[Guille]

Dave,

WOW! You really can get lots of things froma small comment!

Let's see....First, true, we don't move in space or in time, we move ins pacetime, we can't move in one without the other, just as we can't exist in one without the other. Well, we can exist in space if we are completely static and motionless, without being in time, but, of course, this is impossible to exist. Also we can exist in time without spac,e by having no body, but events occuring o us. But this is also stupid, because hwo cane vents occur without space? No.

Second, I believe the reason why we don't notice that we are moving in time is because we do so at a constant speed. Of cours,e not completely ocnstant, but the change is so small that it doesn't really matter, still we can't notice. But if we see someone going at 290,000 km/s then we would see that person (imagening we can actually see it properly) is moving reallly really slowly. So if there is difference int he speed of time, we can percieve it.

[David Maes]

Could the 'border' of the universe (which I believe to be in a higher dimension) be a resonance of gravitywaves??
I believe gravity IS 'time' (if you accept the idea I put of time...).

Suppose there could be a resonance of gravitywaves at the border of the universe, why shouldn't we call them 'time'waves instead of gravitywaves?

Maybe 'time'waves could not just be at the border, maybe they could be everywhere in the universe...

[Guille]

Originally Posted by David Maes Could the 'border' of the universe (which I believe to be in a higher dimension) be a resonance of gravitywaves?? I believe gravity IS 'time' (if you accept the idea I put of time...). Suppose there could be a resonance of gravitywaves at the border of the universe, why shouldn't we call them 'time'waves instead of gravitywaves? Maybe 'time'waves could not just be at the border, maybe they could be everywhere in the universe...

All these ideas are too much developed for the background they have. You ahve to create an idea of time more. Is it made of particles? How and where does it exist?....

By the way, with thsi psot, this thread becomes the longest of all toequest, more than "The cause of gravity".

[David Maes]

We now think the universe is in expansion and that the big bang was an event which happened in the past.

I think the big bang is still happening.


What we perceive as 'time' is only a dopplereffect, in reality it doesn't happen.

Relativity is caused by the expansion.

[quanta07]

Originally Posted by David Maes We now think the universe is in expansion and that the big bang was an event which happened in the past. I think the big bang is still happening.

I agree that it may still be happening, yet on a smaller scale, such as Gamma Ray Bursts(which I consider the 'rumbles of thunder, after the lightning').
In order for the expansion function to exist, it requires the union of distance and 4 dimensional time. The subsets of this union are the domains of the expansion mathematics function.
I also believe that the BB was not just a 'one singularity of occurence.
The role of time, within our local spacetime is critical, without multidimensional time, there would be no cosmos.
The intersection 'point', the touching of two, 2 dimensional time planes, the borders of two self-contained expanding universes, create a 4 dimensional time point, within the void of distance. A union of distance and 'light'.
Within the void, the creation of a new expansion function, a new universe 'between' universes, an expanding bubble of linear time.
Here is the derivation and explanation of expansion mathematics
http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics-articles/427-the-pure-mathematics-space-time.html
these are the reasons I post these beliefs.

But what about real time travel? Can we accomplish this without self destruction?



Happy Thoughts...Q7

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by quanta07 I agree that it may still be happening, yet on a smaller scale, such as Gamma Ray Bursts(which I consider the 'rumbles of thunder, after the lightning').

I think the event of big bang itself is still happening.
What we perceive is just a part of this event.

Originally Posted by quanta07 In order for the expansion function to exist, it requires the union of distance and 4 dimensional time. The subsets of this union are the domains of the expansion mathematics function.

The expansion function which requires the subsets of spacetime is a 'big bang' itself.

Originally Posted by quanta07 I also believe that the BB was not just a 'one singularity of occurence.

I think the BB was one event or singularity, but in reality I think the universe is created by more than one event. The only question is... is the universe really created??

Originally Posted by quanta07 The role of time, within our local spacetime is critical, without multidimensional time, there would be no cosmos.

