[force5]

Hi Marketa;

On the subject of "interactions", it may not be as clear to someone else as it is to you. When I think of interactions, the numbers(sources) of interactions are important as well as energy frequencies and direction and distances relative to the sources.

As for the fundamental laws of nature, I choose to base my models of fundamental processes with these laws as a starting point. INHO, anyone that wishes to ignore or attempt to disprove these fundamental laws can do as they wish. Personally, I don't have the time or desire to re-invent the wheel.

As for the analogy you used for the creation or destruction of energy, I'm afraid I disagree. Energy simply changes its angle, direction and/or density and volume. None of these processes result in a net change.

Cheers...John A.

P.S.

Sometimes my first impression after reading someones ideas is related mostly to my way of thinking and I may review it two or more times to search for alternate ways of interperting the information. We may witness the same event and come away with a completly different interpertation of what we saw.

[Marketa]

Hello John!
My "theory" doesn't attack classic/quantum etc. physics. I don't deny that these interpretations of observations can be useful (and are useful), but I like to look at things from more points of veiw. E.g. noone is able to explain HOW the energy is "changing" or "travelling" though physicists can describe the conditions when this happens, so why not to claim that energy can be "created" and "destroyed"? That's not less wise and not wiser than the claim that energy "changes" or "moves", becouse nobody can explain none of these phenomenons.
Thanks for your answers, new points of views come from conflicts
M.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I agree with you that materialization did not exist before the Big Bang. But to call this previous state nothing is a qualification in itself that has no grounds (except that there was nothing from the perspective of materialization). I believe that what existed before the Big Bang must remain unqualified.

I believe that there’s no task that can’t be solved, and there’s no question that can’t be answered correctly. If we assume that before materialization existed only nothing, we assume that there wasn’t anybody, or anything that realized what kind of state it was; and nothing itself didn’t realize it as well. Nothing as a conception was born in our conscience, but we ourselves already are something; the trouble is that nobody can show where nothing is, or what really it is. Everything else that can be shown, or felt already is something.
We have to analyze it only indirect way.
If we take numeral axis and try to explain that cipher zero corresponds to nonexistence, some people can say that nothing or zero doesn’t exist itself and it was only admitted to characterize the state when something is absent (the state when we don’t have something). For example, if we own 5 apples and they are taken away off us (all of them), we will get into so called non-apple-having condition, and this condition can be described as nothing regarding to apples, but it doesn’t mean that apples don’t exist generally. It’s too difficult to discuss about nonexistence from our position (i.e. from the position of existence), i.e. difficult to speak about nonexistence of universe, when you clearly see its existence, and if it is an illusion, anyway illusion itself presents something.
So, it’s useless to argue about it.
But the question - was this universe born from nothing or did it exist always? - Demands answering. If this universe was born from nothing, which itself remains nothing so far (in spite of fact that we can’t see it anywhere), then every creature in this universe and the universe itself must contain the code of it and there must be a system or mechanism based on it with help of which we can prove it experimentally.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca We have to analyze it only indirect way. For example, if we own 5 apples and they are taken away off us (all of them), we will get into so called non-apple-having condition, and this condition can be described as nothing regarding to apples, but it doesn’t mean that apples don’t exist generally. But the question - was this universe born from nothing or did it exist always? - Demands answering. If this universe was born from nothing, which itself remains nothing so far (in spite of fact that we can’t see it anywhere), then every creature in this universe and the universe itself must contain the code of it and there must be a system or mechanism based on it with help of which we can prove it experimentally.

I agree somewhat, but I must state that there will always be a problem contained within your solution in that (and it seems like you have a similar idea about nothing as I do) nothing is part and parcel of the code of our universe. So, even when you can name everything else, you still have to give a spot to nothing as well. As for your five apples, as soon as someone mentions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but not zero, then they have forgotten a number. For this I have evidence, whether we'll call it grandiose or most-obvious, in Chapter 5 in "In Search of a Cyclops" (see my page). With nothing part of the final set of players there will always be a definition 'problem' what to do with the player that is nothing.

In my view, the unmaterialized state before our universe came into being is a 'something.' What exactly this was can be discussed, can be theorized, can even help give explanations, but can never be listed on the same level as materialized information.

[dleviwing]

John;

I like your attitude. My only comment to the laws of physics is to state that it is better to know why they work, not just accept that they do work. Has your years been fruitful enough to tell you why they work?

David
dleviwing

[force5]

Hi David, I see I'm not the only oldtimer around here.

I use to question everything. But, over time, I eventually sorted enough things out to the point that I could establish a starting point for whatever research I choose to do. Once I discovered Physics, I was hooked. So that's where i've spent most of my spare time for the last 30 plus years. Most of those years were spent trying to expand on mainstream thinking by using QM and GR as a starting point. I had no more success than anyone else in finding the common thread for bringing these two theories together. That's when I decided to take a different approach and focus more on designing a model of everything and simply use methods that could draw on excepted knowledge to complete my work.

I have been a student of science for most of my life. But, it would require more than one life time for me to verify everything I've learned. Although, I've been very critical when it came to reviewing ones findings versus ones interpertations.

I not sure this answers your question but, it's kinda hard for me to justify my position in just a few sentences.

Stay active......John

[dleviwing]

John;

I see age is not the only thing we have in common; it seems we have been traveling the same paths and encountering the same obstructions.

I too prefer QM and GR when it comes to the mathematical solutions; however some of the perceptual explanations of what these equations mean are absurd.

I suppose the question I was asking you is: "Have you come to realize why these equations and laws of physic function as well as they do?" If you have taken your ideas to the fundamental level of knowing the absolute properties of the primordial substance of the universe, then our paths have also come to the same end.
Would you care to compare notes?

My greatest concern is that our mainstream science is traveling the paths that have only been successfully traveled by religious philosophy.

A Kindred spirit
Dave

[force5]

Hi Dave;

I would love to compare notes. I've been searching the internet for a few years hoping to find someone that views things much in the same way as I. Of course, I don't know how far we can take this but, agree or disagree, we can only benefit from the experience.

Regards.....John

[dleviwing]

John;

I have looked at some of your other posts. You stated in one of them that you could change you mind if someone could present a better idea to you. I also share this philosophy – shell we see if it's possible. I'll start with the fundamental conclusions I've drawn from the mathematics of our gauge theories. For the most part, these are perceptual concepts require to make sense of the mathematics. No time travel, no multi-universes, and no dimensions beyond 3D. I have no objection to incorporating extra dimensions in a mathematical equation of system, but not into reality. Only #4 can be considered a new idea and even that is implied in other writings and the mathematics. This is also the primary reason that conservation laws function.

1..There exists only one physical substance of the universe –“MATTER
2..Matter occupies a volume within a pure void – “ABSOLUTE SPACE”.
3..The pure concept of Time is absolute – “ABSOLUTE TIME”.
4..Matter has a fixed quantity of motion – “ABSOLUTE MOTION”.
5..Matter has the property of self bonding – “SELF-AFFINITY

Where would you like to start. I think it would be courteous to invite any others to feel free to join in.
If there are extensive writings to exchange, we can use Email if you like.

Lets begin
Dave

PS; the 10 years is not up yet

[force5]

Hi Dave;

I'm not sure Fredrick would like us to redirect his initial post for this purpose. Maybe we should initiate a new thread for this discussion. What do you think?

Please explain your meaning of the five stated postulates. Such as matter vs. space vs. time vs. motion.

thanks .... John