You see Dave, here's where you and I differ. You say; “Energy is matter in motion” and not an entity unto itself or stating that energy is determined by the state of distributed motion of an object." This is true in the finite post-first star universe, I agree, but in the infinite universe of thermodynamics, the finite heat universe is limited, and the infinite lack of heat universe is unlimited. Now if this be the case, the infinite before first star heat has different properties than the post-first-star heat universe. The absolute universal evolution has two major discreet entropy stages; 1.From infinite lack of heat to finite heat stage; and 2. From inanimate matter to animate life. We understand little of either. I am only trying to theorize beyond standard physics, with finite and infinite thermodynamics, as I absolutely know the infinite absolute lack of heat is true, by just looking up to see finite matter in and infinite space/void/time. The argument would be; Is the infinite an absolute matter or energy? The lack of heat does not require matter, IMO. Matter/motion only enters at first entropy stage___first light star. IMO, energy motion would be all that is required in the infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic void to create real matter light gasses, through pressure and condensation of temperature variances, from outside in. At some point of this pre-first-star evolution, initial matter motion would be created, i.e., hydrogen and helium of some sort, etc.
Dave, I see no way to theorize the true infinite state of the universe without the opposite and equal reactions of thermodynamics creating the ultimate equilibrium state we now enjoy___cold must balance heat___the infinite must balance the finite. These are only natural laws of physics, if we truly expand our logical thinking to what absolutely must have existed. To me, matter is not necessary in a true lack of heat universe, only energy and motion___a true initial weather system... [At the same time, we know matter and energy are interchangeable at light-speed, so maybe there is no difference in our terminology___just the time and velocity relativeness of our thoughts___interesting idea.]
Dave, let me enter a post from another site to maybe further expand my ideas below: [We must define the infinite absolute to truly understand the real universe___It's only scientific logic that the infinite gives birth to the finite, just as major philosophers and mathematicians have stated for centuries.]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Lloyd;
It would appear that we only disagree with what words and terms to express the same thing. I like to put things in terms that reach the greatest number of people, like saying: “Energy is matter in motion” and not an entity unto itself or stating that energy is determined by the state of distributed motion of an object. This way everyone does not need to learn thermodynamics to understand reality. |
“Everyone seems to have not realized what a true infinite void really is.” me
“Infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic cold fusion___The TAO Code.” me
Hi Aireal, Steve, Geoff, Rob and others. Since everyone seems to interpret me as not pertaining to the subject at hand, I should like to refer to Steve’s original post about differences and misunderstandings of infinity, and in doing so, use Aireal’s post below, to explain myself a bit further. Now as many of you, I have researched standard model, and quantum physics for over thirty years, with interest in all science, especially physics, going back to high school, in the sixties. As many of you, I am well aware of the linguistic problems and mis-understandings about infinity. It is probably, even historically, the most mis-understood word in our language, next to god and the word, eternal. I don’t quite know how I can show you what I am really trying to say, but I think by the end of this post reply, you and I may see a little clearer, what I mean by infinity and first cause.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by “Aireal” Gil
I think I may be beginning to see your concern. You said in your post "we see new star systems and galaxies being born anew___self-proving it is an evolving and expanding universe." |
Aireal, I respect your grasp of complex physics, and I have little dis-agreement with your posts___It just seems we are looking at the universe with slightly different lenses. I’ll try to take apart this post, to see if we can see these differences, and maybe all understand infinity a bit more thoroughly.
Quote:
What you state is proof that the universe is evolving, but not that it is expanding as a whole, only locally. To find proof that it is expanding as a whole, its boundary would have to be defined. Where is the edge of the universe at? What is beyond that edge that the universe is expanding into? Can the boundary be crossed? Is what on the other side of the boundary something different, or is it part of the universe? If it is part of the universe, then we haven’t found the boundary. The "expansion" you speak of could be no more than local inhomogeneities as Stephen Hawking’s suggests. Only a small part of a much larger, unbounded universe. Untill the boundary of the universe is found, and these questions answered, it can not be assumed that the universe had a beginning of the first cause as you suggest.
