[dleviwing]

John;

Time, space, matter, and motion sound like a good start to me. I'm new to the TOE forum so I'm not quite sure of the protocols. Start the new thread and I'll tune-in.

I'm looking forward to some lively discussions. I don't take disagreements personally, and it sounds like you don't either. I prefer to be convinced, not dazzled.

Active minds live longer.
Dave

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Science itself has limitations. This is, for instance, the affirmation of the importance of the observer. By examining an environment, the examination itself changes the environment. Therefore the examination takes place in a changing environment, and not in an original environment.

Hello Fredrick!
The quatation above is from your site.
I’m very pressed for time and so far I looked through the first five chapters of your site. I’m not mathematician, but enjoyed your analysis about prime natural numbers. My approach to origin of universe and the role of zero in it is more simple and practical. I’ll try to be as brief as can.
As I mentioned in introduction, being innocent, I was on all union search during the period of USSR for not submitting to the verdict of Supreme Court of Georgian Socialist Republic, which itself was one of the consisting republics of USSR. My photographs were hung up at police stations. Being innocent wasn’t enough and as I had to survive, so I tried to find some mechanism or system, which would help me to avoid unrighteous sentence and to change my environment positively against the verdict, which was of all union scale as well. After a consideration nothing as a conception appeared in my mind.
As we mentioned, it’s useless to look for the “place” where nothing exists, or to build a laboratory to detect it, or to argue with others about it.
My approach was very simple: I didn’t care about the origin of the universe, i.e. was it actually created from nothing, or was it created after Big Bang, or does it exist permanently in 3-D space within the time, but. . .
If this universe really was born from nothing, then every creature in this universe and the universe itself must contain the code of it even presently and there must exist a system or mechanism based on it. . .
To say briefly such a system really exists. It had been used by ancestors of mankind for harmonization of the universe. The mentioned by you Lao Tse, Buddha, Sufis, and lot of other persons knew about it. No need to recite all persons.
I called the system “Active zero”, then set it up and made an experiment.
Generally, despite the fact that it isn’t possible to create precise conditions for experiment, the latter must be considered as most important method and its results could be successful in case of proper approach and analysis.
Let’s take for example the simplest experiment about gravity: if we flip a little pebble to the air, it will fall to the surface of the Earth. If we repeat it 1000 times the results will be the same in spite of the fact that the conditions of experiment change (the pebble changes, it’s not the same as in the first moment of flipping), and the environment of experiment changes as well every minute, and observers as well change. Some people believe that the 1.pebble strives to the center of planet, but some of them think that 2.the earth is expending and so striving to pebble. Both assertions are equivalent from the position of theory, but main part of mankind chose the first one, because it’s flexible and acceptable practically, i.e. changing of conditions of experiment in our case doesn’t reflect on the result. That means that successfully chosen conditions of experiment will give good results (Generally it’s too difficult to prove anything to anybody, not because of the weakness of arguments, but because various people think differently and all of them believes himself to be right. Such is the reality. Chances to find thinker similar to you are too small. for example try to prove to the dog that the Earth is spherical. You could not manage. The main obstacle is that the dog does not understand it)
After the first positive result I practiced the system “Active zero” for 10 years (1987-97) with lot of positive (but with some negative results as well).
Right now I intend to set it up for restoration of ozone layer as an experiment and looking for interested partner.
Do you think that if an experiment with the system (that’s based on zero) gives positive results, would it be the proving argument that this universe arose from nothing?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Fredrick ...a center the size of a pea,

all our detector can only detect particles that will interact with any of the 4 forces of nature. The interaction implies 4D space-time property. But the big bang singularity is neither a pea nor a 4D space-time point. It is a zero dimensional unit scalar, which is not space and not time. This is where all physical laws breakdown and become meaningless. But Hawking said it is just the beginning of time and space.

[Fredrick]

Hi AntonioLao,

I fully agree with your words but even then the zero dimensional unit scalar leaves space for variation. Did that first outward movement of time and space start from a pea sized center or from a much larger sphere of which the center remained empty?

Hi Zeroca,

I do not believe it will ever be possible to prove our universe came out of nothing, simply because I do not believe our universe came out of nothing. Nothing - according to me - is only one of the aspects of our universe, not of what was before. In my view, nothing is nothing at all, but as such it exists, is part of our universe. To have a process start up with nothing and get a positive result is according to me not possible, because you cannot start with nothing nor can anyone else; our universe already exists. Nothing only comes about as part of a larger picture.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I fully agree with your words but even then the zero dimensional unit scalar leaves space for variation. Did that first outward movement of time and space start from a pea sized center or from a much larger sphere of which the center remained empty?

your question seems to be unverifiable by experiments. But i cannot agree that it is a sphere. I defined a sphere as a closed surface, which separate reality into an inside and an outside and these two domains cannot communicate with each other without passing thru the forbidden bounding surface. But if there is a hole or at most two holes then all points inside can be connected to any other points outside. the topology can be mapped into 2 cones joined at their singular vertex and all the conic sections can be cutted and projected into any Euclidean plane for study. The common vertex is the pea and the linear, circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic cross sections serve as multi-dimensional extensions of reality emanating from the pea.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Your question seems to be unverifiable by experiments. But i cannot agree that it is a sphere.