Of course. But this 'time' is a definition science uses. It's direction is caused by the information an observer receives by his relativity of motion. The BB is an event which happens in his totality with the speed of light c. All the other events we perceive are subjective derivations of this one event (these subjective derivations deliver the mathematical prediction of general relativity of spatial expansion). The time as we observe it is a dopplereffect caused by relative motion itself. Thanks to this general gravitational expansion, this dopplereffect is possible.

Relativity happens because as observers we perceive 'space'.

But 'time' and 'space' are only subjective derivations of spacetime caused by our observations and leading to a real truth (thanks to maths), the truth of 'spacetime' which is the only real. 'Time' and 'space' apart are subjective derivations of spacetime we perceive.

General gravitational expansion is also relative, this means that every galaxy will observe the same gravitational expansion; this is because in every galaxy the observer will perceive constant lightspeed c (which I think to be the speed of 'time'). So general relativity didn't predict the spatial amount of a total universe to expand, it only predicted the observation of the total spatial universe to expand. This last thing also caused by a dopplereffect; but this time by the dopplereffect of gravity (or accelerated motion).

From the perspective of every galaxy, the same expansion of other galaxies will be observed. So gravity is relative. There is no absolute center in the universe for expansion. Therefore I believe expansion is also relative.

I think this can show us a higher 'scientifical' truth. Expansion is a dopplereffect also, so I believe doesn't happen.

Big bang doesn't really happen also, because every galaxy has the observation of expansion and could think it to be caused by a 'big bang'.

Light remains the same speed, I think this just to be 'subjectivity' of gravity.

I think gravitional expansion doesn't really happen, it's a perspective.

From the perspective of one galaxy, you can observe all other galaxies flie away faster and faster... the ones which are the most far away shift to the red (doppler). 'time' doesn't happen. You can never reach the other galaxy, which is normal in nature, just like you can't reach the speed of light (you become heavier). If you want to reach other galaxies, they will just keep on expanding, because you cannot 'grasp' gravity.

I think it doesn't matter how fast you go, the expansion you observe will always remain the same. Nature will keep you from travelling to other galaxies. I believe this kind of expansion being a basic property of the universe. This basic property maybe leading to the other laws of relativity.

I think the final truth could be that gravity is light! (c) ('time')

I think the big bang is only one cause of the universe. It's only one part of the puzzle.

But I think it's still happening. General relativity predicted spatial amount to expand. So that's also what observers can perceive. Of course they perceive it from their own (subjective) timespace perspective. But this is just the thing I believe to be subjective.

I believe, only timespace is real.
(not time next to space, because I believe that more to be a human subjective observation)

But, I think you're right. There has to be more than just one event (big bang) that caused the universe! (but I still think it's still happening)


(Anyhow, don't listen to me much today, because I'm still trying to put everything together about these things) (still busy thinking about it);

(answer you later and send new questions when I'm ready thinking it over(bit tired))

I think expansion and it's big bang is just telling us something about a part of the universe. In this part BB still happens.

Could lot's of big bangs be the cause of the whole universe?

Damn, you're smart; you're absolutely right. The universe has not been caused by just one event!!!

Another thing... Even if a big bang would be only a cause of a part of the universe (which expands), would it actually be a big bang which is the cause???

Maybe if we would increase our insight and find new a mechanisme which combines more 'big bangs' it would bring us closer to the truth!

You know, Q7, your theory is absolutely right.

[Guille]

I am going to star a new thread on time, in which I will present all my thoughts up to know on time, and all my theories. I do recomend it for you two, for I will include many topics on whcich you are discussing.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by <<>> I am going to star a new thread on time, in which I will present all my thoughts up to know on time, and all my theories. I do recomend it for you two, for I will include many topics on whcich you are discussing.

Please do so, I believe very much in your theory of 'mass' being space of energy! (You know it's consistent with expansion of space!)

Also I like very much your idea science not to be absolute truth.
But I believe I emphasized this a bit to much. You know, science is not an absolute lie also of course. So it has to be a relative truth. I think science to have the potential of becoming an absolute truth.

