T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[N0B0DY]

Just a little note on illusion, Pat.

If sensory reality is experienced, there is no difference whether or not it is real or an illusion.

You were right about the concept of nothing or the void as being very old, but it has been left behind due to our ability to study much more information than in the past. There is so much to study within the observable universe, that scientists simply don't have the time nor the inclination to consider what is not beyond it.

Ultimately, literal reality or illusory reality depends on how we consider the factors involved. There can be a finite measurement made from point A to point B, where it is normally thought that there can be motion between those two points. The points and the motion can be considered real from differentiated perspectives only, but if an observer moved from point A toward point B, and point A, point B, and everything in between moved at the same velocity, there would be no sense of motion.

It is easy to posit the absolute perspective as being inclusive of point A, point B, all points in between, as well as any differentiable motion thought to exist between. We can just as easily proclaim that motion doesn't make sense from that perspective, or even existence itself, because there is no differentiable factors for sensory reality to manifest and be experienced. So when I say that things aren't real, it only refers to the above "non state," and is not intended to take away from cherished experiences. Understanding how the experiences are manifested, can actually add to the hope that many people can't presently even fathom.

Instead of a literal refinement of substances allowing for experiential reality, the above motionless state can be equated with unconsciousness. This state, imo, is the only one that could be considered the "really real" because it is not partial and ego-based, but it is based on an impartial whole which cannot exist in any way that makes sense. It would like saying it exists by not existing, which would be beyond even silly.

Yet, if the above state could be infinitely divided, soley by the possibility of an infinitely complex open system of potential particle interactions that are shared by the subconscious (infinitely-aware) part of the brain, there would be a potential base for closed finite systems to randomly evolve within the eternity created from that division. The conscious (finitely-aware) part of the brain is limited to observable, sensory stimuli of relative velocities.

There is no choice but for the above-mentioned non existence to be divided by non existence - 0/0 - which is what I propose is the only equation possible to explain both the absolute changeless state and abstractly changing states. It can represent 0, 1, 2, 3, to infinity because any number, including 0 multiplied by 0 equals 0.

Non existence being divided by abstract numbers represents illusory division without literally changing the absolute state.

[N0B0DY]

Austin,

If you're not already a world-renowned writer, I think you should be because you've written one of the best novels I've read in a long time.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Thanks Nobody. This TON thread is quite a work and does mean a lot since it is ever attended to by serious minded ToeQuestors as it goes on and lives on.

Do you have any hints for me to make some kind of a drawing of your theory—maybe show vectors of forward light and backwards gravity and all the whatever in and around to make it all understandable at a glance?

Also, if the subconscious, consciousness, and the brain have the ability to form illusion into something so real that it might as well be real for every purpose, then wouldn't the mechanism of this just be "academicly" a mechanism from the method of the tao, nature being efficient, that no one would ever be expected to know and so not matter so much except to TOE researchers (I know I like thinking about it)?
I would guess that it matters to us if it makes us freer and more meaningful than some other, unfounded beliefs.

Just not sure how the happenings happened to happen, except that the timelessness of the timeless would indeed cause all to happen at once, given as well the other …lessnesses of whatever other …less there are with it.

[N0B0DY]

I have to say I appreciate the offer, Austin, but I'm not sure it can be expressed in words or pictures. What you had said at the bottom of your message about all things happening at once would facilitate understanding, but as for hints to how that would be put in a picture is far beyond my little bean.

Essentially the idea is based on the entire universe annihilating into a gamma burst that would make the big bang look like a firecracker. The representation of the force of that burst in all directions would have to include an equal and opposite force that would do something, but I'm not sure exactly what. My best guess is that nothing would happen, although nothing can't literally happen because nothing doesn't exist.

[Profpat]

[quote=N0B0DY;34018]Just a little note on illusion, Pat.

If sensory reality is experienced, there is no difference whether or not it is real or an illusion.

