[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Yes, one could say absolute velocity can slow to produce cooling and cold, from its initial heat state, but then, you're left with the largest question of all, what produced absolute velocity? IMO, if one chooses absolute velocity, to base universal mechanics on, one is simply left with another religion___so I don't accept absolute velocity.

Lloyd,
IMO this is the most fundemental question and it's one which is not based on a religious overtone, but simple maths.

If velocity were not absolute, then there would have to be a mechanism limiting it. If velocity is limited to the speed of light, then that mechanism becomes even more complex.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

what produced absolute velocity?

This may be a little tricky to get your head round, but absolute velocity does not imply something flying around at incredible speeds.

The idea of Absolute Velocity is not one based on accelerating a photon from a stand still, it is about the environment that the photon exists in. If a photon travels between two points A and B and there is nothing between the two points, then the distance is zero.

You''ve no doubt heard the line about somebody having two speeds; dead slow and stop.
Well this is about the Universe having two speeds; Absolute Velocity and Stop.
This gives you the simplest mechanism on which the Universe is based. There are no substances needed to ensure an invariant velocity.

A photon is travelling at Absolute Velocity. It meets another photon and it stops. The two photons now exist as a stationary system, a system which has Mass. The two photons depart, each at absolute velocity, and the Mass no longer exists.

At this level of the Universe there is no inertia, so acceleration and decelleration do not exist.

This constant stop, start of the photon gives you the ticking of the clock and is consistant throughtout the Universe. There is no force required to push each photon.

If you have a Universe where there is a speed limit, you need to have a mechanism that dictates that speed limit. The FS is then governed by something more Fundemental. If the FS governs itself, then there must be an explanation as to how.

The idea of Absolute Velocity gives you the HOW without contradicting accepted physics. The speed of light is still the speed of light, but now you know why it is invariant and why it is so crucial to everything.


PB.

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Lloyd,
IMO this is the most fundemental question and it's one which is not based on a religious overtone, but simple maths.

If velocity were not absolute, then there would have to be a mechanism limiting it. If velocity is limited to the speed of light, then that mechanism becomes even more complex.





PB.

Hi PB,
Great conversation!

I believe the mechanism limiting absolute velocity or any other magnitude is measure. We are taught that in measure lies the truth. That Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics or probability or dice has certainty, when the truth is that the mechanics of measure has no absolute certainty at all.

The simple math of everything stands at the center of every equation. The evolution of science, the future of mankind, is the simple unity of equality. Life without uncertain measure or doubt is the mechanics of absolute truth, unity, equality, freedom or one.

MJA

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by MJA

Hi PB,
Great conversation!

Hi MJA,
Glad you're enjoying the show .. !

Originally Posted by MJA

I believe the mechanism limiting absolute velocity or any other magnitude is measure. We are taught that in measure lies the truth. That Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics or probability or dice has certainty, when the truth is that the mechanics of measure has no absolute certainty at all.

My point about Absolute Velocity is that there is nothing to measure, which I think ties in with what you are saying, sort of.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi PB, I clearly see where you are coming from, in your thinking, however; I can not accept an unexplained absolute velocity/stop as any where's near an explanation for the fundamental universal motion. Unless the motive force is clearly stated, and thoroughly explained, it is still, just simple religion/conjecture/supposition. My mind requires the facts of first force, for it to have any scientific validity. I know many, such as Dave, Baud and others, also accept absolute velocity, as a fundamental given___I can not, and do not___It must be scientifically explained, to be scientific. This is why I keep offering up THD{thermo-hydro-dynamics}, as it is the only absolute fundamental force, that would have been required to be present, along with the Photonic FS, and the first motions, would have been required to exist within the self-motions of the PFS___I can see no other force, naturally existing, to account for first fundamental motions...

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Lloyd,
IMO this is the most fundemental question and it's one which is not based on a religious overtone, but simple maths. [There are no maths possible, to prove absolute motion___they'd all have to be based on simple supposition/conjecture/theory___not facts.]

