Welcome to the Theory of Everything forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
| | |
| | White Belt
Status: Offline Posts: 6
Thanks Given: 0
Thanked 0x in 0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006 Rep Power: 0 | On The Development of a Theory of The Universe -
05-24-2006, 01:02 AM
They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake...
Last edited by Robert : 08-05-2006 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: Removed the [size] references
| |
|  |
By
Nobody
on
09-13-2006, 11:34 AM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
"The inflation, only, theory makes no sense coming from nothing. The laws of physics require an infinite, eternal existence of energy/matter___IMO, it's just the original forces of motion and their evolutionary organizations that matter."
I can appreciate that, Lloyd, but if you are referring to quantized energy/matter, there would be no need for a big bang or explosion; and if not quantized, there would be no room for any motion at all of any kind.
Yet, even mainstream interpretations imply space-time is required for the laws of particle physics to function, and that at a certain point space-time doesn't exist.
I might be reading you all wrong, but I see light at infinite speed as being equal to zero, and that light creates matter and antimatter; and matter and antimatter creates light/energy. Which can arise from nothing because nothing is the same as a unified 1 and negative 1 - matter and antimatter - which is the state where all four forces merge at non-dimensional points. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody  "The inflation, only, theory makes no sense coming from nothing. The laws of physics require an infinite, eternal existence of energy/matter___IMO, it's just the original forces of motion and their evolutionary organizations that matter."
I can appreciate that, Lloyd, but if you are referring to quantized energy/matter, there would be no need for a big bang or explosion; and if not quantized, there would be no room for any motion at all of any kind. | What quantized the initial energy/matter? I see only thermo-hydro-dynamics as the prime mover of all universal motion and actions. If no big-bang, what quantized energy/matter? Quote: |
Yet, even mainstream interpretations imply space-time is required for the laws of particle physics to function, and that at a certain point space-time doesn't exist.
| What does space-time do? It never changes, or if it changes, no observer is possible, so we'd never know it. It's the Einstein illusion. Space and time are separate absolutes. Some say motion creates time, maybe true, but time still exists, all by it's lonesome, as the descriptor of infinite eternal energy/matter, before first star, before any possible sight of energy/matter's motion. Quote: |
I might be reading you all wrong, but I see light at infinite speed as being equal to zero, and that light creates matter and antimatter; and matter and antimatter creates light/energy. Which can arise from nothing because nothing is the same as a unified 1 and negative 1 - matter and antimatter - which is the state where all four forces merge at non-dimensional points.
| It doesn't matter what speed light exists at, it's still the speed of light, and nothing changes. Light speed is absolute, no matter what speed. It is not zero, it is itself___always. As to "light creates matter and antimatter", what creates light is the proper question___what existed before first star light? As to "nothing," tis impossible, if we are going to have a logical universe functioning by the laws of physics, and it certainly does. The conservation laws of energy and matter require it to be infinite and eternal equilibriums of only different organizations of motions, also seen as finite matter. U should read Poincare, he stated your ending statement much better, i.e., "A singularity is required to exhibit paradoxes." However, the absolute known laws of physics prevent such nonsense.
regards | | |
By
Nobody
on
09-14-2006, 03:50 AM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
What quantized the initial energy/matter? I see only thermo-hydro-dynamics as the prime mover of all universal motion and actions. If no big-bang, what quantized energy/matter?
You say "initial" here, Lloyd, but initial implies a first/beginning and that conflicts with your saying "infinite/eternal" to create a paradox in itself. Yet, if the two perspectives exist simultaneously by combining Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, the paradox is solved because relative space-time can be illusively contained within an absolute reference frame when space-time is stretched through dilation. No literal movement is possible for relative thermodynamic laws to manifest because the universe as a whole has no concept of distance or speed - it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere in particular.
To give you a picture of what I mean, imagine a canvass painted completely with white paint. We can accurately say that every conceivable picture is already painted on it simultaneously, because white contains all possible colors and every point is already painted. We don't see the picture because there is no differentiation, which is the basis for both consciousness and relative space-time dilation. If we sensed all frequencies, we would cease to exist. Which is why I proclaim that the universe doesn't exist as a whole.
