[dleviwing]

At one time we were able to say that the universe was everything that existed. Now we need to refine this image such to say "the Cosmos represents everything that exists". Our universe is but one of many within the infinity of the Cosmos. Having stated this, let's consider a Genesis hypotheses.

The Genesis Hypothesis
Any scenario of a beginning of the universe is purely speculative and quite likely not provable.

This view of existence is all inclusive of everything that exists whether it is the known universe, observed universe, the unobserved universe or the cosmos beyond our universe.

One scenario for Genesis is that matter was concentrated in units of enormous quantities. These units may have been whizzing through the cosmos with absolute linear motion (2x10^20 m/s) from all different directions. By some remote chance, two of these units where on a collision course ordained to create a remarkable existence from this single substance. In this scenario there is no need to comprehend entities of energy, forces, or gravity, to explain the existence of stars, planets, and galaxies, only an understanding of the basic properties of the fundamental substance that is about to collide. These properties are primarily, “Self-affinity” (bonding) and “Absolute Motion”. These units of matter had these properties before the Big Bang and all the matter systems formed from these units will have these properties after the Big Bang. It will not be of any significance what the human mind creates for properties to produce mathematical equations; the reality is that if it exists, it is matter or interactions of matter. Energy and Mass are mathematical terms, not terms of real physical existence – they are however; useful abstracts when we need to determine the results of specific experimental events.

Prior to the collision, matter with total uniform motion has the effective temperature of absolute zero. We can also view this in the sense that temperature has no meaning prior to the start of the universe. Degree of freedom for matter with total uniform motion is zero. The collision resulted in an initial conversion of uniform motion to randomized motion that created a flurry of wave vibrations and drove the matter of the universe into an ultra-hot state of rapid expansion. From this point, the scenario is similar to the current standard model as long as we maintain the integrity of the concepts of fundamental absolutes.

A collision between objects of matter in the state total linear uniform motion will result in causing the uniform linear velocity to redistribute as random motion vibrations Vr (Wave function) and combinations of linear and angular uniform motions (Vu) throughout the substance. The Vr motion is the important quantity that determines the expansion process of matter. The surface of this universe particle has now developed a standing wave function on its surface and a flurry of interference wave actions throughout its interior. We may say that the universe is in a phase of "Good Vibrations". Matter in this state of randomized vibrations and unorganized motion is what we refer to as "space", "vacuum", "quantum foam", "Aether", and the original name "ETHER". This matter has no sustained uniform motion and thus appears as only electromagnetic phenomena.

[Mr. Nobody]

May I nickname you M&M for Matter & Motion, j/k....

mathematical terms, not terms of real physical existence

Your model seems to alude to the idea of Mathematical Formalism, mathematics as a human invention to describe nature.
Mathematic Realism claims that mathematics is descriptive of abstract entities, of numbers and sets, that exist separately from our attempt to understand them through our mathematical systems
Goedel's second incompleteness theorem, which follows pretty straightforwardly from the first, proves that one of the things that you can't prove in a formal system of arithmetic is the consistency of that very system. So while you're working in a system you can't prove within that system that it's consistent. And of course an inconsistent system is worthless because you can prove anything in an inconsistent system. Goedel's theorems certainly seem to support MR

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

I have this question though. If the aether is constructed of particles having perfect three-dimensional symmetry or, infinite four particle combinations, why is it impossible to build matter out of the aether, which would then be imbedded in the aether, if matter has symmetry also?

Brian

[dleviwing]

Mr nobody;
There was a time when mathematical formalism proved the Sun orbited the Earth. I have never had a problem with the math, only the interpretations of the mathematical terms.

Goedel's theorems relate to the status of our mathematical system, not to the interpretation of the terms. I don't understand your point here. You could say our language has the same problems of incompleteness. As you said, both mathematics and language are human creations.

The mathematics can describe abstract entities, but if these entities do not exist; What good is the math? I prefer mathematics that relate to real physical existence and physical interactions.

As you may have noticed, I do not take the topic nor myself too seriously, I'm glad to see you don't either. M&M is what I call my twin granddaughters. (Monica & Melina)

[dleviwing]

Brian;
I don't believe I stated that the ether was made up of particles. Velontis has that concept. However I have stated that ether matter and particle matter are the same stuff, only the distribution of their motion denotes their differences and interactions. You wouldn't call water "ice cubes" would you?

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

If somebody asked me what you call water below zero degrees celsius in the shape of a cube I would say that is an ice cube and it is made up of 100 percent water.

If somebody asked me what you call the medium that seems to act like a matrix because it follows precise constants when it carries em waves across the universe I'd call it aether. If they asked me what it is made up of I'd say energy, because in the end that's all there is, everything is made up of energy. What order that energy is put into defines what we call it. (aether, hydrogen, helium, etc...)

Matter is energy stored in a standing wave called an atom.

The aether is a universe wide standing wave of energy made up of a infinite number of standing waves which are made up of quarks in groups of four to form virtual particles of aether.

If you take two virtual particles of aether and combine them into an imbedded universe of their own in this universe of aether you end up with a hydrogen atom made up of eight quarks. Three quarks in the proton, three virtual quarks in the antiproton, one in the electron, and one in the positron. These quarks are pulsating and exchanging places with each other, but are named by there location at any moment.

