[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

The greatest problem here is that neither of us can present our ideas in short form posts.

The concept is not a difficult one.

• The aether exists.
• Its component is at a fundemental level, of which we currently have no method of determining.
• The movement of these components causes measureable localised differences in the aether.
• The components of the aether, through wave motion or through isolated differentials create relationships.
• The act of producing a relationship creates additional properties which alter the manner in which the now joined components behave.
• As relationships are created, so the complexity of the structures increases.

The End.


Everybody likes quoting famous people, I suppose I'm no different.

Originally Posted by Einstein

I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple

Anything more complex than this really is too complicated to be realistic.

IMHO

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Anything more complex than this really is too complicated to be realistic.

Too complex Steven!
You would have to write at least 10 more pages explaining how this concept explains charge, gravity, expansion, and on and on and on. Care to present it in an article on ToeQuest? I would be ecstatic to find someone with a concept having greater eloquence and simplicity than my own. Only you have the vision to picture what you are talking about. You must explain that vision to the rest of us. This is not an easy task.

Toronics in short form:
Original Tread:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1329&page=3
Follow-up post:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1329

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Too complex Steven!

I know and I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

Consider this:

At the most fundamental level there are no waves or charges. No spins or fields. All you have is NULL and !NULL.

The NULL is essentially the background where everything is played out. Where it came from is anybodies guess, sufficed to say it's there and we can use it.

The !NULL is the component. It is the thing that the aether is comprised of. What it is made of is beyond me. Maybe it is an idea. Maybe having a NULL you must have a equivalent amount of !NULL.

Everything that you see in the Universe today is based on the !NULL and how it interacts with other !NULLs.

Rather than keep calling them !NULL, I'll refer to them as Bob. It may sound rather silly, but the whole point is to prevent you thinking in terms of waves, charges, spins and field.

So we have the background and sitting on the background are lots of Bobs all moving about. These Bobs are the aether. Everything that happens, happens because of the Bobs.
What do these Bobs do? Nothing, except try to avoid each other. Bob entropy.

Think of each Bob as a high pressure weather system. What happens when two such weather systems approach each other? They have a tendency to avoid each other.

The close proximity of two or more Bobs creates a relationship between them and it is this relationship that allows for the building of complex structures.

That's the basics.
I don't think there 's anything in there too contraversial, apart from naming the entire Universe Bob.

[humanbydefault]

The problem is that as Mr. D. said: It doesn't gives us a clue of the TOE and you can not build your theories upon NULL(s)...

Mr. D. is right in many things and I agree totally with the concept of a vacuum, its roll in the existence of charges, mass and spin and one day humanity [I hope] will have a better picture of "your NULL" which in fact would turn to be a NON-NULL...

Your NULL concept is not entirely wrong... you see? I wrote [right here in this FORUM] a thread [almost nobody read about it] titled "The true nature of zero." In it I attempted to give every one my vision of what zero is in the universe. You may or may not have the time nor the inclination to read it, but I'm going to go farther than that: I'm going to give you a WILD example of how you could have been right [about your NULL or...Bob] and the structure of the universe:

"Imagine [I always use this word...don't worry about it] that when the universe was borne [as a big-bang or as a huge explosion, you name it] it expanded in all directions fron its core or center. That's pretty well admited today I may add, however knowing as we know today certain phenomena in quantum mechanics we could "ASSUME" that such expansion was nothing more than A HUGE ENTANGLEMENT flying in all directions!!!!

Think of this for a second! We could have one side of the universe existing and actually slowly but surely expanding toward [God knows where] and its SYMMETRICAL IMAGE toward an opposite END [direction instead].

We may explain this way the old-time questions of "Where the H... is anti-matter in the cosmos that our mathematics predict and astronomers can't find?" If this was the right picture of our reality, then it wasn't too difficult to understand how Bob [NULL] is all there is!!!!

The universe will continue expanding until it reaches its max expansion point to finally collapse into... a HUGE NULL!

I also have a version of how that [dramatic end] will come about... There is assuming you have the time and the inclination to hear it:

It is thought today [as a fact] that before the Big-Bang all there was was a HUGE CLOUD OF HYDROGEN... A pretty GOOD guess... I guess!

Think about this! In my article "Rediscovering the atomic model [part two]" I depiected the way I explain to myself the true structure of the atom and matter. I see it as a confrontation of specks of radiation energy in a pattern of standing nuclear waves. I also wrote a little "commercial" [sort of an ironic "joke"] about the famous "decay of the first PROTON." If you check in your "memory bank" you'll remember that the so-call proton is the hydrogen atom... so far so right!
What would happen if all the atoms in the universe slowly but surely DECAY up to the point in what ALL WE GOT LEFT WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PROTONS???

>>>>>>> I tell you what we have then: THE BIGGEST AND MORE HORRIBLE HYDROGEN BOMB MAKING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!!!<<<<<<

The first proton willing to decay will be the tick to beging the GENESIS OF THE NEXT UNIVERSE.

Why would the first proton decay? Because... Energy would have reached such an entropy level that its next possible step of transformation [entropy state] would be the braking of the interaction between those primary specks of radiation connected by the pattern of interference [standing nuclear waves].

The TRUE naked and powerful energy [we haven't seen so far] will finally open its "face" in a remote region of the cosmos "SPARKING" once again the flame of CREATION.

... By the way! Einstein did fight against the concept of eather in 1905 but he changed his mind with respect to its existence in 1921 when he recognized his mistake in a letter to one of his friends... I'm not a scientists Bob but I know some history of physics... whether you believe it or not.

SO! I don't expect [as always] that any will agree with this "universal forcast" specially coming from an outsider... I DO THOUGH!