That it is unverifiable is beyond questioning; our universe started only once (in my view) and cannot be repeated (by us). You are right that it is not really a sphere, because that would include the inside, while I am trying to exclude the inside as part of a possible theoretical start for our universe. Since we only have one beginning there aren't any good words to describe the state. The closest I can get is an emerging outwardly moving sphere that contains an inner area in which no materialization takes place as part of the emerging process. Just like writing a clear sentence often requiresthespacesbetweenthewords to make it really legible, such an area in which materialization did not take place within the process of materialization is similarly fundamental (helps to clarify what did materialize).

Naturally, I simply place this next to the theory in which everything started to materialize from a center position (in which theory the phenomenon of nothing is simply not that important). Which one of the two was the actual beginning? I do not think we can actually verify either one (though I do deliver mathematical evidence that nothing is a fundamental part of it all).

[AntonioLao]

I'm subscribing to the mathematical logic that



this is similar to the concept of probability that



the probability is zero means that the event will never happen.

[Fredrick]

I see what you mean.
The best way to describe my point of view is that our universe is based on duality (though I believe this can come about in a four-part way). So your description is not something I disagree with but I do not think that it is the whole story of nothing. Next to a nothing (or better a sense of nothing) in the 'add infinitum' as you are describing I believe there is a nothing that simply is nothing. I cannot really describe it in mathematical language, but if I had to it would be something like n - n = 0. Indeed, not the most elegant equation, but there are no good scientific ways to describe just the hole in the wall.

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictur...ures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

I could not ask for a better image.

I do not want to start up a new discussion here (because I do not have the capacity to discuss in detail what I am thinking - I lack the scientific knowledge that is required for good discussions on this topic), but...
as you can read in the abstract the focus is on having recreated a miniature black hole, and I just need to say that I think the black hole thing is overblown too much. I don't think there is as much gravity in our universe as is being calculated. I think a theoretical mistake is being made by expecting gravity to exist where it does not - or at least not in these vast quantities: at the center of galaxies.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Fredrick I don't think there is as much gravity in our universe as is being calculated. I think a theoretical mistake is being made by expecting gravity to exist where it does not - or at least not in these vast quantities: at the center of galaxies.

thanks for the picture and the article by Dr. Horatiu Nastase. It's image like this which make me want to be an experimentalist. But I found out long ago that I'm not able to handle lab equipments very well. I have that tendency of making them inoperable.

It's a fact that cosmologists cannot account for all the matter in the universe. So they theorized such things as dark matter, mass for neutrinos, and WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), axions, photinos, zinos, and winos. All these are supposed to have been produced in the Big Bang (the mother of all black holes). Where are they now? Nobody knows.

[Fredrick]

The image I have in mind about why physicists are miscalculating the amount of gravity in galaxies is that of a hurricane. While a hurricane is a monster of energy, the properties of the center of a hurricane are not linked to that energy outburst; the center of a hurricane is an 'empty' spot.

While I do not claim that the center of a galaxy is empty, I claim that the center of a galaxy is that of a normal state (albeit under special circumstances). While in the eye of the hurricane, there isn't much of a storm going on - people can see blue sky and there is not much wind. The conditions are 'normal.'

I am not a physicists but when I read how physicists calculate the center of gravity in galaxies I think they mistake the model of our solar system (in which the gravity center is in the middle) and expect it to fit as a model for the galaxies. They use the size and the spin of the galaxy to calculate the gravitational force of that center. I think that is a mistake. I think gravity in galaxies is more like group gravity rather than center gravity; so the cohesion is caused by the gravity of the group, not by an incredibly powerful gravity of the center. Again, I am not a specialist in this kind of information so I can not really argue my case with scientific data, but in my minimal researches on what the physicists are using to back up their claims I must say that I was disappointed.

So, while I think there is something about the center of galaxies - it is a special spot in which the circumstances are quite peculiar - I do not think it contains any extraordinary amounts of gravity. Could it be a hellish place? That could very well be the case. In a hurricane some things may be dropping into the middle of the storm; a truck or so that was picked up by the hurricane could fall out of the sky in the middle. I would imagine that mass/energy could get 'dropped' inside the center of galaxies where all of a sudden there is a 'normal' state. Would it appear to fall off the radar screen? Good chance. I have always been intrigued by the two plumes coming out/moving away perpendicularly from the center of galaxies. Images: http://www.aoqz76.dsl.pipex.com/Web%...ack%20Hole.jpg and http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2002/3c120.vl...cher.still.jpg Because, do these plumes contain all the energy that 'falls' into the ordinary gravitational state of the center? Calculations so far have been shown to suggest that it is not enough, but those calculations start out with the assumption that the center is a spot of highly centered gravity, not of ordinary gravity.

I do not know if my idea of gravity is correct, but if each galaxy does not contain an enormous center of gravity then the total amount of energy in our universe would be alot less. Dark matter may still exist (who knows) but the calculations would be quite different.