So, eventhough charges and energy states can't literally exist as a whole, through confinement we can have relative energy transfers by blocking out fractional charges from being conscious to give the impression of reality that we sense. It is blocked in the form of protons and neutrons which release two photons per particle/antiparticle annihilation, which in turn create the orbiting electrons that we are conscious of - two photons have been proven to create particle pairs - with its corresponding positron which is absorbed by the strong force.
Space and time are separate absolutes. Some say motion creates time, maybe true, but time still exists, all by it's lonesome, as the descriptor of infinite eternal energy/matter, before first star, before any possible sight of energy/matter's motion.
I disagree. I don't think time can exist by itself. It is dependent upon space and vice-versa, and is created by the illusion of motion which can be explained by objects being recreated incrementally over an infinite number of non-dimensional points.
The illusion can be verified by a simple moving of your hand in front of your face: you think or sense that your hand is moving, but because its composite particles consist of the same substance as space, there can be no movement possible; it has to be recreated at that sublevel incrementally to give the impression of moving through something.
It doesn't matter what speed light exists at, it's still the speed of light, and nothing changes. Light speed is absolute, no matter what speed.
There's a difference between absolute quantity and universally absolute. Light speed is a universal absolute because nothing can travel faster than light according to the relative natural laws of this particular universe. We can call it the absolute reference frame that Newton depicted - with it being infinite instead of 300,000 km/s - because those aforementioned energy transfers required for relative existence creates energy densities that result as the cmb which slows light down a heck of alot.
It is not zero, it is itself___always. As to "light creates matter and antimatter", what creates light is the proper question___what existed before first star light? As to "nothing," tis impossible, if we are going to have a logical universe functioning by the laws of physics, and it certainly does.
You're violating the Uncertainty Principle with your proclamations of certainty, Lloyd. Certain scenarios created from certain reference frames can create a logical world, but the universe as a whole doesn't have to conform to our limiting laws, and it can have little to do with the absolute nature of light.
I view it as infinite because, as I said before, there can be no such thing as time and distance, and no such thing as time and distance is the same as light travelling at infinite speed and not travelling at all.
The conservation laws of energy and matter require it to be infinite and eternal equilibriums of only different organizations of motions, also seen as finite matter.
I agree, but only in the illusory sense of the word. Without differentiation, there is no existence, and that is the state of absolute reality. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody You say "initial" here, Lloyd, but initial implies a first/beginning and that conflicts with your saying "infinite/eternal" to create a paradox in itself. | I used initial to express the condition of infinite energy/matter's first stage of eternity as motion___infinite motion, yet still the first law___absolute, infinite, eternal motion. And BTW, a self-creating motion, by the laws of physics. Singularity dialogue always seems paradoxical, but true paradoxes are impossible. Quote: |
No literal movement is possible for relative thermodynamic laws to manifest because the universe as a whole has no concept of distance or speed - it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere in particular.
| Laws do not manifest. They are simply the descriptors of quantum, sub-atomic, atomic, and cosmological actions. Laws do nothing in the universe, except describe the results of energy/matter actions. We discover them, and think they are more than they truly are. Quote: |
Which is why I proclaim that the universe doesn't exist as a whole.
| Smash your fist into a rock and see if it's real! Get real, will ya? Quote: |
I disagree. I don't think time can exist by itself.
| Just as a thought experiment, imagine the infinite energy/matter, as a rational finite number, say a googol to the power of a googol, as the number of years it took the initial energy/matter to organize itself into the first star big-bang___I think only a fool would recognize that not being time. Time exists as the absolute descriptor of the super-trans-rational infinity distance, of its said energy/matter/void/space motions. You must realize, even though I'm theorizing, that if the speed of light was many times faster, in the early universe of first star development, then quantum energy/matter would have traveled and spun much faster, thus was much hotter___the thermo-hydro-dynamic genie... It doesn't matter what speed light exists at, it's still the speed of light, and nothing changes. Light speed is absolute, no matter what speed. Quote: |
There's a difference between absolute quantity and universally absolute. Light speed is a universal absolute because nothing can travel faster than light according to the relative natural laws of this particular universe. We can call it the absolute reference frame that Newton depicted - with it being infinite instead of 300,000 km/s - because those aforementioned energy transfers required for relative existence creates energy densities that result as the cmb which slows light down a heck of alot.