Great point Nobody;

If reality is illusion than illusion must be real.( at least to me )

Best,

Pat

[RascalPuff]

There's a concept of a breathing universe, in the form of big bang and big crunch cycles. Not sure if the big bang represents the inhalation or exhalation, but it is based on a central universal point of contraction and expansion with no outside to this inflatable point.

There are different big bang scenarios, but all have a common center that can justify the big bang. Even if the bang was a one-time deal, Lloyd's proposed contraction by cold can produce the necessary condition for expansion.

It is the cause for the inflationary era prior to the big bang that cannot be justified because the expansion is said to occur everywhere in infinite space. For those like myself who don't believe in the big bang arising from eternally existing matter, there is a required cause for the inflation.

I have tried to find a cause on the space and motion site, and on RP's as to how outwaves are produced from centers that are everywhere. I have yet to find any plausible explanations, and it leaves me no choice than to proclaim that the universe is static.

Other than this causality paradox, your idea is top ten in my opinion.

Dear Nobody:

The cyclic 'big bang' and 'crunch' concept is sometimes called 'the pulsating universe'. It submits that the congealed universe explodes and pulls itself back together ad infinitum.

It's flawed because A. the expanding universe is found to be accelerating, and,

B. There's no reason for it to 'pull itself back together' (for another big bang) because the laws of motion find an object in motion will remain in a state of motion until if and when acted upon by an outside force. Until further notice, there's no 'outside force' to slow the expanding universe, let alone to stop it completely, prerequisite to a collapsation for a repeat performance of a big bang, etc., etc...

Finding the causality of the expansion of matter itself may be an unanswerable question.

We may only know that G. P. Thompson found all electrons to be expanding (The Limitations of Science, by J.W.N. Sullivan); consequently proving that the material as well as the spatial universe is in a constant state of expansion (now found to be accelerating - refer Einstein's reinstated Cosmological Constant: a force that increases with distance...).

There is no contradiction of the law of conservation of mass and energy here (in consideration of the accelerating expansion of matter itself - refer, the universal rate of descent of all objects in free fall - the non distinction between gravitational and inertial mass), because it's the same amount of energy distributing itself over an ever increasing amount of space (in the structure of the inverse square).

The accelerating expansion of matter - in this scenario - is the cause of the observed accelerating expansion of space; resembling a 'static universe'; which has been gainsayed by Hubble's red shift, and the recent observations that the spatially expanding universe is accelerating.
_______________________________

A related note shared with Prof Pat a while ago:

Regarding the 'recent' discovery of the accelerating ('Hubble's expanding') universe:

Once I learned that G. P. Thompson (son of J.J. Thompson) proved that electrons are expanding (The Limitations of Science by J.W.N. Sullivan), I was able to pursue that experimental discovery to the conclusion that all of matter itself is expanding...

This opened the doors to the observation that apparently descending objects are not actually falling (accelerating downward), but instead, are being overtaken and struck by an expanding (accelerating) earth, and, that gravity is the 4th dimension (the right angle projection of the three recognized dimensions).

Since gravity is synonymous with acceleration, I knew that the spaces 'separating' physical entities would also have to be accelerating - that Einstein's Cosmological Constant (Lambda) was apparently engaged.

There is a strong hint also in the fact that in Hubble's 'red shift' expanding universe, the rate of expansion increases with distance...

This dovetails with the factor of the Cosmological Constant's distinction, as being the only known 'force that increases with distance'.

______________________________

Best regards,
- RP

[N0B0DY]

You've managed to move me with your response, RP. I don't get moved very often.

I don't consider myself to be very intelligent so bear with me in that regard, but I'm willing to go deeper than most are willing to go to prove that the toe cannot be found in order for folks to save themselves years of frustration. I ask silly questions at times for people to follow along and participate in this discussion to exhaust their own ideas, and although I seemingly denigrate them it's not my intention. I only wish to push people to try to answer the unanswerable.

