[Planet_Bob]

Hi Lloyd,
here's the text from your wikipedia link

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternative hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. In classical science, the null hypothesis is used to test differences in treatment and control groups, and the assumption at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the two groups for the variable being compared.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

A null hypothesis and a hypothesis about NULL are not the same thing.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

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.

The whole creation bit was one area that I didn't really want to get into purely for that reason. There is no way anybody will ever know. This is why I consider what happens after the event to be of more immediate importance.

Figure out what the simplest system is and how it works and then have a stab at how it all began. This is one bit of analysis where it is impossible to start at the beginning. It's a puzzle and you have to play with the pieces your given.

I know you like quoting wikipedia, so here's one I found :

All laws of thermodynamics but the First are statistical and simply describe the tendencies of macroscopic systems. For microscopic systems with few particles, the variations in the parameters become larger than the parameters themselves, and the assumptions of thermodynamics become meaningless.

So it would appear from that, that at the level of the FS, the idea of using thermodynamics may not be valid.

Incidently, the First Law, the law of conservation, has only been proven to be the case locally. Although it is currently unquestioned, its validity throughout the Universe is only theoretical.

Where's the prime mover mechanics?

For both your model and mine, there is no clear indication as to what the Prime Mover is or was.

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.

What creates the initial low pressure ? Here you have the effect, but have neglected to provide the cause. Just remember that it cannot be any part of your thermal ocean. It cannot be self starting.

As for my Prime Mover, I suspect it is the differential between NULL and !NULL that has something to do with it. In fact I think the NULL plays a far bigger role in all this than just providing a background for the !NULL.


PB.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

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

Just be thankful I don't use my real image. Now that really would be the stuff of nightmares.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Steven, it seems we are constantly looking at the opposite ends of the universe, as we pass like ships sailing in the dark of the night seas. Let me try to straighten this out.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

"All laws of thermodynamics but the First are statistical and simply describe the tendencies of macroscopic systems. For microscopic systems with few particles, the variations in the parameters become larger than the parameters themselves, and the assumptions of thermodynamics become meaningless." [And even at this level, I don't think this statement is correct. Quantum mechanics, entirely, is as yet, just a theory, and I think a very flawed theory. And you did originally say fundamental actions of photons, did you not? That would mean absolute fundamental, before first star actions. You can't mix and match, you gotta choose one or the other.]

So it would appear from that, that at the level of the FS, the idea of using thermodynamics may not be valid. [What is happening between us here, is the fact that when I try to compare thermodynamic action, at the fundamental level, you offer an interpretation at the finite level of electrodynamic action, and I do agree the above statement is true at the finite level, but not true at the absolutely fundamental level, before first star. All there is for substance at the pre-first-star absolutely fundamental level, is a fundamental substance, which we both agree can be a photonic substance. As to its true nature, neither can truly establish its exact quality, quantity and size. Yet, it can be properly theorized, toward amassing a first star, and I re-iterate___absolutely thermodynamically.]

Incidently, the First Law, the law of conservation, has only been proven to be the case locally. Although it is currently unquestioned, its validity throughout the Universe is only theoretical. [Until you show me another one to replace it, I think I'll stick with this one.]

For both your model and mine, there is no clear indication as to what the Prime Mover is or was. [Here, I thoroughly disagree. The thorough universal decay mechanics can clearly show the thermodynamic necessity. The decay mechanics was first accomplished by Hawking, back in the late `60's and `70's. Follow the logic, and only thermodynamics is left, as any possible prime mover.]

What creates the initial low pressure ? [Lack of high velocity hydrodynamics of the present universe.] Here you have the effect, but have neglected to provide the cause. [Cause, from this point in the universe, is decay of the present hydrodynamic velocity pressure, within the vacuum, and also decay of the vacuum, which would actually equal the ground state initial conditions again, the same as before first present system star.] Just remember that it cannot be any part of your thermal ocean. [Sorry, again, that's all there is.] It cannot be self starting. [Sorry, you are wrong here___There's no god or magic. You must separate your present state thinking, from absolute ground state thinking, before first star, then the universe becomes much clearer.]

As for my Prime Mover, I suspect it is the differential between NULL and !NULL that has something to do with it. [This is an old argument, that makes no logical scientific sense, at all.] In fact I think the NULL plays a far bigger role in all this than just providing a background for the !NULL. [This is just abstract nonsense, PB. You'll have to do better than this.]

PB.

Still no prime mover of photons, and it's right in front of you,
Lloyd

[Planet_Bob]

Lloyd,

And you did originally say fundamental actions of photons, did you not? That would mean absolute fundamental, before first star actions. You can't mix and match, you gotta choose one or the other

Who said anything about mixing and matching ?

