[MJA]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

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

What are you talking about?

None will find the truth?
Truth is not a thing to be found?
You agree with me?
Nobody, you make no sense at all.
Only the opposite is true to me.
For me,
Truth is the oneness of equality, the unity of everything.
Truth is real and attainable, or can be found by all.
It's been found!
Hello!!!

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

"Only the opposite is true to me."

When there is no opposite, and only equality between us regardless of what I say, then the truth you refer to can be realized. Yet, with the ego thought to be existing in a particular time and place, it always seems to get in the way.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

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

Dear Nobody,

So then what brings you to TOE Quest if you believe as you say that truth in not a thing that can be found?
Are you here for nothing, Nobody?
You quest nothing?
I don't understand.
What is a nothing?
Who is Nobody?

=
MJA

[N0B0DY]

Not at all, MJA. The theory of everything and the theory of nothing are equal, as absolute unification of the symmetrical universe equals zero.

The relative mass and energy depicted in this thread is what is relevant though, MJA, not my theory. So when pitted against it, I ask questions about and comment on other interpretations of motion and matter in order to get an idea of various pictures.

Yours seems to be equal to mine.

[cosvis]

Hi Nobody, JMA and all,

I think you are in the realm of philosophy and not physical science and so I will not join you in your discussion here.

I am more interested in what Nobody said above about "Planck mass/energy is an attribute of the unknown entity." To me Planck is not an attribute of matter but the smallest part of matter. This is what the Hutchinson dictionary of Science says about a Planck's constant; .."a fundamental constant (symbol h) that is the energy of one quantum of electromagnetic radiation (the smallest possible "packet" of energy." Since all matter is constituted by energy, it is possible to say that a Planck or quantum particle is the smallest particle of matter.

MJA suggested above to "remove quantum mechanical probability or uncertainty from (the) equation of physical cosmic reality." I do not think that this is possible because when viewing a quantum particle from the fourth dimensional perspective, it does show an uncertainty factor. The reason for this is that the quantum particle exists in the fifth dimensional reality and it exists of two fundamental properties one is inertial or kinetic and the other is gravitational. Thus, from the fourth dimensional perspective the quantum particle can be seen as a particle or as a wave, and there exist an uncertainty or probability of which one is viewing at any particular time.

I just like to add that if the TOE equation of the universe is:

E = ( R c^4) / 2 G

and E = f h; energy is the frequency times the Panck constant; than the frequency of the universe could be:

f = ( R c^4 ) / ( 2 G h )

The beauty of this equation is that it combines the constants of the speed of light ( c ), the universal gravitational contant ( G ) and the quantum or Planck constant ( h ). The only two variables are the frequency ( f ) and the radius ( R ) which are directly proportional.

Yours Cosvis.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by cosvis

I just like to add that if the TOE equation of the universe is:

E = ( R c^4) / 2 G


Yours Cosvis.

Close Cosvic but no cigar.

Their is no certainty in E or R or G, and if their is then do explain.

If not, then by removing any uncertainty from any equation including your's, only the foundation or truth of an equation remains, this is simply =.
The truth of = is the unifying single truth of nature, and it was infront of us all along.
= has no uncertainty or doubt.
It still blows me away!
YAAAAAAAA!

=
MJA

[cosvis]

Hi MJA and all,

I would hold MJA that the total quantity of the energy of the universe is still unknown and thus also the radius of our universe. However, the Gravitational constant of the universe ( Symbol G ) is known. The difficulty is that in different models of the universe, especially in the Big Bang theory of the universe, some variable gravitational constants are proposed, in which it decreases with time as the universe expands.

I have speculated here in our eternal, evolving universe model, that the universe is a Black Hole with a finite quantity of energy. Our proposed universe does not expand because no new energy is created nor destroyed from the principle Energy can not be created nor destroyed. Thus the total quantity of energy of the universe remains constant and so also its radius. Since the universe remains constant, it does not expand and thus its gravitational constant ( G ) remains also constant.

Another interesting fact about a Black Hole universe is that it has a mean temperature because every black hole has a temperature according to its quantity of energy and its radius. I proposed earlier that the microwave background radiation of the universe according to our model of the universe, is the mean temperature of the universe.