With that said, I would ask whether or not it is plausible for a cooling, actually extremely cold, common center to initiate a contracting force that would reverse an expansion from the central point and start the crunch chain reaction. I'm not sure if it would be possible because if universal expansion increases exponentially and surpasses the speed of gravity, expansion would continue. Something to that effect anyway. I'm sure you could give a more accurate assessment of what would happen.

My original question to scientists was what the universe expands into. It has been called silly and ridiculed repeatedly, but I think it fair if there is no dimension for the universe to expand into. If there were a space that the universe expands into, that space would be part of the universe, and if there is no space it implies to me that existence is expanding into non-existence which I analogize to walking into a place that isn't there. It has been said about paradoxes that either the thinking is wrong or the model is wrong. If my thinking is wrong or inaccurate then I deserve an explanation instead of ridicule, imo.

When thinking about the cause of expansion, would it be plausible for opposing charges to come together and annihilate at what we can call a zero-point connection or something like that, whereby the effect of that annihilation would expand from essentially a non-existent zero point in all directions? I know it would change the whole standard model structure of quarks binding, but it's the best I can come up with to give a reason for inner expansion of space.

The last thing, again not trying to denigrate your theory, is expansion from all points in space everywhere which is how I understand your references. If we imagine expansion of bubbles in close proximity expanding continually, they would interact and their surfaces would contact each other and create a pressure on each other. They would not come into contact if the spaces between them were to be expanding as well, but it comes to the point where there are so many bubbles or points expanding in all directions that I honestly don't know what to make of it. If I picked up a book and read about this matter, I would have to call up the author and demand an explanation. With the author being here right now, I sort of simply demand an explanation or a correction to my thinking.

I've thought of many things over the years, but you've one-upped me with regards to massive expansion explaining gravitational effects. I am confused about the inertial mass and gravitational mass being the same, if gravitational mass is due to relativistic acceleration and inertial mass is considered non-relativistic. I think I understand that inside the space is expanding uniformly, but as a closed finite system the velocities would differ with respect to quark/electron position, would they not?


That's about all I have. Look forward to your response, if you will.

[N0B0DY]

I just noticed your extension in your reply, and I'm not sure if Graybeard had disagreed with the strong force being another force that increases with distance. I may have misunderstood his reply to my question about that.

I would use your explanation to explain the redshift, but wanted to allow for alternatives that would mesh with microcosmic effects accumulating to result in the macrcosmic observations. Whereby the redshift would be caused by a change in wavelength from light traversing through different mediums from the small scale to large scale.

If it's not plausible, I'll concede there is only one option.

[RascalPuff]

From Nobody to Rascal Puff:
Re: T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing) - Today, 10:57 PM

You've managed to move me with your response, RP. I don't get moved very often.

I don't consider myself to be very intelligent so bear with me in that regard, but I'm willing to go deeper than most are willing to go to prove that the toe cannot be found in order for folks to save themselves years of frustration. I ask silly questions at times for people to follow along and participate in this discussion to exhaust their own ideas, and although I seemingly denigrate them it's not my intention. I only wish to push people to try to answer the unanswerable.

With that said, I would ask whether or not it is plausible for a cooling, actually extremely cold, common center to initiate a contracting force that would reverse an expansion from the central point and start the crunch chain reaction. I'm not sure if it would be possible because if universal expansion increases exponentially and surpasses the speed of gravity, expansion would continue. Something to that effect anyway. I'm sure you could give a more accurate assessment of what would happen.
__________________________

The reversal of the expansion toward 'the crunch' by way of a supercold incentive to contract, is a consideration I would not dismiss, but, I doubt it. It would have to overcome what's been observed to be an accelerating expansion, which leaves the thermodynamic crunch theory with a lot of desperately ungrounded, negative homework to do.
____________________________

My original question to scientists was what the universe expands into. It has been called silly and ridiculed repeatedly, but I think it fair if there is no dimension for the universe to expand into. If there were a space that the universe expands into, that space would be part of the universe, and if there is no space it implies to me that existence is expanding into non-existence which I analogize to walking into a place that isn't there. It has been said about paradoxes that either the thinking is wrong or the model is wrong. If my thinking is wrong or inaccurate then I deserve an explanation instead of ridicule, imo.
____________________________