If velocity were not absolute, then there would have to be a mechanism limiting it. [There is___PFS___Everywhere___Eternally___Infinitely.] If velocity is limited to the speed of light, then that mechanism becomes even more complex. [No complexity required___just simple non-viscous fluid dynamics/mechanics of the self-THD motions of PFS, limiting and self-balancing/controlling its own motions___Just simple THD Fundamental Matter Mechanics.]

This may be a little tricky to get your head round, but absolute velocity does not imply something flying around at incredible speeds. [PB, don't get me wrong, I do accept absolute velocity, as always existing, but not as you do. I accept absolute velocity as an infinite quantity, existing eternally/infinitely, but not of infinite accelerated velocity, but as infinite accelerating velocity___slow to C and True C. IMO, this must be motion's evolution, not to be caught in the invariant velocity snare, or the foolish infinitesimal point particle, of standard model physics' absolute velocity quagmires.]

The idea of Absolute Velocity is not one based on accelerating a photon from a stand still, it is about the environment that the photon exists in. If a photon travels between two points A and B and there is nothing between the two points, then the distance is zero. [Now here, we differ considerably. I do not accept any type of universe/space/void with one speck of empty space___IMO, all is filled with PFS, entirely/infinitely/eternally___always has been___It is the uncreated absolute fundamental matter/motion/energy___Forever, and EVER!!!, even though so infinitesimal, in its smallest changed non-viscous fluidic state, it's yet invisable, except its heat/energy/X-ray signatures, and its visible wide array of light waves___It still allows itself to be absolutely fundamental, if all phase space state changes are truly considered___and it's not complex___It's quite simple, when seen as a new fundamental matter mechanics, of the non-viscous fluidic photonic substance up, to the highly visable matter spectrums and structures.]

You''ve no doubt heard the line about somebody having two speeds; dead slow and stop.
Well this is about the Universe having two speeds; Absolute Velocity and Stop. [The universe, even at the most fundamental level, would also, just as the visable universe does, have many, and every velocity between almost stop and True C, which is what I see absolute velocity as. This doesn't mean True C did not exist faster than our knowledge of C today, just that light can never exceed its self-velocity, however; the self-velocity could have been, and most surely was, higher than our present Aether's C velocity.]
This gives you the simplest mechanism on which the Universe is based. [PB, I don't see simplicity here. I see an extremely complex non-explanation of a theocratic absolute velocity, existing in what you call nothing space, which I say can not exist___All space is matter, just as Dave's post, "Matter Is Everything In A Void", exposes___And I concur.] There are no substances needed to ensure an invariant velocity. [And I would say, invariant velocity is a later product of star formations, and their hydrodynamic forces propelling/pushing/propagating the electrodynamic invariant forces of the universe. IMO, invariant forces are a product of first fundamental variant force___THD of the PFS.]

A photon is travelling at Absolute Velocity. It meets another photon and it stops. [This theory of absolute velocity is just too much magic, for my mind to accept, as any where's near possible.] The two photons now exist as a stationary system, a system which has Mass. [I can agree, this does happen___This would be first stage of universal evolution.] The two photons depart, each at absolute velocity, and the Mass no longer exists. [I don't agree that photons depart. IMO, photons return to their absolute ground state of the ONE absolute fundamental photonic non-viscous fluidic substance/matter/energy___I would say they decay back into the ground state, after being activated/excited, or as you say, form real mass systems___by the real fundamental forces of THD___The only possible fundamental scientific matter/substance/motion/energy___at this evolution stage. Both processes are necessary, combination of photons and separation of photons, for any universe to mechanically function___At all!!!]

At this level of the Universe there is no inertia, so acceleration and decelleration do not exist. [Without inertia, acceleration and decelleration, the universe stays dead in an impossible static state. All three of these forces are necessary, for any universal formation evolution. It's here now___It existed there, then!!!]