| Thermo-hydro-dynamic cold is the only thing that slows the universal speed of light. Of course many densities of matter slow the speed of particular light sources. CMB is contained within the infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic void, and I should imagine light may extend beyond this membrane also, I don't know, as finite light and space/matter may be curved. Light is not possible of being infinite, or the laws of physics would be invalid. It had to be created, to create what we see as the infinite space and finite matter universe___the only sensible scientific creation of light possible is thermo-hydro-dynamics___the genie of self-compressive heat, from absolute cold. It is not zero, it is itself___always. As to "light creates matter and antimatter", what creates light is the proper question___what existed before first star light? As to "nothing," tis impossible, if we are going to have a logical universe functioning by the laws of physics, and it certainly does. Quote: |
You're violating the Uncertainty Principle with your proclamations of certainty, Lloyd.
| Nice try, but the uncertainty principle does not apply to such nonsense___it only applies to quantum and sub-quantum motions and momentums. It can also apply to the macro universe of quantum-cosmological-relativity, but no true observer position is possible___it's still just an Einstein dream state... Quote: |
Certain scenarios created from certain reference frames can create a logical world, but the universe as a whole doesn't have to conform to our limiting laws, and it can have little to do with the absolute nature of light.
| As above, our laws limit nothing, they are just discovered descriptors of phenomanons. The universe conforms absolutely to its own self-evolved laws. Quote: |
I view it as infinite because, as I said before, there can be no such thing as time and distance, and no such thing as time and distance is the same as light travelling at infinite speed and not travelling at all.
| Boy, you talk about the snake eating its own tail___paradox. Either light travels or it doesn't. Either energy/matter motion is real or it isn't. Try standing in front of a fast train___is it real or not... Jump off the Empire State Building___Splattt!!! The conservation laws of energy and matter require it to be infinite and eternal equilibriums of only different organizations of motions, also seen as finite matter. Quote: |
I agree, but only in the illusory sense of the word. Without differentiation, there is no existence, and that is the state of absolute reality.
| What is the differentiation of the infinite, eternal, cold void? Not what it creates, its differentiation? Is it the only self-creation of motion and light, all and absolutely from itself or not___the interaction of the infinite void/space energy/matter? Time, distance, heat, cold___there are many questions?
As a hint to help you out, study David's journal of fundamental absolutes, then compare my rantings.
regards | | |
By
Nobody
on
09-15-2006, 04:01 AM
| | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
"As above, our laws limit nothing, they are just discovered descriptors of phenomanons. The universe conforms absolutely to its own self-evolved laws."
"Either light travels or it doesn't."
I couldn't really make head nor tail of the other more advanced things you wrote, but the above has been mentioned to me before. I think the problem lies in realizing what infinite is, in this case infinite speed. It is exactly equivalent to no speed because it can reach anywhere in the universe in no time at all.
So light travels when quantized, just like the train and building you mentioned are the result of the subconscious quantization of subatomic particles that give rise to observable objects that we are conscious of, but as a whole light can't travel because all quanta are negated by opposing quanta. You, the train, the building and the ground are exactly the same thing - or non thing.
My point on the laws were referring to speed limits et al., which are required for relativity to function. It's funny that you mention "laws limit nothing" because that's my first premise, that nothing is faster than the constant. The present constant that conforms to the present model is set to 300,000 km/s because its medium is far from being empty. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody "As above, our laws limit nothing, they are just discovered descriptors of phenomanons. The universe conforms absolutely to its own self-evolved laws."
"Either light travels or it doesn't."