(But now, it's better I think a bit first before I send something.)

You know, I really believe the interpretations of QM we have now are stupid.
(sorry about the word)

The first guy who believed this also and who showed me was Dleviwing.
(Secund person was Q7)
But I have great respect for relativity theory. I believe it's wrong to say relativity is wrong now. (Of course in the futur it won't be completely right also, later scientists will find something better...)

But relativity is logical. (it's created by a genius before anybody could prove it)

With qm, many experiments happened, using mathematics, and a philosophical paradigm. The results we have are a philosophy, which I don't think to be really realistic.

The idea that 'an observer creates his own reality', this I do not believe at all.
(Because I never created my own reality; well me not alone of course...).
The idea that in our world there is something like a mixtured state of two possible realities, I find this not realistic. Because in our world there is only one reality, the one we see.
I also don't believe in non-locality.

I think that philosophy of qm interpretions to be more an urge to create a better philosophy.
I think we should get more realistic, and create a better philosophy, a philosophy of interaction. The only thing I can think to be real in the interpretation of QM is the SUBJECTIVITY. And with 'subjectivity' I don't mean the belief system I send, I mean a more realistic subjectivity caused by interaction between experimentators and the microworld!

Because what really happens is that we influence the microworld by doing experiments with it; this is logical because this world is smaller than ours! We interact with it, I think this is the truth and not that 'the world does not exist when we turn our back to it'.
We don't influence the macroworld because it's bigger than us. (Cause I have never been able to move a star with my mind, and I think even when I would believe I could, then I still couldn't do it...)

I also believe this new philosophy of interaction would have to be combinable with logical theory of relativity. Could bringing both philosophies together to one realistic philosophy lead to better science????

(I'll contact you later guys after a bit of thinking, afterwards I can learn again by you)
See you later.

[quanta07]

The only question is... is the universe really created??

Yes…I belief it was created as stated in previous posts.

I think gravitational expansion doesn't really happen, it's a perspective.

An accelerating expansion is fact and has been measured.

I think the final truth could be that gravity is light! (c) ('time')

Gravity IS convergent acceleration, a product of the acceleration domain and the Omega effect.

Light is a product of the velocity domain of expansion, a 4 dimensional time object, observed as a 3D photon with 1D velocity AND observed as two synchronous 2D electromagnetic waves. BOTH one and the same time object ‘LIGHT’.

Even if a big bang would be only a cause of a part of the universe (which expands), would it actually be a big bang which is the cause???

Yes, I belief it was the cause of our expanding universe.

You know, I really believe the interpretations of QM we have now are stupid.

(sorry about the word)The first guy who believed this also and who showed me was Dleviwing. (Second person was Q7)

Hold on here David, QM has given us computers and the information age. It is, for the most part, a valid ‘model’ with many excellent applications in the real world.

It is with string theory that I have objections.

Maybe if we would increase our insight and find new a mechanism which combines more 'big bangs' it would bring us closer to the truth!

I am not a gambler, but I would be willing to bet that there will always be some who will never believe the truth. They have there own truth, which to them is sacred. To let go of that, brings fear and anxiety. It is a shame, because I know…
‘the things you regret most in life, are the risks you did not take’.

Are you implying that each galaxy could have been the result of its own BB?
My initial thought,,,,,, it may be quite possible, but I am not sure….

Is the Big Bang continuing? I don’t think so, I believe we would not be here if it was.




Happy Thoughts…Q7

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by quanta07 Are you implying that each galaxy could have been the result of its own BB? My initial thought,,,,,, it may be quite possible, but I am not sure…. Is the Big Bang continuing? I don’t think so, I believe we would not be here if it was.

I'm not sure, but I find it hard to believe just one event (BB) caused the whole universe.

I have total respect for the philosophies of QM we have now.

But I believe they sound not so realistic and they 'sound' as an urge for more realism.