This constant stop, start of the photon gives you the ticking of the clock and is consistant throughtout the Universe. [I do agree with this, but I see it as photon mass, building and dissapating ticking___A photon mass tick, and this is consistant throughout the universe.] There is no force required to push each photon. [Then this is magic, and unacceptable. The photon must have first force propagation/propulsion, or it does not move___no mitosis or metaphysics allowed, without explanation of mitosis first fundamental mechanics.]

If you have a Universe where there is a speed limit, you need to have a mechanism that dictates that speed limit. The FS is then governed by something more Fundemental. If the FS governs itself, then there must be an explanation as to how. [That's quite simple___It's just simple fluid mechanics, the density of the medium controls the velocity, i.e., water can only move slow in water, gasses can move faster in gasses, and the PFS can move fastest of all, at C and True C, due to its thinnest density possible, of infinitesimal non-viscous fluidic particle structure. The laws of physics are in full agreement with such dynamics/mechanics. All one has to do is figure the fluid dynamics, according to a ratioed velocity density, to allow infintesimal particle photons to travel at C and True C within its own self-density___that's just straight-forward fluid density math.]

The idea of Absolute Velocity gives you the HOW without contradicting accepted physics. [I agree, absolute velocity, doesn't contradict accepted physics, but it doesn't answer any more questions, scientifically, than does present accepted physics, and herein lies the problem___No answer to first fundamental force.] The speed of light is still the speed of light, but now you know why it is invariant and why it is so crucial to everything. [Steven, I theorized with absolute velocity, back in the early `80's, and realized it easily answered all physics questions, but at what cost? It answers the questions far too easily, so after questioning my theorizing, at the time, I threw the absolute velocity concept away, as I thoroughly realized, it had no scientific basis, except my own desires for an answer. The motion answer is deeper yet simpler than absolute velocity. Bob Dylan, who few realize was a major in philosophy, while in college, and he came up with the only truth about a few ideas; "You want the truth, there ain't no truth.", and "The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind." Now, the second idea of Bob's is absolutely correct___The THD Wind!!!]

PB.

Best I can do, to contribute to your ideas. I think the two of us may uncover the absolute fundamental matter mechanics of the universe, if we keep going, but we have quite a few differences to overcome___yet...

Lloyd

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Hi MJA,
Glad you're enjoying the show .. !



My point about Absolute Velocity is that there is nothing to measure, which I think ties in with what you are saying, sort of.


PB.

Surely instantaneous must be the fastest possible motion? (And the thing that prevents time travel) However, at this point there would also be no movement, a seeming 'paradox' that is actually just an aspect of the infinite. Infinity is the measurement that cannot be measured, but it can be deduced, necessarily, by eliminating all other possibilities.


pif.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

I think the two of us may uncover the absolute fundamental matter mechanics of the universe, if we keep going, but we have quite a few differences to overcome___yet...

Hi Lloyd,
I think we need to take a step back and compare what it is we think the FS can do and what its properties are.

My FS :

Consists of discreet packets of energy.
Packets of Energy are point particles.
There is a background void to the Universe.
Has two speeds, Stop and Go.
There is no inertia, acceleration and decelleration


Your FS :
(correct any bits I've got wrong)

Consists of non-discreet packets of energy.
There is no background void to the Universe.
Has Multiple speeds, maximum being the Speed of Light.
A non-viscous fluid with thermal properties
limiting and self-balancing/controlling its own motions
The forces of inertia, acceleration and decelleration exist


From my point of view, your description is at a substantially more complex level than mine. I agree that the FS exhibits fluid properties, but at a level above that of the basic energy components.

A single particle doesn't make a fluid, just as it doesn't make a wave of any sort.

Here's something that I came up with a long time ago which may answer your questions about it being magic or not.

Energy / Permittivity = Mass / Permeability = Force / 1 – Velocity

We know the standard formula F = MA Force = Mass x Acceleration but at this level there is no acceleration.