The quote said "the assumptions of thermodynamics become meaningless" meaning that your use of thermodynamics at such a fundemental level is wrong, as I have said all along.

you offer an interpretation at the finite level of electrodynamic action

Where have I mentioned anything about electrodynamic action ?

The fundemental actions of photons have nothing to do with heat or light or fluids or charge. They are the fundemental entity on which this Universe owes its existance. At the most fundemental level I don't think that you can even really consider it to really be energy.

The thorough universal decay mechanics can clearly show the thermodynamic necessity

How can the first action in the Universe be dependant on the decay of something else. It's either first or it isn't and in your case it definitely isn't.

You stated that the first action of your model was as a result of low pressure.

What creates the initial low pressure ?
[Lack of high velocity hydrodynamics of the present universe.]

Again you are relying on something else, or in this case the lack of something else to kick everything off.

Cause, from this point in the universe, is decay of the present hydrodynamic velocity pressure, within the vacuum, and also decay of the vacuum, which would actually equal the ground state initial conditions again, the same as before first present system star

Your model is so complicated with its low velocities, high velocities, fluid dynamics, thermo dynamics, low pressure, decay mechanics, thermal seas.

The more questions that are raised about your model, you more things you add to it, the latest being this decay you talk about. I'm sure at some point, if you keep adding to it, it will become sentient and be able to post it's auto-biography on this forum.

The differential between NULL and !NULL is no different to how voltage is measured in the macro world.
So

making no logical scientific sense

It actually does make logical scientific sense, that you don't understand it doesn't make it any less valid.

If any of the multitude of different dynamic systems you are relying on can be broken down or reduced in any way to their components, then they are too complex and have no place in a model of how the Universe functions ATTHE MOST FUNDEMENTAL LEVEL.

The fact that they may be valid at a higher level is not an issue here.

PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

PB, you offer nothing absolutely fundamental yet___Null and !Null is not fundamental___It's abstract conjecture, the same as photon description is. Every time I offer a true fundamental fact, you state it's too complex for your understanding. If you think you have something fundamentally real to discuss, describe the experiment that measures the size and or shape of photons? Where is it? I know of none, except the uncertainty principle, of the packet energies of a photonic substance??? Yes, we can measure the frequencies of different lights, but this would seem to require different heats and sizes, for your photons, but you want to say no, so this leaves you with a theory that can't predict or create heat, size and velocity changes, we witness, in the real universe. So, where do we go, Steven, except your negativity of others' suggestions???

Since I absolutely know you can't accurately, mechanically, describe a photon, where do we go from Here?

Lloyd

p.s.
BTW, I'm offering nothing new, in my model. If you'd followed my ideas over the last year, you'd know this. This is all just old hat___I've described it all many times before. It's just simple universal evolution of an absolute fundamental non-viscous fluidic substance___peroid. You pointing out photons as fundamental, just happen to fit my model also. So, you want to join em or not, or just keep falsely arguing with my ideas, which you do not yet understand? Remember PB___It's absolutely all one universal system...

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

PB, you offer nothing absolutely fundamental yet___Null and !Null is not fundamental___It's abstract conjecture, the same as photon description is.

Between our models there is a choice of :-

• Null and !Null
• Uncreated and Always been there.

There are arguments for and against both of them.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Every time I offer a true fundamental fact, you state it's too complex for your understanding.

I have never said that I don't understand what effect a thermal variance can have on a fluid.

We are at two different places.

The model that I'm am trying to get across is one in which the Fundemental Substance is just that, a substance. No more, No less.
The fact that I have labelled it photonic is because that is what we have called the individual quanta in our paradigm.
At the most fundemental level it is not Energy, as we know it, it is just substance.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

If you think you have something fundamentally real to discuss, describe the experiment that measures the size and or shape of photons? Where is it?

Current physics has them as having no mass, and who am I to disagree with current physics.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

I know of none, except the uncertainty principle, of the packet energies of a photonic substance???

The uncertainty principle is to do with position and momentum, not size and shape.
If you were to shine a red light towards a receptor, there is no uncertainty about the packets of energy that would be detected at the receptor, you can be fairly sure they would be the appropriate size for red light.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Yes, we can measure the frequencies of different lights, but this would seem to require different heats and sizes, for your photons, but you want to say no, so this leaves you with a theory that can't predict or create heat, size and velocity changes, we witness, in the real universe.

I've lost count of how many times I've said this. A single photon does not have a frequency. To have a frequency you would have to measure two photons and determine how far apart they were.

You require multiple photons.
I'm trying to figure out what one photon does.