In 1982 I was stumbling over Hawking’s and Einstein’s positions about what you state above. Of course we all know Einstein believed in a space-time universe, and Hawking opened the door for the unbounded universe___in fact he actually calculated a theoretical steady state universe death by atomic decay, to be ten to the one thirty seventh power. Now that’s a lot of years, even for a steady state conjecture. So I started thinking about how to exit this universe, to reach a new objective view of the situation. By combining Hawking’s, Wheeler’s and Einstein’s ideas I was able to do just that. I first figured how far light would travel in fifteen or thirty billion years, as these two figures were the accepted sciences of the day. I believe I came up with the figure of 72 million, billion years. Well some would say that is much larger than any number science has come up with, but since space-time is considered curved, under standard model physics, we can all understand the mathematical discrepancies. After arriving at such a huge number, I started wondering how to exceed this absolute and total number of light years, light had been traveling___so I theoretically, hypothetically, thought up a psychological cyclotron to first encapsulate our solar system. Of course, naturally, the next step was to apply it to the entire universe. Well what do you know___I finally had a theoretic tool to step beyond the present reaches of thus known science___and mathematically provable, in theory, that is. To my surprise, when I was able to step into the blackness of the infinite void, beyond space time, I was quite amazed. I had done this by using the figure skater’s example of far flung arms, as galaxies, and when brought to the side, spin increases. By increasing infinite universal spin, Einstein’s laws of relativity allowed me to speed the entire space-time universe to the speed of light___and it dis-appeared into Hawking’s black-hole___and there I was, alone, outside the void’s black-hole. Now I asked myself one question___what was this? At the time the mistaken answer was “nothing.” Well, with more physics and the help of WSM, and others, I have been able to more thoroughly understand the experience of “false-nothing.” The black-hole I am referring to is not Hawking’s black-hole of extreme mass, but Einstein’s point of matter conversion to pure energy, that he worked on all his life___but from my experiences, he made one crucial mistake of considering space and time as one entity, when in fact, the completeness of his own work by this simple cyclotron example, shows it’s incompleteness. I existed, and still do, anytime I want to think about it, outside the space-time continuum, beyond Einstein’s and Hawking’s physics___in the true infinite void of Einstein’s thermodynamic void-time. Now, you can all say I’m dreaming, but you can all do the math yourselves___the conservation of energy laws, and the thermodynamic laws of physics, plus the rest of physics laws all allow such an infinite, eternal, void-time, beyond space-time of Einstein, creating the space-wave-time universe. All of Faraday’s, LaPlace’s, Gibbs’, Maxwell’s, Poincare’s, Lorentz’s, Leibniz’s, Huygen’s, Einstein’s, Heisenberg’s, Borr’s, etc., on and on theories, including your own are not in any dis-agreement with the above. If you truly think about it, thermo-hydro-dynamics of the infinite void energy/matter creates and unites quantum and particle physics. The laws of physics require it to be united under one creation force___all four forces are united by T.H.D. Though, I’m not a good writer on this, just realize this about the standard model big-bang, “you can‘t have explosion[inflation]” without implosion[deflation]. The laws of physics require the opposite and equal reaction, and Einstein showed long ago that matter and energy are always conserved, as a matter of fact, LaPlace showed it first, and Leibniz first showed E=MV squared. Einstein simply extended Leibniz’s formula, not Newton’s as is often believed, to E=MC squared. The conservation of the laws of physics demand this law___“The #1 thermodynamic requirement law - The conservation of thermodynamics’ law requires the action/reaction equivalence of initial implosion to create big-bang explosion - This is the implosion/explosion equivalence law of thermodynamics.” You see, when you remove all the heat and angular motion from the universe, in my theoretical cyclotron, the only place for it to go, when re-engineering the universe forward or backward, is into the infinite void___so what we have is___Nothing[actual infinite wave/matter/energy] is the absolute cold fusion total creator of the universe___T.H.D.___thermo-hydro-dynamics, just as Josiah Gibbs, America’s brightest thermodynamicist, and vector-mathematics inventor, and Einstein also thought, because nothing is actually the energy potential of everything___it was all the matter universe’s total conserved energy. This is no-one’s theory but my own___yet it is thoroughly mathematizable and within all the laws of physics. “The Old One”, as Einstein theorized, turns out to be what he was looking at all his life___thermodynamics. It is what I looked at for 34 years before all my notes and ideas fell into place.