From the above

Mass / Permeability = Force / (1-Velocity)

Force = (Mass x (1- Velocity)) / Permeability





The force does not exist to push the individual photon, the force exists whenever two photons interact to create a Mass.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steven, we seem close, yet ever so far apart. I'll try to point out more of our differences, and possibly suggest ways of uniting our ideas.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Hi Lloyd,
I think we need to take a step back and compare what it is we think the FS can do and what its properties are.

My FS :

Consists of discreet packets of energy. [I half agree, as I would also include variable non-discreet packets of energy.]
Packets of Energy are point particles. [I absolutely agree.]
There is a background void to the Universe. [Then, what's it made of? It must be made of something, to exist.]
Has two speeds, Stop and Go. [That's rather abrupt, ain't it? You're talking about instantaneous velocity/stop___How? What mechanism? Since, we both agree, electrodynamics does not exist at this early state/stage of universal evolution___What force causes instantaneous Stop and Go?]
There is no inertia, acceleration and decelleration. [Then, how does it move at the varying velocities required, to form other particles?]

Your FS :
(correct any bits I've got wrong)

Consists of non-discreet packets of energy. [And discreet.]
There is no background void to the Universe. [The background void is full of photonic true ground state, steady state, non-viscous fluidic substance___Un-moving, or at the most, very slow moving.]
Has Multiple speeds, maximum being the Speed of Light. [Yet light speed is variable over long periods of cosmic time, due to each local area's aether density/permeability, evolutionarily changing.]
A non-viscous fluid with thermal properties. [Yes, as temperature IS an absolute eternal requirement of any universe. A universe can't exist without the required thermal properties.]
limiting and self-balancing/controlling its own motions. [Yes, also accelerating and decellerating them.]
The forces of inertia, acceleration and decelleration exist. [Yes.]

From my point of view, your description is at a substantially more complex level than mine. [I'm only allowing for the absolutely required scientific motion.] I agree that the FS exhibits fluid properties, but at a level above that of the basic energy components. [And, I see it as an absolute ground state requirement. IMO, it's just simple logic___as you thin matter particles toward the infinitesimal, you eventually reach the fluidic state of absolute oneness. As I said earlier, I don't see photons as restricted to any particular size. IMO, they must exist in all sizes, from the visible known packets of, down to the infinitesimal, then all the way back to the absolute ground state of fluidic oneness. It's the only way the universe makes sense, to me. It must start from oneness, to make any mechanical sense. This isn't a theocratic whim, it's just in order to have any initial scientific force of motion, it must start from a state of fluidic oneness, for cold thermal reality, to have its necessary, for first motion, mechanics of force over FS. You, or no-one else on this forum, or on the entire web, is offering any scientific first force cause___I am. I just can't quite understand why people can't see something so simple and easy___It's just plain scientific common sense logic.]

A single particle doesn't make a fluid, just as it doesn't make a wave of any sort. [I never said it did. But, a single particle can exist as an infinite eternal absolute ground state, non-viscous fluidic photonic substance. And, all it takes is cold motion, and its friction heat to create the rest of the universe's infinite/infinitesimal particles, and all larger particles.]

Here's something that I came up with a long time ago which may answer your questions about it being magic or not.

Energy / Permittivity = Mass / Permeability = Force / 1 – Velocity

We know the standard formula F = MA Force = Mass x Acceleration but at this level there is no acceleration. [Then you'll need to explain the magic out of the above. What causes energy in your model? What causes motion/force in your model? Mass, permittivity, and permeability, we all understand, as they are secondaries of the ground state motion/energy/forces. So, what's the absolute fundamental first motion cause, in your photon model___less the magic?]

From the above

Mass / Permeability = Force / (1-Velocity)

Force = (Mass x (1- Velocity)) / Permeability

The force does not exist to push the individual photon, the force exists whenever two photons interact to create a Mass. [Then the question must be; "What force causes two photons to interact?"]

PB.