We now have discovered a logical 'subjectivity' by theory of relativity; caused by relative motion.
There might be a logical subjectivity in QM also, but I believe this to be interaction.

It is my believe we could somehow connect both of these 'subjectivities' in a philosophical way.
Maybe the unification could be 'relative motions of interaction'.

The fact is, I think, the difference between a macro- and a microworld is in the microworld we are interacting with it (='active'), and in the macroworld we are being interacted (='passive')!

(the true significance of 'time' is somewhere in between)

Originally Posted by quanta07 the things you regret most in life, are the risks you did not take’.

Don't worry about the things you cannot change anymore, only worry about the things you still can change. And for more knowledge, I think every risc is worth it (except the risc of death of course)

( warn you, this will sound a bit stupid)
This afternoon, I was having a bath and I thought about the following...

I also thought about resonance, when I let the water in the bath-tub run away.

I compared the water with space, and I saw a little vortex or a space'twister' in it, which rotated in one direction. The closer you got to this twister the faster space moved. This was like a rapid of stream, leading to a water-fall (which also happens with gravity)

I could also simulate waves in this space'water', when I drop something in the water, I get wrinckels and wavefronts in it, which are transmitted over the space'water'. It is the space'water' itself that vibrates in the tub. From the perspective of the space'water', when I drop something in it, then this happens by gravity, also this is coming from a higher dimension.

Also when the water moves to the vortex, everything on the surface of it moves to this vortex to. But it is not the objects on the surface that move to the vortex, it is the water itself.

The reason the 'twister' rotates in a certain direction is because of the polarity of the earth. Consider the universal border being a little hole, and consider the universe being carried by a 'world' in a higher dimension which has a polarity which influences the rotation of the vortex at the universal border...

Also I normally don't hear any strange noises when the 'water' is flowing away. But however, when there is just a specific small chink between the hole and the surface of the plug, I could hear this strange symmetric and regular 'growling' noice. I compared this with 'wave length'. The 'noice' could be 'heard' in other dimensions to. When an electron drops again to the state where it comes from, we get lightwaves.

I also had the idea of resonance; could 'gravitywaves' (or 'time'waves) intensify eachother at the 'border'... Could this influence the dopplereffect?

Also notice the water-tap, where the space'water' comes from...
What if we would connect the hole with the watertap...

Also notice the chaos in the water and the chaos of the froth (which is melting)... Also notice the little pieces of froth are moving towards eachother. The froths are on the surface of the water.

(Sorry, this sounds a bit ridiculous, but maybe I can learn something from it)

Kind regards,
David.

I thought everything over a bit now, and I believe what I send now will be more reliable.

I think the things I've posted untill now to be a bit of a mixture of philosophy and science.
But in order to bring us closer to a theory of everything, I believe it's bad to mixture philosophy and science.

For the theory of everything I believe science is the best way to get closer to TOE.

Q7, I listened a lot to what you were saying, and I think there are lots of correlations which are scientifically really reliable and correct.
I believe, the things I send were more philosophical and much less reliable in a scientifical way.

However, I still really believe in the things I send about every meaning not to be an absolute objective truth, in a philosophical way. I think these things could be more a kind of truth behind the reality we see or behind what we can prove. So I think it's impossible to prove this.

In a scientifical way, I really believe a lot of what you say, I even believe lot's of these ideas will be proven in the futur! This is really very good science.

So in the futur, when I send you something, I will send to you scientifical things or questions.. (speciallyIabout time because that really interests me)
I'll also note above the message, if it's scientifical or not.

Here is what I believe:


Science:

- The universe has not been caused by just one event (the big bang).
- The universe won't be forever; it will vanish, just like everything else.
- These things can get proven.
- The understanding of the universe will get better than now, but you are really on the right track!

Philosophy:

- Time does not exist.
- Everything is a subjective significance, it can never be an absolute objective truth.
- I cannot prove philosophy.
Do you love your parents, your children, your husband, your wife, your family,....,
prove it.




(Don't get my wrong; I'm not talking about you; just wanted to show you something)