[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody

No offence intended, Michael, but it's a cop out. I'm not attempting to add to the IS, but to take away the IS altogether to define what it is not. It cannot be a magical Being "just because" because this Being would have to exist in a place that isn't there.

The only possible absolute state for the "universe" (which is a misleading label) is zero because once we refer to it as "one" it creates a dichotomy paradox of the "one" on the inside and the none on the outside; but if there is only zero, then the paradox disappears. There is then none on the inside and none on the outside - hence it is absolute.

No offence taken my friend,I do not support a cop out,but further understand
what you are saying,the problem is in getting yourhead around that what Is
Now when thatwhat IS the Absolute is "without"the universe,and withdrawn
unto itself,then itis indeed ZERO!But when the IS is present in Physical
universe,then it is the ONE,without another?So the dichotomy paradox is this,that the IS the absolute is both ZERO and ONE all at the same time?
regards michael.

[Nobody]

Precisely, Michael.

Relatively, according to theories of relativity, it exists; absolutely, it doesn't. So, both at the same time and place; and no time and place at all.

I would say that we're getting somewhere now, and nowhere as well. lol

Thanks.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Precisely, Michael.

Relatively, according to theories of relativity, it exists; absolutely, it doesn't. So, both at the same time and place; and no time and place at all.

I would say that we're getting somewhere now, and nowhere as well. lol

Thanks.

That is absolutely wonderful.Nobody,or is it!

regards michael.

[Mr. Nobody]

Originally Posted by Nobody

Mr. Nobody,
A true vacuum is a vacuum without the vacuum-energy density, with which the speed of light is infinite. In essence, light at infinite speed and the true vacuum are one and the same. Yet, as I've mentioned a few times on this forum, an expandable universe is an impossibility. So my picture of the universe and related forces are such that light is everywhere and nowhere in particular at the same time, and illusory movement is created by incrementally quantizing absolute space. In other words, all natural phenomena is based on reductions of infinite velocity.

How would light travel through a vacuum with no energy density? Would light not infuse the false vacuum with it's electromagnetic field, in other words where there is light, true vacuum (as the absence of energy densities) seizes to exist, because the shear presence of light means energy to produce energy differences or densities (photons)
You also envoke the expression "absolute space". Did GR not disprove the notion of the absolute space, a defined reference frame?
Also, are there any observations that show measured deviations for the established speed of light in vacuum that support your theory?

Sorry for all those questions, just trying to wrap my head around this?
Thanks

[Mr. Nobody]

In a true vacuum, light speed would be infinite and account for the accelerated expansion, yet light would slow because of the increased energy emitted when there is an increase in distance between massive objects. So there would be less gravitational pull allowing for accelerated expansion (exterior), as well as increased energy density which would account for redshifting (interior).

Where does the energy due to an increase in distance between massive objects come from? What kind of energy?

[Nobody]

Mr. Nobody,

You're absolutely correct. Light at infinite speed doesn't literally travel anywhere according to an absolute theory, it is already everywhere, and the absolute reference frame I proposed as being only zero is not the same as having a motionless reference relative to another perspective. So it's not really that the true vacuum no longer exists, it doesn't ever exist by definition, but that light no longer exists - it can no longer be considered as quanta of energy. GR is a relative theory which I have repeatedly argued can never explain the absolute state of the universe because it requires relative frames to function. Once light speed is reduced to 300,000 km/s, it can be considered a constant in this particular universal space-time, regardless of my arguments of a reduced speed of light, explained perhaps more clearly hear: http://www.ldolphin.org/cdk-helen.html.

There can be an infinite number of speed constants depending on the energy density of the vacuum, which in turn is dependent upon the rate of particle decay as well as the distance between, say, two galaxies - the more they would be forced apart, the more energy there would be expended in order to counter the forces of attraction. In a sense, it is like a battle between photons and the hypothesized gravitons. In essence, two galaxies could theoretically be touching each other, yet they would be observed as being a great distance apart because of the energy density created by the galactic interactions.