I would just like to raise the possibility that if the mean temperature of our black hole universe model, is know, than it should be possible to work out, mathematically, the radius and the quantity of energy of the universe since the radius of the universe is directly proportional to its quantity of energy and all the other dimensions ( c, h, and G ) are constants. Unfortunately, my mathematical skills are not able to do this, but I would say a good mathematician should be able to do it.

This is just a theory and suggestion.

Yours Cosvis.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by cosvis

Hi MJA and all,

I would hold MJA that the total quantity of the energy of the universe is still unknown and thus also the radius of our universe. However, the Gravitational constant of the universe ( Symbol G ) is known. The difficulty is that in different models of the universe, especially in the Big Bang theory of the universe, some variable gravitational constants are proposed, in which it decreases with time as the universe expands.

Yours Cosvis.

With all due respect,

Tell us Cosvis with absolute certainty what gravity is?
And then how gravity is constant in an unconstant infinite universe of ever changing motion?
Constant, like the theoretical speed of light?
Are you truly certain of gravity, of measure, of anything?

=
MJA

[cosvis]

Hi MJA and all,

I can not give you absoute certainty because that is rather a philosophical question than a scientific question. I accept what the normal understanding is of gravity by scientists. To scientists according to the Hutchinson dictionary of science, gravity is a "force of attraction that arises between onjects by virtue of their masses. The scientists have also worked out the value of an universal gravitational constant which I accept to operate throughout the universe unless it has been proven otherways.

Gravity between onjects depends on the distances the onjects are appart and how much mass the objects have; this gravity of cause varies. But if all the masses of the universe are taken together and if the universe is constant, that is, it does not expand or decrease in radius than it is possible to work out a "gravitational constant" that operates throughout the universe. Thus in order to have a Gravitational Constant the universe has to be steady or constant.

You said above that the universe is "an unconstant infinite universe". I know that this is a cosmological theory, but I do not accept that theory. In my eternal evolving universe theory, the universe is constant, eg. it does not expand or decrease in size, and it is finite and not infinite. I hold that the universe is constituted only by finite quantity of mass or energy, not infinite. Since according to scientific principles energy can not be created nor destroyed, but it does exist, it must have existed from eternity and will exist to eternity. If there can not be any more quantity of energy, and if the universe is in the formation of a black hole, then it can not expand beyond its present event horizon.

Yours Cosvis.

[cosvis]

Hi to all,

To continue with our TOEQuest, The Eternal Evolving Universe, the big question is what happened at its origin when the universe was in the form of pure energy or light? How did the transformation of energy to matter occur?

I have speculated that the universe is in a formation of a black hole. I say this because according to Einstein theory all matter is constituted of energy and Sir Isaac Newton states that all matter in the universe are connected by gravity. If all matter in the universe is connected by gravity, than nothing can excape it gravitational force. The only known cosmological formation that lets nothing escape, not even light, is a black hole. Thus it is theoretically possible to hold that the universe is vast black hole. (There are other reasons why we can say that the universe is a black hole but it would take too much space here to enter that topic.)

A black hole has an outer edge known as the event horizon where its gravitational field is so great that not even light can escape. It is at the event horizon where exist the greatest concentration of gravitational forces and energy. It is at this point, at the event horizon of the black hole universe, that could possibly be the the most likely baking chambers which enables the formation of matter from energy.

It was Stephen Hawking who speculated that at the gravitational field of the event horizon of a black hole causes the production of particle-antiparticle pairs. Hawking speculated that these particle and antiparticle would separate, one part would fall back into the black hole and the other escape the black hole.

I would not agree with Hawking that any particle would escape the black hole because this is impossible by the definition of a black hole. However, I would agree with Hawking that particle and antiparticle pairs are formed at the event horizon, and that these particle and antiparticles separate. One part would fall back into the black hole, or into the universe, but the other part would remain and collect at or near the event horizon. This could possibly be an explanation why the universe consists mainly of matter, and the mysterious absent of the antimatter.

Yours cosvis.