[MJA]

"My religion consist of a humble admiration of the illitable superior spririt who reveals himself in slight details we are able to percieve with our frail and feeble minds." Albert Einstein

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

"Why is it that nobody understands me, and everybody likes me?" - Albert Einstein - The New York Times, March 12, 1944

"I've completely solved the problem. My solution was to analyze the concept of time. Time cannot be absolutely defined, and there is an inseparable relation between time and signal velocity." - Albert Einstein - Michele Besso, May 1905

Einstein wasn't a nihilist as is evident in his writings and neither am I, but he was a relativist whereas I am not. Though he searched for a way to retain physical reality, he apparently struggled with differentiating between the source of observations and the processes involved in observing them.

He would accept the illusion as reality, whereas I advocate reality as an illusion by retaining newtonian spacetime. It's that simple, Dave, but it is likely that most relativists will disagree. The whole of his work attempted to unify what is thought to be separate, but like anything else, the way we tie concepts and experiences together to form our facts only prove true as far as we prove them to ourselves.

This link - http://www.kostic.niu.edu/Physics_an...t_Einstein.pdf - is a work that may shed light on implications that I infer to be consistent with illusory time(past, present and future extensions of dimesnions) being the sole factor in determining conscious perceptions of reality(present moment). Again, that the "now here" is abstractly nowhere.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

All of you surely have some point of truth in your examination of matter, mass, time, energy and so on. Sometimes it is difficult to make a clear distinction. I basically would hold that there exist at least three basic realities that are distinct to each other but all describe the same basic cosmic reality. These three truths are the physical reality, the rational reality and the personal reality. Physical scientists work with the physical reality, the philosopher with rational reality and the theologians with revealed or personal reality. Keeping these three distinct realities in mind I like to restrict myself here to the physical aspect of cosmic reality.

In my understanding of a quantum or Planck particle it is something physically real, it is the some kind of matter or entity and it has various physical properties. It has the smallest possible but constant quantity of energy; it moves at a constant speed of light; and it has both inertial and gravitational properties. Since it has both gravitational and inertial propertis we can say that it is some kind of matter and has some form of mass. You can call the mass whatever you please, but I like to call it virtual.

The strangeness of this particle is that if one adds the equal but opposite inertial or kinetic energy of the particle with its potential gravitational energy, one gets the formula of a black hole which is:

R = ( 2 G M ) / c^2

Since all matter and energies of the universe consists of energy, it is logically possible to argue that the whole universe is a black hole. If this is so, there would exist a beautiful symmetry in the universe. Since also: M = E / c^2, it is possible to work out the energy formula of the universe:

E = ( R c^4 ) / ( 2 G )

E stands for the total energy of the universe; R is the radius of the universe; c is the constant speed of light; and G stands for the universal gravitational constant.

Could this formula possibly be the TOE equation of the universe?

Yours Cosvis.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Matter is the ENTITY; mass and energy are dimensions of measurement. We cannot know what matter is; we can only define what attributes matter has. If you say that mass and matter are synonymous you are claiming that the attribute is the entity. Motion is also an attribute of matter.

Though I disagree wholeheartedly that matter is an entity and that motion is a separate attribute to matter, I have to agree with Dave here, Cosvis, that planck mass/energy is an attribute of the unknown "entity."

My further inference would be related to the absolute frame being divided into relative frames to allow for the sensory perception of motion(mass/energy).

[MJA]

Originally Posted by cosvis

Hi to all,

All of you surely have some point of truth in your examination of matter, mass, time, energy and so on. Sometimes it is difficult to make a clear distinction. I basically would hold that there exist at least three basic realities that are distinct to each other but all describe the same basic cosmic reality. These three truths are the physical reality, the rational reality and the personal reality. Physical scientists work with the physical reality, the philosopher with rational reality and the theologians with revealed or personal reality. Keeping these three distinct realities in mind I like to restrict myself here to the physical aspect of cosmic reality.

In my understanding of a quantum or Planck particle it is something physically real, it is the some kind of matter or entity and it has various physical properties. It has the smallest possible but constant quantity of energy; it moves at a constant speed of light; and it has both inertial and gravitational properties. Since it has both gravitational and inertial propertis we can say that it is some kind of matter and has some form of mass. You can call the mass whatever you please, but I like to call it virtual.

The strangeness of this particle is that if one adds the equal but opposite inertial or kinetic energy of the particle with its potential gravitational energy, one gets the formula of a black hole which is:

R = ( 2 G M ) / c^2

Since all matter and energies of the universe consists of energy, it is logically possible to argue that the whole universe is a black hole. If this is so, there would exist a beautiful symmetry in the universe. Since also: M = E / c^2, it is possible to work out the energy formula of the universe:

E = ( R c^4 ) / ( 2 G )

E stands for the total energy of the universe; R is the radius of the universe; c is the constant speed of light; and G stands for the universal gravitational constant.

Could this formula possibly be the TOE equation of the universe?

Yours Cosvis.

Your Close!

Once you remove any quantum mechanical probability or uncertainty from your equations of physical cosmic reality that you call science, nature's most simple truth is all that will remain.
You haven't simplified nature enough yet.

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

Would close not be equal to close enough, MJA?

[MJA]

Close or close enough?
One can be close to truth, but never be close enough, when the truth,
not close or close enough to the truth, is what one truly seeks or what one truly is!
One can look for the truth, and be close to finding it, but the search is never complete until the truth is in the hand of one.


=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

I agree, MJA. One can search for the truth, but none will find it because it is not a thing to be found.

[dleviwing]

Covis;
I believe most scientist and cosmologist will simply ignore you! I don’t think you’re close enough yet!

[dleviwing]

There are many myths of Quantum Theory but the pure fact is that Planck found that a unique quantity of radiant energy is defined as the increment of emission or absorption. This value “h” is then used to determine many other units of quantum scalars; the rest is a lot of BS or hype to make the uneducated feel dumb or to sell a worthless book for a lot of money.