[Mr. Nobody]

If I understand you correctly then the absolute reference frame (or initial condition) you propose, is one of uniform light distribution throughout an imaginary entity called true vacuum.

How do we get irregular matter distribution (albeit 0 sum) reflecting field density variations from a perfectly monolithic assumption?
What is light in true vacuum if it is not a sum of measurable energy units (photons)?
What are observational and verifiable proofs for the Variable Speed of Light theory?
How do you define infinity and eternity without evoking the concept of circular perpetuity?

The initial conditions of the inflationary universe describes a field subject to quantum fluctuations as there is overwhelming evidence against all other "perfect uniformity" models. This field occupies all of space, it never was suggested that there is space left outside. I have no problems confining all of space into an infinitesimally small or eternally large "area" using a circular or perpetual concept into another dimension just like straight lines cannot be proven to be perfectly parallel or Euclidean in space (since they could intersect beyond a horizon) Said field for an instance settled above its minima and expanded (not within space but with space). As the expansion slowed (field jumped or rolled of the above 0 minima) it converted part of the momentum into other forms of energy (matter). Emergent behavior of matter interactions created the observer via evolution within the anthropic principle......

[Nobody]

Excellent response, Mr. Nobody.

Except that "it" is neither an imaginary entity, nor an "initial" condition. "It" is unchangeable in the sense that as a whole, the universe (one verse) can never exist, it "always" - if there were such a concept as time - remains zero. It only exists relatively according to differentiable speeds of light.

First we have to equate infinite speed with zero speed, or rather zero space-time. If we imagine a particle travelling at an infinite speed around a circle, even of infinite circumference, there is no point where we could say the particle is moving - it would be at all points at the same "time." Neither space nor time would exist to this particle. Further, any and all possible interactions that form various probablistic scenarios occur simultaneously as well.

Illusory matter would result from reductions of the above velocity, based on the "time" it takes for probable outcomes to be processed within a relative framework and timeframe. Sort of like the time it takes for the light to be detected from a distant dying star which had died out long ago. So, all things happen in no time at all, but we create senses of time and space because the mind doesn't function at an infinite rate of speed in order to process the particular information responsible for the given effects.

The detected variable light would be the result of photonic interactions that create particle/antiparticle pairs. If energy is absorbed by an atom, an electron will jump to higher orbitals, and it only takes one electron to be emitted from a neutral neutron to form our basic proton-electron hydrogen atom. Of course, there is no literal asymmetry created, outside of the asymmetry caused by the relative time dilation of the energy transfers.

So your other questions regarding light in the true vacuum, and variable light speed proofs (I gave the link above which might clarify the speed issue), have to equate "light" at infinite speed with the true vacuum - there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. Again, only through differentiation can there be a quanta, and that differentiation is created relatively through various frames of reference.

This also applies to your accurate assessment of what constitutes a break in symmetry and how chemical reactions would evolve, yet if we think in more simple terms of, say, two different-sized circles being drawn on a blank piece of paper: if we erase the observable outlines of the circles, they still remain except that they would then be merged with the paper. There would be no observable differentiation between them and the paper until the different sizes break the paper with the lines.

Finally, you said that it was not suggested that there is space left outside the space that is filled by the field. That's the problem exactly: space is required on the outside for the proposed existence of the space and field on an inside; but like you said, there isn't any space on the outside and as a result creates a very large problem for those who claim such things.

If there is no spatial or temporal dimension on the outside, there can be no spatial or temporal dimension on the inside; if there is a proposed spatial-temporal dimension on the outside to allow for interior existence or expansion, then we must always conclude that there is nothing on the outside of that. In other words, all relative theories are bound to fail because nothing is always greater than any universal model that can be proposed.