Since the aether is made up of individual interlocking standing waves it can act like a perfect fluid or a matrix. When an em wave travels through the aether it moves like a concussion wave through the matrix made up of virtual particles.
But when an electron or some other particle is shot into the aether it follows the paths in between the particles of aether, until it absorbs back into the aether.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
Like many others, you have been duped into an idealism of believing rather than knowing.

Energy is a mathematical term representing the measurement of "Force".
Matter on the other hand is not a mathematical term; it is by definition a physical entity.
Too often the term "Mass" is interpreted as matter and thus producing many confusing false concepts.

Though I understand the concepts you are promoting, I dismissed these notions long ago as impractical and false. If you continue your study you will find that they fail even the simplest scrutiny.

Only you can deal with your beliefs, I can only debate them with you. This I refuse to do any more than I would debate religion with a believer.

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

I don't want to debate beliefs, I want to know. A belief that isn't based on facts that you can observe isn't worth believing. There has to be a theory, with a real picture we can see and measure, to explain where gravity and everything else we see originates. I can tell how much gravitational force there is between two masses, but why is it there at all. I refuse to believe it is all a figment of our collective imagination.

You stated:
Energy is a mathematical term representing the measurement of "Force".
Matter on the other hand is not a mathematical term; it is by definition a physical entity.
Too often the term "Mass" is interpreted as matter and thus producing many confusing false concepts.

Matter is a physical entity, which we can measure. We can measure its mass, which is how much force it takes to change its velocity in a specific frame of reference over a specific time.

To be a physical entity matter must be made of something. If it is just pieces of the aether spinning in a sphere, then how could we measure how much kinetic energy it is made up of. If it is all kinetic energy then all its mass should convert to energy 1/2(mvv). If all matter is made up of particles spinning or vibrating at the speed of light, then the energy should be 1/2(mcc). But, if matter is actually made up of units that are two pieces of aether, and we define one as real, and one with the opposite charge as virtual, we must count both as their ke is absorbed into the aether. So if we multiply 1/2(mcc) by 2 we get ke in a certian mass of matter is mcc as special relativity states.

But, what is the virtual particles of aether made of. Could they just be made up of four quarks, which are just four pieces of space of a specific volume, given a specific spin and rotational velocity in relation to all other pieces of space which, are also all the same size and are all spinning virtually the same speed if they are in a vacuum without any electromagnetic fields or gravity.

I guess in the end that would make matter just a bunch of pieces of dead space which, have specific rotational velocities, and certian amount of order to the way they are arranged to them. I know this sounds idealistic, but at least it's a real picture ideally that's what we're looking for. And where am I duped. I'm just calling it as I see it, and I see order. I don't think I'm imagining it, and I don't think what we are seeing in qm disagrees with anything I've said. If it does it doesn't necessarily throw the whole theory out, it just might need modifying. If we can come up with way to explain what we observe without giving the empty space in our universe and inside the atom a lot of order that would be fine, but I don't think it's possible. In the end it might require too much order to happen without some intelligence in the beginning or some place along the way. If intelligence is required in the beginning then I might have to take that on faith if that intelligence never decides to reveal itself to us in a way we can scientifically measure. If it happened completely by chance though, then there has to be a large amount of disorder somewhere to make up for all the order we observe in our universe so that the second law of thermal dynamics isn't broken. I will have no choice but to take it on faith that the disorder exists because, to live I am confined to this universe of order, and I can't see how that disorder is ever going to let me know it exists.

So if you find it easier to believe in the God of disorder, or the God of order, I don't care. (Capital "G" on both so as not to offend anyone, you can edit it yourself according to your own beliefs) If an underlying order is what we need to explain what we see, like David Bohm, Albert Einstien, and Nikola Tesla have alluded to, then let's put some energy into looking for it. Instead, we have spent the last thirty years coming up with a lot of very good abstract mathematics that try to connect groups of data, without crossing the holy threshold of disorder and pure randomness and it hasn't seemed to have gotten us anywhere.

Brian

[Mr. Nobody]

Goedel's theorems support MR, in a way that it appears that mathematics was not invented to describe nature (it can't prove itself to be self contained) but mathematics was discovered to be part of nature (one needs to go outside the system to prove its completeness). If mathematics was discovered and it is part of reality then whatever you can describe mathematically will have a counterpart in nature. I personaly don't like this conclusion myself and like to view math as just another tool as well, however Goedels theorems and its implications are hard to ignore, if I interpreted them right

[dleviwing]

Brian;
In your analogy (1/2(mcc)) you are right to the extent that a change in random motion to a uniform motion equivalent to the speed of light would produce this and thus the absolute motion value used by our mass and energy equations is actually twice the speed of light. It requires a change of 2c for the equations to function properly and for the conservation laws to work. However absolute motion is actually much greater than 2c; QM places it at about 2*10^20 m/s or 6.5*10^11 c.

Why do you keep insisting that Ether is made up of some form of particulate structure? Ether matter only changes in spatial density as EM waves. Under the proper conditions a quantity of Ether can be converted to an autonomous unit that can go on to form subatomic particles.

In one sentence you say matter is an entity that can be measured and then the very next sentence you state you can measure its mass. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter, it is the measurement of its resistance to change in motion (inertia).

This is the type of view that promotes false understanding of the science terminology. Thus many will say that "matter and energy are equivalent" rather than saying "mass and energy are equivalent".

Dave