You see Steven, as bad as you want your model to be the final theory, you must still answer "The Prime Mover" question, for your model to have any true scientific validity. Don't feel bad, this is where everyone has failed, yet when I have offered many a prime mover solution, all have rejected it. All reasons of rejection have been based on false interpretations of the three laws of thermodynamics, Newton's laws of forces, and Boltzman's laws of gasses___the true combinations of. Yet, I haven't seen anyone who understands these three systems well enough, to see the simplicity of what I have been trying to offer, for well over a year, now. Unless we can resolve this prime mover issue, I don't think it possible to create a valid theory of the universe. I am all ears, if you have another prime mover idea, other than what I have offered. So, please explain the mechanics of the prime mover, in your model, if you have one, as I don't see one, yet... IMO, nothing moves without a scientific mechanical prime mover...

Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Hi Lloyd,
I've been looking back over some of the most recent posts and it would appear that I missed something.

You've asked me for details of where the Energy comes from in my model and what the Prime Mover is in the model. I will answer those questions, because they are important to having a complete theory.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

IMO, all is filled with PFS, entirely/infinitely/eternally___always has been___It is the uncreated absolute fundamental matter/motion/energy___Forever, and EVER!!!

This is a cop-out.

Uncreated..... always been there

This is what people put when they have no idea of where something came from and aren't even willing to hazard a guess. This is as bad as the 'S' substance.

The substance you are calling PFS is an almalgamation of everything that you think you need to get the model to work. As you've already said, without fluids and thermals it doesn't work.

You see Steven, as bad as you want your model to be the final theory, you must still answer "The Prime Mover" question, for your model to have any true scientific validity. Don't feel bad, this is where everyone has failed, yet when I have offered many a prime mover solution, all have rejected it.

You haven't actually offered a Prime Mover. Your Prime Mover is based on a substance that would already be in motion, so whatever it was that initiated the PFS to move happened long before.

The more you have to add in to your model, the further away from the fundemental workings or the Universe you get.

The closest I can come to understanding your model is in analysing a single molecule of water.
If the water molecule was the most fundemental entity, your model has it already exhibiting such properties as tides and currents, or at worse, your model ignores the molecule and needs the entire ocean to work.

An ocean can be broken down to a single water molecule just as the Universe can be broken down to a single photon.

As I said in the previous posting, your model is so complex. Saying it's not and that it has to be that way to get it to work, doesn't make it any less complex.


As to where the Energy came from :-

Universe = !NULL
NULL = !Universe

NULL can only be define by comparing it with what is !NULL.
So by declaring NULL, you have already declared !NULL.

In laymans terms; the moment you declare you have nothing, you have something.

Everything is represented by the Complete Set, whose members are all things that are NULL or !NULL.

This set is then an infinite list.


It's a little bit more involved than just declaring it as Uncreated.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steven, here are a few quotes from Wikipedia about the null hypothesis;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

Limitations - "A null hypothesis is only useful if it is possible to calculate the probability of observing a data set with particular parameters from it. In general it is much harder to be precise about how probable the data would be if the alternative hypothesis were true.

If experimental observations contradict the prediction of the null hypothesis, it means that either the null hypothesis is false, or the event under observation occurs very improbably. This gives us high confidence in the falsehood of the null hypothesis, which can be improved in proportion to the number of trials conducted. However, accepting the alternative hypothesis only commits us to a difference in observed parameters; it does not prove that the theory or principles that predicted such a difference is true, since it is always possible that the difference could be due to additional factors not recognized by the theory.


For example, rejecting of a null hypothesis that predicts that the rates of symptom relief in a sample of patients who received a placebo and a sample who received a medicinal drug will be equal allows us to make a non-null statement (that the rates differed); it does not prove that the drug relieved the symptoms, though it gives us more confidence in that hypothesis.


The formulation, testing, and rejection of null hypotheses is methodologically consistent with the falsifiability model of scientific discovery formulated by Karl Popper and widely believed to apply to most kinds of empirical research. However, concerns regarding the high power of statistical tests to detect differences in large samples have led to suggestions for re-defining the null hypothesis, for example as a hypothesis that an effect falls within a range considered negligible. This is an attempt to address the confusion among non-statisticians between significant and substantial, since large enough samples are likely to be able to indicate differences however minor.



