMO, it smells of an undefinable, and I would say science has no undefinables___it's too much like adding in a "mythos". I would admit it is a major element of later quantumized finite space. If you can explain it in any other manner than pure thermal pressure, I'm all ears.]
Axiom 3: Fundamental matter adheres to itself – Self-Affinity.[I can't accept until explained more in depth.]
BTW: My calculations for the volume of the substance prior to the universe event is approximately a 50,000 kilometer diameter sphere.[IMO, according to what we already know about collapsed stars and the huge numbers existing in the entire finite universe to later collapse, to say neutron stars, wouldn't that be a bit small?] We can discuss the math latter. Relative to the infinite void, I guess we could call it a zero point, but not as it is currently interpreted.
Are we ready to go on, or does someone need to discuss this Pre-event state further or think it is just mythomania?[We're on the right track, we just need further clarrifications.]
Lloyd: I would like to change the name of your thread to something more fitting to what we are doing. Maybe “Universal Evolution”. Let me know.[Fine] |
David, here's a proposal for Axion 3: Absolute first state wave matter must have always had infinite motion.[or Axiom 4, if you like.]
And maybe Axiom 5: Fundamental matter must be eternal.
And maybe Axiom 6: Fundamental matter must be thermally motioned, or fundamental matter is thermodynamic, in and of itself, then it would be self-affinity, as you state, but iff... But this becomes impossible, as it would have no way of changing state, while maintaining initial thermal state, which we know still exists as low entropy cold space. So I think the thermodynamic must by scientific induction and deduction be a
part of self-affinity.
David, IMO, there are only several fundamentals that exist at the absolute first state level, but they exist all at once, eternally. We must separate out the order/function of their fundamental motions, first, I believe, to proceed. Let me know what you think, or explain it further in your own manner.
Lloyd
p.s.
We need absolute definitions of self-affinity___universal thermodynamics.