My point on the laws were referring to speed limits et al., which are required for relativity to function. It's funny that you mention "laws limit nothing" because that's my first premise, that nothing is faster than the constant. The present constant that conforms to the present model is set to 300,000 km/s because its medium is far from being empty. | Nobody, if you read this article: http://www.slant.org/nyc/The-Origin-...D-Rodrian.html by the Author mentioned, I think you will see more clearly how I see the universe. SD thinks almost identical to myself, except for the possible point about the big bang___he sees no big-bang and I see it totally compatible with his and all other serious physics' laws and ideas. The thermo-hydro-dynamic universe is absolute infinite motion and entropy by infinite implosion/compression, in our opinions___these opinions are in compliance with all the fundamental laws of physics. Let me know how you see the universe of physics after you read this entire piece___please. It explains the all.
regards | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Joseph, sorry for posting my ideas in your topic. I got lost as to where and what subject was being discussed. Anyway, I think it might be quite beneficial if you were to read the article I mentioned to Nobody, as much of it relates to your ideas. You stated no-one you could find had written anything close to your ideas. S.D.Rodrian certainly has. Here's the link again: http://www.slant.org/nyc/The-Origin-...D-Rodrian.html
Regards,
Lloyd | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Un-Infinite Consciousness, I am well aware of ontology studies, and how limited and falacious they are. I believe Daniel Dennett and others have even questioned the validity of consciousness and being studies, as do I. He, myself and many others state consciousness is no more than brain states of the finite universe___I can't prove this, but neither can you prove anything about being or consciousness, other than we exist___how we exist no-one knows___and science has a "few" years more to discover this. Until science can figure out the quantum organization of life, we all are in the dark as to truly knowing anything real about life formation and true full functions. If you'd study a little more quantum mechanics you may see its real knowledge and benefits, especially as relates to quantum biology and other areas of quantum technologies and medicines___we are just on the cutting edge of this massive field of knowledge___you know Watson, of Watson and Crich DNA fame was a quantum biologist, and also states there is nothing in the universe beyond real science___anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional... Science is all we can know and prove, always has been, and always will be. Infinite being and consciousness is a myth created by man!
"Being and consciousness starts and ends with the biosphere." me
regards |
Un - Conscious, Dleviwing, Lloyd Gillespie, and all materialists,
Mythology= (1) A body of myths relating to aa particular culture or person.
Myth = (1) A traditional story about superhuman beings, such as gods, goddesses, heroes, and monsters, usually explaining the origin of natural events and forces, cultural practices, etc. (2) Mythology. (3) An invented story. (4) An imaginary person or thing.
Illusion = (1) An appearance or feeling that misleads because it is not real; something that decieves by giving a false idea: an illusion of reality
Materialists present Infinite Being i.e. Infinite Consciousness as a myth created by man. A myth is an imagined person or thing. An imagined person or thing is defined as an illusion. Materialists are advocating that consciousness and being are illusions.
How on earth can an illusion experience reality ? Materialists would have us believe - and actually advocate a doctrine that the physical-material universe is real - and that the consciousness experiencing it is an illusion.
Obviously if consciousness as the thing we have all our experiences with - is an illusion - it can not experience anything real - and anything it does experience must be nothing more than part of the illsion that human consciousness is.
If human consciousness is nothing but an illusion - anything that it experiences - i.e. the physical-material universe - is an illusion created by the illusion of human consciousness.
If human consciousness as an illusion is not real - it cannot experience anything that is real - can something that is imaginary and not really there experience something that is real and is there - therefore anything that it experiences cannot be real either. It can only be a construct of and a part
of the illusion that "human" consciousness is.
For your information all you materialists - if human consciousness is an illusion -then the physical-material universe and all your so-called true science is an illusion to.
This establishes that Consciousness is the Creator any way you look at it and even though the physical-material universe is an illusion and human consciousness is an illusion - it is still consciousness that is creating the illusion.
Infinite Consciousness is the Creator It is the TRUTH ! Human 8% consciousness is an illusion creating the physical-material illusion and identifying with it !
The Truth or Infinite Consciousness will only be known by human consciousness when it stops identifying with non-conscious thought as the matter of the physical-material universe and starts identifying with its Higher Self the Truth or Infinite Consciousness that it in fact is !
I cannot prove this for you - but you can prove this for your self each and everyone of you materialists by practing what you preach and what you demand of others - i.e. test the true or false status of consciousness with a scientific methodology (stilling your consciousness in its center the eye-focus) to determine its true or false status.
if you do this that is true science - until you do this you are advocating a belief or doctrine that has not been tested to determine its true or false status. It has not been tested or proven. Materialism is nothing - it is a belief or illusion based on metaphysics i.e. a belief or illusion. WAKE UP !
