permission to come aboard?

[jackaxama]

Hi Dolly:
I like sailing but my real love is flying. I think Robert's avatar of Spock gave me the feeling that I was entering a vessel dedicated to exploration of science, thought and new ideas. I am enjoying this site and hope to be contributing more. Thanks for the welcome.
Jack

[jackaxama]

Hi Austin:
I will open a thread on TOE Theories. If it is okay with you, I would like to copy over to my opening message, your positive words in your message after reading my book.

I have been reading your biography stories. Neat stuff. I find it very interesting to learn about the person behind some of the great advances in science that we have learned about over the years. Keep up the good work.

Jack

[austintorn@aol.com]

Sure, copy over any posts…

Jack, I forgot to say that I suppose the TOE (after the origin of the universe) is probably the proved unification/source or separation of the forces, which seems to foremostly need gravity to be greatly clarified, which you do. So, I feel that you do have a TOE in the typical and regular sense.

As for the TOE of why and how the universe appeared and from what, which I like to ponder, we need a special name, perhaps the SUPER TOE… or ? We'll probably never know this one, anyway.


On another subject, that the universe is of finite energy is lucky for us to literally have some space and not be packed in here like sardines.

Do you think it is that the influence of the universe is just potentially infinite since the self-generating electromagnetic waves are still on their way to ‘forever’? So, then, wherever their influence presently ends, that is the edge of the universe, with truly nothing (that is, as in not there) ‘beyond’?

Now, for a SUPER TOE type question: What defined the [limited] amount of the finite energy of the Universe? And, if the answer is that it was always around, how did its amount, nature, and so forth get defined without ever having been defined in the first place (there being no first place, of course)?

I can give you a minute or two to come up with the answer… ha-ha on us all!

Could it be something like in the quantum realm but even more than that, for the quantum has energy, in which there is neither nothing nor something, which I might call the Possibility or Potential state for a lack of a name for this new [proposed] state? Possibility would need not anything before it, for that would only amount to more Possibility. It's difficult to accept that turtles are standing on turtles all the way down.


(The young Captain Kirk will be taking off in May in a theater near you.)

[timeparticle]

Permission granted to come aboard... and jump in.
Should we call you Jackax, for short? ... Maybe Jack would be better...

[jackaxama]

Hi Austin:
Contemplating these ideas you present is fun...and what seems to happen is that when we contemplate ideas that go beyond what we can touch, feel, and measure...then we get into philosophy...which is fine.

I think there is comfort in believing in an infinite universe. Perhaps concepts of a finite one hits too close to home with questions about our own mortality. Relativity predicted a finite Universe, and even Einstein resisited this conclusion. But I am not sure if we really can comprehend a concept of a finite Universe. I think of the scalar field concept....its difficult to imagine motion without direction. In a similar regard, I see the universe as being finite and infinite at the same time...it seems to display characteristics of both.

As far as your question regarding the amount of energy in the universe...that is a tough one. One thing that I found interesting in my deduction in "Dynamic Matter" was that the amount of matter in the universe seems to establish the speed of light. There seems to be a balance there.

Fun stuff to think about.
Jack

[jackaxama]

Hi Austin:
Just to let you know...I took your advice and started a thread in the "TOE Theories" forum.

And I had another thought regarding your question on inifinity.

I am reminded of Obler's Paradox. If the Universe was indeed infinite, with an infinite number of stars and an infinite amount of time, then we would never have a dark sky at night. In fact, we would have an infinite amount of energy. And this would not be conducive for those who wanted to grow diasies in their garden. It would seem to me that we need a balance between the amount of matter, energy, space and time in our universe to have the conditions we need to grow daisies and other things.
Jack

[jackaxama]

Hey Timeparticle:
Thanks for the welcome. I see where you are going with the name thing....I think you are inclined to give that "x" in jackax more of an "s" sound. ha, ha...

looking forward to more exchanges

jack (axs)

[AntonioLao]

then we would never have a dark sky at night

Our inability to detect wavelengths lower than the UV and higher than the IR limits our human optical sensors to the visible spectrum. Nonetheless, the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum extends in both directions toward 0 and infinity.

[RascalPuff]

Hi Jack, Mikal, Austin, and whomever else it may concern.

The Theory of Everything url that accesses what Austin is very familiar with and correctly referred to as 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', is available at:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T

Please say what you think of it.

Best regards,
- RascalPuff

[RascalPuff]

Hi Austin:
Just to let you know...I took your advice and started a thread in the "TOE Theories" forum.

And I had another thought regarding your question on inifinity.

I am reminded of Obler's Paradox. If the Universe was indeed infinite, with an infinite number of stars and an infinite amount of time, then we would never have a dark sky at night. In fact, we would have an infinite amount of energy. And this would not be conducive for those who wanted to grow diasies in their garden. It would seem to me that we need a balance between the amount of matter, energy, space and time in our universe to have the conditions we need to grow daisies and other things.
Jack

Dear Jack:
In accordance with Hubble's Law, regarding the spatially Expanding Universe, the recession of celestial systems from each other increases with distance. This dynamic quality eventually leads to velocities that are relatively in excess of the speed of light.

This phenomenon does not contradict Einstein's conclusion that the speed of light cannot be exceeded.

Please refer to the causes and effects of what is called the 'Optical Horizon', also, sometimes known as the 'Event Horizon'. This is why the night sky is not a vault of continuous points of light - when a source of light is distant enough, its relative velocity of light does not reach a source of observation, and conversely.

Hence, there are a limited number of visible light sources in the night sky; whereas, 'Olber's Paradox', is not really a paradox at all.

Best regards,
- RP