[dleviwing]

I would say that’s about as vague as you can get MJA!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Dave, take an 8 by 10 piece of paper, laid long, left to right. In the center draw a 1/4" circle. Through that circle's center, draw the infinity symbol, having about 1" diameter on each side. Now draw two 4" circles whose circumferances intersect the center of the 1/4" circle, left and right overlaping the two sides of the infinity symbol. The circumference of the 4" circles represents the Higgs Boson chiral wave field, moving in two directions, out of the center of the 1/4" circle, which is our universe genesis, at big bang age. This is just a cross section, similar to Penrose's twistor model, yet considerably different. The Higgs field travels around the 4" circle in both directions, with right handed chirality, on the right, and with left handed chirality, on the left, creating a very dense event horizon field, acting only toward the center of the circle. The 1/4" circle, being the genesis object, after earlier universal formation, is of considerable mass, which explodes/inflates into the figure eight of the infinity symbol. All the rest of the lesser particles, we more or less know about how they may flow out of such a model. It's just the Higgs wave field, I see as extremely important, to produce the true concave inwaves, from this highly dense Higgs field, possibly a big part of the gravity balancing act. I see no way for the microwave density we know is there by experiment, without densities held in place by a chirality of field. Also, this right handed Higgs chirality, may be connected from the first explosion/inflation into all the many chromodynamic and other particles, existing in the infinity symbol area. The Dirac photon sea exists, both inside all circles and symbols, as well as outside the Higgs chirally enclosing event horizon field. As any black hole event horizon operates, there is no external field, outside the 4" circles, yet all external photon waves are allowed to enter the event horizon/Higgs field, and the rest of the expanding universe, to balance the need for universal expansion, within the area of the infinity symbol, and its expanding growth...

Now, this model is not my own, yet I have added the Higgs field to it. I do not agree with the dual chiralities of the model, but it does answer the standard models' needs of fermions and bosons. The model is Jerry Merrill's, from Calais Maine, an old physicist friend of mine. Within the model's past life, before Higgs Bosons, I see a straight photonic substance, evolving presures and chirality, at the center, through the principle of least thermo-hydro-dynamic action, to create the critical mass necessary, to create the model pictured. I also would think chirality has much to do with the motions, inside the genesis object. IMO, this may be a picture of a big-bang, by necessity, to create the Higgs field, or could somehow, that I can't imagine, have been a small bangs model, or as your favorite, wave condensation into matter particles. If so, I see no way without wave chirality, to create enough quantum confinement, that any matter particles, can be produced otherwise. The studies of many types of wave chirality confinement{handedness} leads me to this conclusion... BTW, the velocities, at explosion, of the Higgs field creation, could approach your figure, as we witness through the Hubble's observations of quasars, pulsars, magnestars, etc.. Those velocities seem to be very high, and that's only what we can see... We may not be yet able to observe the full picture of light speeds, beyond our inadequate technologies, that may already be present... This in no way infers superluminal velocities, just light traveling faster than our local rate of light...

Now, your's,
Lloyd

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Michael; Spiritual people tend to cling to an assumption that the lack of proof is proof of a god or deity; it’s not. It is just a lack of knowing and does not prove anything.

Dave, I'm sorry to interrupt your thread here by my post, but I totally admire and respect your opinion.
'Deity', 'hereafter' and 'spirit' have never been proven. To discover truth as good as possible by means of the scientific method and to interpret the facts with concepts as little as possible, into causal connections according to laws, always in the operational framework of 'measuring is the first condition to knowing' and to make clear, measurable testable and independent repeatable predictions on the ground of this, is great.

However, I just want to add that science and religion operate in different fields.
Religion is a feeling of astonishment that comes over when thinking about the universe; it's the experience of the emotion which is felt in the presence of the mystery of nature and in the respect for its creator.

Spiritual people experience this emotion and want to share it with other people by uttering it.
I consider that to be great as well.

It's likely we will never get a scientific answer to the question: "Does God exist?"
But isn't it just a matter of simple logics that science can not have anything to say about the reality of a supernatural spirit that leads us?

[Profpat]

Hi everyone;

I thought I would reintroduce Aristotle's Thought on the subject:

Aristotle (c. 384–322 BCE) also put forth the idea of a first cause, often referred to as the "Prime Mover" or "Unmoved Mover" (the πρῶτον κινοῦν ἀκίνητον or primus motor) in his work Metaphysics. For Aristotle too, as for Plato, the underlying "stuff" of the universe always was in existence and always would be (which in turn follows Parmenides' famous statement that "nothing can come from nothing"). Aristotle posited an underlying ousia (an essence or substance) of which the universe is composed, and it is the ousia that the Prime Mover organized and set into motion. The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but is instead a Being who constantly thinks about thinking itself, and who organized the cosmos by making matter the object of "aspiration or desire".[2] The Prime Mover was, to Aristotle, a "thinking on thinking," an eternal process of pure thought.
ct at hand:

Best to all,

Pat

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by David Maes Spiritual people experience this emotion and want to share it with other people by uttering it. I consider that to be great as well.