The theory underlying the idea of a null hypothesis is closely associated with the frequency theory of probability, in which probabilistic statements can only be made about the relative frequencies of events in arbitrarily large samples. A failure to reject the null hypothesis is meaningful only in relation to an arbitrarily large population from which the observed sample is supposed to be drawn."



"Null hypothesis testing is controversial when the alternative hypothesis is suspected to be true at the outset of the experiment, making the null hypothesis the reverse of what the experimenter actually believes; it is put forward only to allow the data to contradict it. Many statisticians have pointed out that rejecting the null hypothesis says nothing or very little about the likelihood that the null is true. Under traditional null hypothesis testing, the null is rejected when P(Data | Null)† is very small, say 0.05. However, researchers are really interested in P(Null | Data) which cannot be inferred from a p-value. In some cases, P(Null | Data) approaches 1 while P(Data | Null) approaches 0, in other words, we can reject the null when it's virtually certain to be true. For this and other reasons, Gerd Gigerenzer has called null hypothesis testing "mindless statistics" while Jacob Cohen describes it as a ritual conducted to convince ourselves that we have the evidence needed to confirm our theories.


Elizabeth Anscombe, a student of Wittgenstein, notes that “Tests of the null hypothesis that there is no difference between certain treatments are often made in the analysis of agricultural or industrial experiments in which alternative methods or processes are compared. Such tests are [...] totally irrelevant. What are needed are estimates of magnitudes of effects, with standard errors."


Bayesian statisticians normally reject the idea of null hypothesis testing. Given a prior probability distribution for one or more parameters, sample evidence can be used to generate an updated posterior distribution. In this framework, but not in the null hypothesis testing framework, it is meaningful to make statements of the general form "the probability that the true value of the parameter is greater than 0 is p".


†(Read: the probability of observing the particular data given that the null hypothesis is true; see conditional probability.)"

As you can clearly see, the null hypothesis is not a reliable data set, especially when the substance we are referring to, has no possible, as yet, definable criteria, except that it is photonic energy___no known size, except packet energy___no known velocity stability, except what x-ray technologies tell us, uncertainly, and certainly___no known temperature stability, except the varied known temperatures and voltages of different photonic frequencies, and heats. So, IMO, there is no way to falsifiably test the two different views of you and I___There's only the possibility of comparing the ideas, to see which has the highest probability of truth, by eliminating the errors of improbabilities, and impossibilities. So, the "Fundamental Prime Mover Question" has not been answered___yet.

The way I see the problem, is that most theorists take for granted, the existing literature of standard model physics, as to ground state motion, by thoroughly mis-interpreting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This comes from Boltzmann's law interpretation of; "The universe started in a high state of ordered entropy, and is evolving to a lowest state of disordered entropy." Herein lies the "Boogie-Man". Others interpret it just the opposite. There has been much information written about this, and there are two major ways to interpret the 2nd law of thermodynamics, 1.Group entropy, and 2. Symmetry entropy. The first one is Boltzmann's interpretation. The second one is the opposite of Boltzmann's, whereby entropy starts out in a near zero temperature ground state, evolves to the highest temperature big-bang state of high entropy, then decays back to the lowest near zero ground state of low entropy, again.

The above prevents the problem of the standard model infinitesimal point particle, only, ground state of ridiculousness from arising. This in no way annuls your photon on photon action theory. It simply allows it to occupy a state space of fundamental ground state infinite reality. And yes, the universe has always been in motion, but the true question is still___How? What absolute fundamental force?

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Hi Lloyd,
I've been looking back over some of the most recent posts and it would appear that I missed something.

You've asked me for details of where the Energy comes from in my model and what the Prime Mover is in the model. I will answer those questions, because they are important to having a complete theory.


This is a cop-out. [No cop-out. Fact___First law of thermodynamics is fundamentally sound, just a might incomplete, as it truly applies infinitely, then finitely from the infinite.]

Uncreated..... always been there [Fact___1st Law.]