Your question about what the universe expands into seems reasonable enough, providing that there's an 'outside' ending to the universe, which I do not think there is. I think that the materially occupied universe goes on forever (steady state; always has been, always will be), contrary to the anthropomorphic insertion of a need for a 'beginning' and and 'ending'. No Linus comforting blankets here... I-n-f-i-n-i-t-y.
_____________________________

When thinking about the cause of expansion, would it be plausible for opposing charges to come together and annihilate at what we can call a zero-point connection or something like that, whereby the effect of that annihilation would expand from essentially a non-existent zero point in all directions? I know it would change the whole standard model structure of quarks binding, but it's the best I can come up with to give a reason for inner expansion of space.
____________________

'Inner expansion of space' may be a non sequitur. Space occupied by matter - 'separated' by connective field forces - may be the status quo. At least I think so.
('There is no space empty of field'. - Einstein)
______________________

The last thing, again not trying to denigrate your theory, is expansion from all points in space everywhere which is how I understand your references. If we imagine expansion of bubbles in close proximity expanding continually, they would interact and their surfaces would contact each other and create a pressure on each other.
____________________

Two billiard balls in collision never actually 'contact' each other. 'Contact' requires interaction of 'surfaces', and there are no surfaces, the subatomic constituents of the collective billiard ball are found to be surfaceless charges of electricity that disallow one another from smultaneously occupying the same space and only become more dense as you approach the center... The number of colliding billiard balls does not gainsay this rule ('No two electrons <'particles'> ever come into contact, when they get too close, they move off'. - Betrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity.)
____________________

They would not come into contact if the spaces between them were to be expanding as well, but it comes to the point where there are so many bubbles or points expanding in all directions that I honestly don't know what to make of it. If I picked up a book and read about this matter, I would have to call up the author and demand an explanation. With the author being here right now, I sort of simply demand an explanation or a correction to my thinking.

I've thought of many things over the years, but you've one-upped me with regards to massive expansion explaining gravitational effects. I am confused about the inertial mass and gravitational mass being the same, if gravitational mass is due to relativistic acceleration and inertial mass is considered non-relativistic.
_______________

The equivalence of gravitatitational and inertial mass is an enigma from which emerged the General Principle, which finds them identical, because they are the same. Einstein called it 'an astonishing coincidence'. Matter is an expanding, accelerating field... Inert and Heavy mass are the same. Gravitational and inertial mass 'are not supposed to be related', but, they are found to be the same... Einstein.
______________

I think I understand that inside the space is expanding uniformly, but as a closed finite system the velocities would differ with respect to quark/electron position, would they not?
_______________

Closed, finite systems are excluded from my contentions.
_______________


That's about all I have. Look forward to your response, if you will.
______________________________

I just noticed your extension in your reply, and I'm not sure if Graybeard had disagreed with the strong force being another force that increases with distance. I may have misunderstood his reply to my question about that.
___________

Until further notice, the strong nuclear resinal forces are by definition confined to the extreme microcosms and are therefore disqualified from becoming stronger with distance.
___________

I would use your explanation to explain the redshift, but wanted to allow for alternatives that would mesh with microcosmic effects accumulating to result in the macrcosmic observations. Whereby the redshift would be caused by a change in wavelength from light traversing through different mediums from the small scale to large scale.
______________

There are obscure hyptheses that correlate your idea of wavelength changes with the transmission of light through different distances and mediums (to explain the 'red shift' - the 'tired light' hypothesis, for one), but these speculations are not well received by standard theory.
______________

If it's not plausible, I'll concede there is only one option.
______________

You do very well, Nobody.
Please carry on with your noble work.
Let me know what you think of my responses.

Best regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

From Nobody to Rascal Puff (Double entry.)