Unfortunately Mr. Meas, the touched tend to utter their beliefs in the science forums. Robert has provided more than enough forums for the expression of the spiritual. These people believe it is their righteous duty and human right to convert everyone to their bullsh#t. I do not impose my concept on the spiritual forums and should not have you spiritualist imposing your beliefs on the science forums. MUST I MAKE IT CLEARER THAN THAT?

Ditto this to Profpat

Lloyd; I'll try your paper doll and get back to you tomorrow. Good night..

[MJA]

Originally Posted by dleviwing I would say that’s about as vague as you can get MJA!

David,

Sorry simple doesn't work for you, that only means you have further to go.

And what do you call Newton's apple, vague too?

What is your definition of motion, David, is it only something you have read or been told?
How would you explain a universe in motion, in your own words?

Try simplicity if you can.

Thanks,

=
MJA

[Tina]

Originally Posted by David Maes It's likely we will never get a scientific answer to the question: "Does God exist?" But isn't it just a matter of simple logics that science can not have anything to say about the reality of a supernatural spirit that leads us?

Protheory's Logic Answer to the Question "Does God Exist?"

According to Protheory there are there are three potential truth values to any proposition: True, False or Neither True but Neither False (something else = NEUTRAL). So below are the three potential answers to the question.

First we present the statement P = God exists (affirm)
Then we negate statement -P = God does not exist (deny)
The we negate (P) > -(P)
Then we negate the negation -P > -(-P)
then conjoin = -(P) ^ -(-P) (to neutralise)

Now we can not prove God exists so we can not say "God exists" is True
Nor can we prove God does not exist so we can not "God exists" is False.
This leaves the third potential which reads:
It is not the case that "God exists"
and
it is not the case that "God does not exist."
This necessitates us to conclude that (for lack of proof in this case)
the existance of God is indertiminable at this stage.

To affirm or deny God then is a statement of "Belief"

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Michael; You believe there was a beginning? I don’t. imo - There was only an event within what already existed. Don’t worry though, your view is popular with scientist as well as laymen; after all, the current BB model is a genesis philosophy of something from nothing. Spiritual people tend to cling to an assumption that the lack of proof is proof of a god or deity; it’s not. It is just a lack of knowing and does not prove anything. Now; what is it you actually KNOW about motion; as you are aware, my concept is that motion is absolute and has existed for eternity; no god or creator needed! Is the stuff that has motion alive or conscious? - that's not a debate ready for any science forum yet.(no data)

Thanks Dave for your repectful reply.To me the unıverse comes (onlıne) for a cycle.whıch
consısts of bıllıons of years.then goes (offlıne)for the same perıod.However we agree that thıs ıs an eternal cycle.(state) do we not! However as I would see all motıon haltıng ın
the (offlıne) cycle.prehaps not!


regards mıchael.

ps.The weather here ıs warmer than Florıda.(In Turkey that ıs)

[dleviwing]

MJA;
I have no objections to discussing the motion of gravity or the motions caused by gravity. Put a little more meat in your post if you want it to be meaningful. As it is you sound like an ignorant fool. If you cannot contribute to a thread, why do you post on them? If you want get courtesy then practice it. If you wish to compare levels of education and experience, then fill out you profile. (honestly) From your posts I can only deduce you lack the science education or you are still a child in school.

Michael;
That is a belief just as my concept of a collision starting the universe is a belief. The universe is made up of several forms of motion that determine the behavior of material objects. The idea is to understand the substance that has the motion and how it affects our existence. Let’s work with the here and now.

Tina;
This is what I mean when I say I object to spiritually being presented on the science forums. One person disrupts a science thread with religious bull and another continues hijacking the thread taking it off topic. The theme is “MOTION”; if you wish to respond to the original violator of my thread please send him a PM.

To all members;
Any member who do not wish to comment on the theme of a thread, please refrain from posting your own agenda on other member’s threads. Many make comments that they have been wrongly moderated and yet refuse to apply their judgments to their own behavior. You people are making ToeQuest into a shouting match and not a serious forum for discussion of ideas.

Can we now get back to the theme of MOTION?????

[MJA]

Originally Posted by dleviwing MJA; I have no objections to discussing the motion of gravity or the motions caused by gravity. Put a little more meat in your post if you want it to be meaningful. As it is you sound like an ignorant fool. If you cannot contribute to a thread, why do you post on them? If you want get courtesy then practice it. If you wish to compare levels of education and experience, then fill out you profile. (honestly) From your posts I can only deduce you lack the science education or you are still a child in school. Can we now get back to the theme of MOTION?????

Dear David,

Again David you say nothing about your definition of motion.
Is it because you can't explain it yourself?
With regard to the knowledge of the complexities of science, I find complexity only hides the simple truth. And those who claim such superiority of complexity, only hide there themselves.
I hope that does not describe you.

I"ll try again: What is your simple definition of universal motion?

Thanks,

=
MJA