This is what people put when they have no idea of where something came from and aren't even willing to hazard a guess. This is as bad as the 'S' substance. [Sorry, but the 1st law of fundamental physics is absolutely sound___Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed___thus they are eternally/infinitely existent___Infinitely also, because the one first fundamental single substance, absolutely had to be all there was, as nothing is impossible.]

The substance you are calling PFS is an almalgamation of everything that you think you need to get the model to work. As you've already said, without fluids and thermals it doesn't work. [I stand by this statement.]

You haven't actually offered a Prime Mover. Your Prime Mover is based on a substance that would already be in motion, so whatever it was that initiated the PFS to move happened long before. [No, not true. Temperature is infinite/eternal___This is an absolute fact of physics. Whether it is a property of the PFS is still open for debate. It may be a separate property___This we must find out. Is the universe dual natured or oneness natured, or possibly even scientifically tri-istic? No theocratic intent, intended.]

The more you have to add in to your model, the further away from the fundemental workings or the Universe you get. [Not true again. The truest fundamental workings of the universe, must answer the Prime Mover Question___First and foremost.]

The closest I can come to understanding your model is in analysing a single molecule of water.
If the water molecule was the most fundemental entity, your model has it already exhibiting such properties as tides and currents, or at worse, your model ignores the molecule and needs the entire ocean to work. [Absolutely true. It requires the whole thermal ocean to work, to create the low pressures required, of initiating first motions and frictions, thus heat, sound and velocities. Photons absolutely require a prime mover force___They ain't magic.]

An ocean can be broken down to a single water molecule just as the Universe can be broken down to a single photon. [I absolutely agree, but what size and temperature are they, and how do they create self-motion, or how is their non-self-motion started?]

As I said in the previous posting, your model is so complex. Saying it's not and that it has to be that way to get it to work, doesn't make it any less complex. [So far, IMO, I see your's as far more complex, i.e., impossible of motion___until you clearly and thoroughly define an Absolute Prime Mover.]

As to where the Energy came from :-

Universe = !NULL
NULL = !Universe

NULL can only be define by comparing it with what is !NULL.
So by declaring NULL, you have already declared !NULL. [Declaring is only conjecture and supposition, as the Wikipedia article, clearly spells out. This same argument has been used often by others, and is quite bogus, sorry.]

In laymans terms; the moment you declare you have nothing, you have something. [Here's a link that may explain "nothing/zero" better than I've ever seen it explained; It was offered by Yossarian, one of our newest members: http://www.everythingforever.com/st_math.htm
http://www.everythingforever.com/st_math2.htm
Steven, this is about a new symmetry math. Ignore the space-time connotations, and the theorcratic overtones, and check out just the mathematics___It is quite revealing. It's an entirely new way of viewing nothing and zero, with a valid abstract scientific mathematical observation.]

Everything is represented by the Complete Set, whose members are all things that are NULL or !NULL. [I think after you read the above, you may draw new conclusions.]

This set is then an infinite list. [If you read all the related articles, or chapter pieces of Gevin Giorbran's book you may acquire a firmer grasp of the entire universal subject. Much is not perfect, but at least, it offers a very good alternative view, and the clarrification of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is excellent, as well as his new symmetry math. Ignore the ideas you don't care for, but please read this: http://everythingforever.com/ ]

It's a little bit more involved than just declaring it as Uncreated. [Now, who's trying to be complex? The 1st law of thermodynamics is good enough for me___To me, it says the universe is infinite/eternal. This is not my conjecture___I think it was LaPlace that discovered the 1st law of thermodynamics, and it's proven itself true to all physicists, chemists and scientists, since. Are you denying it?___if so, you must rewrite the 1st law of thermodynamics, to a newer and higher truth. It may be possible, but I'd have to see the hard scientific proof.]

PB.

Where's the prime mover mechanics?
Lloyd

[baudrunner]

on the subject of pseudo-relativity: planet-bob, your avatar looks so much like Saddam Hussein it scares me