Only that which has been experienced in consciousness - by your own individual consciousnesss - can be known to consciousness. | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
Brief comments to IC:
Where do you draw the line of consciousness? Planet, plant, primate? Who deserves the label of self aware? My dog which recognices herself in the mirror, or the chimp we elected president?
Look around! Where do you find this counsciousness? Where is it located? Can it be found outside ones body? Can I have a proven communication with one devoid of the physical body it resides?
Is it not more logical to assume that since we rose from dust and return to dust, that we are nothing more than dust? Dust that recognized a pattern in the sand, and through evolution learned to use this knowledge to hunt, gather, cultivate, procreate and survive. Once dust realized the patterns of life and its distinction from its surroundings, it learned of better ways to thrive such as tribes and societies, but dust also learned of death and an end to all good things. The end needs a beginning, birth, resurrection and on the saga goes. Fear of death, the survival instinct created a beginning for a reason, a purpose to and for all, a supreme being that will right all wrongs and a god that will reward the good and punish the bad. In order to support the society and the survival of your tribe, your support group, the super organism, sometimes demands sacrifices from the you, but it is all good, since you have been tought to know of a god, a god to welcome you for all the good you did. So don't worry, go to work, pay your taxes, keep the order and feed the machine. Rituals of prayer, feelings of the commune, the belonging, all designed to subjugate the you to what we call civilization......
Don't misunderstand me, I do not object to being another cog in the wheel, another contributing member of society, I play by the rules, but I know why and I make a counscious decision to serve and to support the super organism, the machine, but I don't glorify it and I don't worship my counsciousness as something devine.
I see a cosmos that grew eyes an ears to see and hear itself......nothing more, no creator, as energy always existed in some form or other and never was created | | | | | | Re: On The Development of a Theory of The Universe
[quote=Mr. Nobody;21608]Brief comments to IC:
Where do you draw the line of consciousness? Planet, plant, primate? Who deserves the label of self aware? My dog which recognices herself in the mirror, or the chimp we elected president?
Look around! Where do you find this counsciousness? Where is it located? Can it be found outside ones body? Can I have a proven communication with it? End Quote
IC, comments to Mr. Nobody:
(1) Infinite Consciousness - that we are - creates all matter including Planet, plant, and primate. Everything that is - is created by Infinite Consciousness - it is the Living Word of God and everything that is - is made of the Word. The grass withereth the flower fadeth but the Word of God stands forever
(2) You ask the question, "who deserves the label of self aware?" The answer is simple only consciousness is capable of being self-aware - and our problem as human beings is to merge our human 8% consciousness - back in the Infinite Consciousness within us - only then are we Self aware. Matter i.e. physical energy is not conscious - only consciousness can be aware of itself.
(3) "Where do you find this consciousness?" This Infinite Consciousness exists "within" all atoms as the Light & Sound of which Infinite Consciousness is composed.
We cannot reconnect with this Infinite Consciousness within all outer atoms or souls we can only reconnect with it in the atom of our own soul within us.
Within us is the soul or "microcosm" and by losing conscious awareness of the Infinite Consciousness in the atom of our own soul - we have lost conscious awarenes of the infinite Consciousness
in the the outer atoms in the "macrocosm."
(4)"Can it be found outside one's body?" NO, it can never be found and never will be found outside of the human body. It can only be found within the human body and when that reconnection is made inside in the microcosm within us only then will we be connected with Infinite Consciousness in the macrocosm and there will be no more outside to us.
(5)"Can I have a proven communication with it?" YES, I personally have had and continue to have communication with it - and will eventually merge in and become one with it permanently.
Only that which has been experienced "in" consciousness can be known to consciousness. Esoteric knowledge must be won by each for himself - no one can do this for you - only your individual human consciousness can experience itself as the Infinite Being that it is. No one can prove this to you it is an experience that you yourself must have in order for it to be real for you.
I see a physical-material universe that is nothing but a profound illusion - a 3d hologram created by human consciousness not knowing its Infinite Self as the Creator.
See my post on meditation at "Re no man is an island" it explains how and where the connection to Infinite Consciousness is made and experienced. | | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | | | Article Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new articles You may not post comments You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8 Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com | |