BE GOOD

HUMANBYDEFAULT [dirty belt ****** (?)]

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

about your NULL or...Bob

A quick response here.

!NULL denotes NOT NULL, not just NULL. If you see what I mean.

If NULL is nothing, then !NULL would be something.

Just thought I'd clear that up. My previous posting may make more sense.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

[font=Verdana][color=black]The ultimate velocity is more likely to be that of the value given by QM for the expansion of the universe. 2x10^11 c. This may also be the value of "Absolute Motion".

Dave, may I point out that the true velocity of light, in differing areas of space and time can never be truly known, due to the dependency of all gauge theory and observer referance points on real unknowns. Even if such a velocity of 2X10^11c were possible, and we could possibly live in it, we could and would only observe it as c. Absolute motion is always c. The speed of light is always constant at all speeds, as all we see and know is what light speed shows us and is, and as it also always shapes all space and matter relations, and reference points, i.e., guage theories' foundations. We can never know change of c, even if it really occured. We are light speed locked quanta of light, ourselves. So, fun to theorize, but a bit hard to know the impossible of knowing the unknowable...

We are velocity light locked in the same total velocity that is us... Yes, there are differences of velocities, that we can truthfully measure, but we can never measure the velocity of the singularity, at any given time. We can only theorize such a massive idea, and usually quite wrongheadedly... The above theory is called conspansion. It is the theory that we can never truly tell if the universe is shrinking, expanding or if its visible wave/matter is shrinking/expanding, thus giving the illusion of an expanding/shrinking universe. We have no constant frame of reference to know... Logic only allows us to know we can't know this fact. It is a light locked mystery... I don't think you can find your way out of this one, let me know... Or do you agree..?

"Einstein's abstractions often don't apply to logical reality." me

regards

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

There are many disciplines of which I lack comprehensive skills; understanding the nature of our physical universe is NOT one of them.

Faster than a speeding bullet! Knowing more than the total knower! That's me. I am David. Hear me ROAR!!!

Hey Dave, come on back down to fallible human earth. I've been out there that far before. It's not fun...

just kikking,

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

It is thought today [as a fact] that before the Big-Bang all there was was a HUGE CLOUD OF HYDROGEN... A pretty GOOD guess... I guess!

Think about this! In my article "Rediscovering the atomic model [part two]" I depiected the way I explain to myself the true structure of the atom and matter. I see it as a confrontation of specks of radiation energy in a pattern of standing nuclear waves. I also wrote a little "commercial" [sort of an ironic "joke"] about the famous "decay of the first PROTON." If you check in your "memory bank" you'll remember that the so-call proton is the hydrogen atom... so far so right!
What would happen if all the atoms in the universe slowly but surely DECAY up to the point in what ALL WE GOT LEFT WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PROTONS???

>>>>>>> I tell you what we have then: THE BIGGEST AND MORE HORRIBLE HYDROGEN BOMB MAKING THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!!!<<<<<<

The first proton willing to decay will be the tick to beging the GENESIS OF THE NEXT UNIVERSE.

Why would the first proton decay? Because... Energy would have reached such an entropy level that its next possible step of transformation [entropy state] would be the braking of the interaction between those primary specks of radiation connected by the pattern of interference [standing nuclear waves].

The TRUE naked and powerful energy [we haven't seen so far] will finally open its "face" in a remote region of the cosmos "SPARKING" once again the flame of CREATION.

... By the way! Einstein did fight against the concept of eather in 1905 but he changed his mind with respect to its existence in 1921 when he recognized his mistake in a letter to one of his friends... I'm not a scientists Bob but I know some history of physics... whether you believe it or not.

SO! I don't expect [as always] that any will agree with this "universal forcast" specially coming from an outsider... I DO THOUGH!

BE GOOD

HUMANBYDEFAULT [dirty belt ****** (?)]

Excellent HBD, and some more of the pieces fall into place.

regards

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

I can only assume you misinterpreted or did not understand my post.

As far as the appearance of a patronizing tone, I can only say that to your concepts, I've "Been there done that" and it didn't work over 30 years ago and won't work now. It seems you would prefer to put your hand in the fire to determine for yourself that it is hot. It is actually easier to learn from others, but I understand the influence of human nature and can only say that you are reading too much personal emotions into my posts. I do not have any feeling on the subject or of you, one way or another. I tend to overlook the feeling of others, and in that respect I apologies if you have taken offense.

The greatest problem here is that neither of us can present our ideas in short form posts. I'll give you a signed copy of my book, if you give me a signed copy of yours.

Just a little aside chaps,you can both havea copy
of my book,entitled,ego deflation,at depth,by me,free of charge.
kind regards michael.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

We are light speed locked quanta of light, ourselves. So, fun to theorize, but a bit hard to know the impossible of knowing the unknowable...

Well put.

There is an intriguing simularity.

The basis of our whole Universe is the speed of light, yet in this Universe nothing can exist at the speed of light except light itself.

In binary, or any base numbering system, everything is dependant on the base, yet nothing can exist as the base. There is no digit 2 in binary, there is no single digit denoting 10 in decimal.

To move beyond having a constant speed of light, you have to start using a different basis. You have to start using a system where the speed of light is not the basis of everything.

If you can envisage a system where the speed of light can be determined using more fundemental factors, then you're already using an alternate system and you have a pretty good idea that there is more to how fast a photon travels than blind faith. Unfortunately it's speculating beyond currently accepted theories so tends to meet with opposition.

If, on the other hand, you believe that the speed of light is the most fundemental constant in the Universe, then everything that I have written above will mean absolutely nothing to you.