Quote:
If you insist that it must have a beginning, without this evidence, you run into the old problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. The Big Bang theory tries to avoid this question by acting like it does not exist. Where did the singularity that started the Big Bang come from? How did it all start? Where is its "first cause". Indeed none of the mainstream theories fully address the problem of the first cause as you defined it. WSM is based as much on science as any of these other theories which sidestep the problem of the first cause. Why does none of these theories address the problem of the first cause? Because at this time science cannot, for the time being that is still in the realm of religion and philosophers.
Not since the discovery of the T.H.D. creation of the universe. Science’s own laws and mathematics prove it’s validity.
Quote:
Yes our finite human minds would like for everything to have a beginning that we can put our finger on. But that does not mean that everything must fit that finite view. Infinity did not have to start somewhere!
The infinite whole is one infinity. It did indeed, start___first motion___T.H.D.. Will it end? This is not to say that WSM, or quantum mechanics or Einstein are not correct, it is to say___they are all correct, just incomplete___ as to first cause, first motion, first time___void time is prime over space-time.
Quote:
Leading scientists like Stephen Hawking and John Barrow have stated this, the quantum theory of gravity supports this, philosophy, religions and even occult writings have said this over time.
These men are not wrong, they are just incomplete, and I have read both of them___many interesting ideas.
Quote:
If you think about it, infinity can not have a beginning. For at that beginning it would be finite and not infinite. So then you would be forced to ask another question. When does the finite become infinite? Do you see the problem?
We do seem to have a problem there, but language must be understood in this area to exhibit paradoxes, just as Poincare long ago said, “Singularities are required to exhibit paradoxes.” In order to avoid such paradoxes, we must add the duality of subjects. Infinity is the one true finite___Also!!! Just as god is an a-theist!!!
Quote:
In closing, do not worry so much about the "first cause" of an infinite universe, or a finite one for that matter. No theory of science can offer you the answer you seek at this time. Infinity is infinity because we cannot measure it, thus the only true "first cause" may be infinity itself.
The only true infinity is lack of heat___a thermodynamic phenomenon, of the highest order of magnitude.
Now, is infinity defined? Prove me wrong…
Regards,
Lloyd
p.s.
Sorry for the jumbled order, my mind wanders.
A few quotes.
“In an infinite time-void, energy condensed to the center thermo-hydro-dynamically and explodes in a near infinite compression stage.” me
“The infinite time-void‘s correspondence to earth‘s weather systems.” me
“Infinity compressed and expanded by itself; creates all the equilibrium forces of the universe.” me
“The thermo-hydro-dynamic self-circuitry of the universe, created the quantum and space-time universe.” me
“The absolute hydro-dynamics of infinite thermo-dynamics.” me
“The infinite void-time thermo-hydro-dynamic atom exploded and created the infinite/finite space-time universe and all of quantum and relative dynamics.” me
“The infinite power of infinite cold.” me
“Thermo-hydro-dynamics - The exploding force of a black hole‘s first motion - A universe collapsed to another black hole is required by T.H.D. to re-explode___The absolute power of infinite zero temp-pressure energy.” me
Re: beginning of universe -
09-02-2006, 06:25 AM
Linear Mode