You have varying different types of energy; light, heat etc.
I'm trying to figure out why we call this substance Energy in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Since I absolutely know you can't accurately, mechanically, describe a photon, where do we go from Here?

That's a very bold statement to make.


PB.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

Between our models there is a choice of :-

• Null and !Null
• Uncreated and Always been there.

There are arguments for and against both of them.

I don't see how. Uncreated and always been there are identical statements, are they not?

The model that I'm am trying to get across is one in which the Fundemental Substance is just that, a substance. No more, No less.
The fact that I have labelled it photonic is because that is what we have called the individual quanta in our paradigm.
At the most fundemental level it is not Energy, as we know it, it is just substance.

Here, I make no absolute fundamental differentiation between energy and substance, as energy absolutely must be substance in motion, to exist, in the first place. This distinction may be what is throwing our discussion in differing directions. Energy can never exist, without being some form of fundamental substance___This is a scientific physical fact... Of course, I realize at the same time, we do differentiate linguistically, to make language understanding possible...

Current physics has them as having no mass, and who am I to disagree with current physics.

Then, don't you recognize the problem, right here, with current physics, being the true blockade to deeper understandings and interpretations at all these fundamental levels. I recognized this years ago, and have mentioned rectifying it first, so further discussion, at the deeper fundamental levels, is even possible. Absolutely scientifically, all and any, matter in motion, is absolutely required to have, at the least, a minimal mass___The physics books need to be re-done, at this level. Just because it doesn't mathematically matter, to overall quantum theory, doesn't mean it doesn't matter to absolute fundamental theory___Correct?

The uncertainty principle is to do with position and momentum, not size and shape. If you were to shine a red light towards a receptor, there is no uncertainty about the packets of energy that would be detected at the receptor, you can be fairly sure they would be the appropriate size for red light.

But you've already said photons were all of one size, in your theory? And further, this still gives us no size of an individual photon, only its packet energy is known___Correct?

I've lost count of how many times I've said this. A single photon does not have a frequency. To have a frequency you would have to measure two photons and determine how far apart they were.

I don't think I've disputed that fact, have I?

You require multiple photons.
I'm trying to figure out what one photon does.

I think we can only truly absolutely understand them in mass, i.e., packets of, or theoretically only, individually...

You have varying different types of energy; light, heat etc.
I'm trying to figure out why we call this substance Energy in the first place.

That's just a straight linguistics problem existing in physics. Too many definitions are required to describe all physics actions completely. Energy is always absolutely, fundamentally, "Substance In Motion"___Always!!!

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie
Since I absolutely know you can't accurately, mechanically, describe a photon, where do we go from Here?

That's a very bold statement to make. PB

Then you supply the absolute mechanics of photon on photon action, size, velocity, temps, etc., whatever___On and on?

What's the absolute fundamental prime mover in your model? I'm waiting...

Lloyd

p.s.
Steven, type this into google and have a gander... Naomi S.Ginsberg, Sean R.Garner, Christopher Slowe, Zachary Dutton - Check all the related articles... Hau Lab and others... Most recent light stopping discoveries...

[Infinite Consciousness]

Posted by LG

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

LG, what would we gain by knowing what the PRIME MOVER is ? Would it benefit humanity ? Would it end humanities suffering ? Would it uncover the T.O.E. ?

Would the "PRIME MOVER" be the Absolute Fundamental Substance per se and the Prime Mover of fundamental substance or matter i.e. stopped light as matter ?

Do you really want to know what the Absolute Prime Mover IS ?

If i can show you how to prove to your self what the Absolute Prime Mover "IS" will you test it to determine its true or false status as the Prime Mover ?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Steven, type this into Google and have a gander...( Naomi S.Ginsberg, Sean R.Garner, Christopher Slowe, Zachary Dutton )- Check all the related articles... Hau Lab and others... Most recent light stopping discoveries... Getting closer to revealing the photon...

[Planet_Bob]

Lloyd,
apologies for not replying sooner, but there is nothing more stressful than moving house.... except getting divorced !

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Steven, type this into Google and have a gander...( Naomi S.Ginsberg, Sean R.Garner, Christopher Slowe, Zachary Dutton )- Check all the related articles... Hau Lab and others... Most recent light stopping discoveries... Getting closer to revealing the photon...

All they're doing is manipulating those more complex structures which absorb and emit photons.

No matter how slow they say they have managed to get light to travel, the photons are still whizzing around at the same speed no matter what structure it becomes a component of, so you'll never actually reveal a photon.

The Bose–Einstein condensate merely locks everything in place so that when a photon is finally emitted its trajectory can be easily predicted based on the direction it was travelling when it was absorbed.



PB.