[Mr. Nobody]

I looked into proofs for VSL some more and it appears inconclusive at this time.
Your "view" from the outside in reminds me of similar models used to explain GR. It appears to answer some aspects of our absolute questions and observations, but it fails to have relevance on the relativistic level we live in. If we can not measure in parxis nor in principle evidence for "zero spacetime" than it remains another theory.
So, let me at this time, attempt to simplify your detailed analysis and explanation for all natural phenomenas. If I understand you correctly then you are saying that light has one true reality of infinte speed and no speed occupying all of space and no space (if light could observe itself). We perceive energy and matter and all there is around us as a consequence of the time it takes our mind to process incoming information, correct?
That assumes that only humans are observers. What about some alien on planet X within the Andromeda galaxy? His "processing speed" is 10 times of our brain, is his measurement of the speed of light different to ours? What about a monkey or people that are smarter or dumber? Would they disagree on fundamental constants? I think not. A measurement is a measurement no matter who makes it.

The uncertainty principle is not dependant on the presence of an observer, but if definitive information is extracted, in principle or in praxis (see quantum erasers) The way I see our reality at its most fundamental level is a system unbalanced (only because that worked for us to produce the observer, not because there is some physical principle that preferes that outcome). All matter exists as propability waves of energy (yes, that mathematical gizmo that describes statistically if its here or there is real to me) A particle has no reality by itslef as it only presents a bit of information for the underlying wave that needs more than 1 description to have complete reality. As the wave is dynamic in space and time and we attempt to measure one description of that wave, the other properties will appear fuzzy or undetermined, because we have exhausted our fundamental "bit". It has to be dynamic and it has to be unstable at the most basic level, otherwise we have no evolution to higher systems, but a reality filled with super stable and simple systems (happy quarks and leptins that don't want to bond or exchange energy or interact with each other or light filling true vacuum). In reality we never have to deal with the uncertainty principle because all those waves do not exist in isolation but overlap and interfere with each other to shake out a determined location and a determined momentum, charge and so on to appear as the real world. But technically, there is a chance that one of my electrons could zoom off into outer space and appear on planet X. Statistically is practically is a 0 though

[Mr. Nobody]

SR states that objects which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is stationary. Takes this very powerful discovery all the way to negate the outside and inside view of the cosmos. Observers in different locations within the universe will never agree on motion nor time due to the vast spatial separation that amplify small spatial movement to affect time, its not only vast speed that affects time, it is also vast distances that create relativity. This is why we have the term space-time, because they are truly connected in reality.
Back to your post:
"Outside" and "inside" as you term, do not apply, because all observers of this universe are sharing the same relativistic universe. If no one can claim a special location within the universe (like closer to an expanding "edge") then the idea of "physical or three dimensional" expansion has to be abandoned. Observations show however, that the universe IS expanding. So, what to do about that. Three dimensional space is expanding, not space within three dimensional space is expanding. All of it is moving further away. You, me, the guy on Plant X, we all are moving further apart (forget local motions for now), but we are not moving into anything because it happens everywhere. We perceive points, that are further away to be moving faster, because there is more space between them and us that is expanding, at the same rate. I did not go into the fact that expansion is not linear but is increasing, if current observations have been interpreted correctly.
Something else that has bothers me about conventional terms when speaking of inflation and the big bang. The "size" of the universe. It has never changed, the size of spacetime did not grow from a grapefruit to the current 26 billion light years or so. This is the observable universe we keep talking about, and that one grows as it ages, due to more light from the past reaching us (and if the expansion outpaces the speed of light which it can, since it is not information transfer, then the observable universe will begin to shrink) If I were to go back in time, all I would observe is that the sky is getting brighter as time collapses backward. Were I able to travel in a spaceship, the universe would still be the same to me relatively (with me "inside"), I still would never reach an "edge" I would not get "squashed" (by spatial shrinkage, but radiation and heat would kill me instead) and I would never perceive a border between an "inside" and "outside". Hence my analogy of a circle, infinite in 2 dimensions, but finite from 3.
One last thing, I think you never answered my question as to how uniform photon distribution leads to small scale non-uniformity, so important for our existence.
Thanks for your patience and thanks for reading