An Idea

[austintorn@aol.com]

Prof,

Dinosaurs have a pea-brain, but you have it altogether.

For me, one singularity could be that energy/FS could be it, but then again, why was that sitting around?

We were just lucky, I guess, that 'nothing' couldn't cut it or there wouldn't be anything to do.

I think Fredrick actually believes in the separateness of fundamentals, which seems reasonable, too, even pentalisim, for there's no good reason to just suppose just one thing.

The Yin/Ying could be two sides of the same coin.

Anyone 63 who can marry someone 34 must know something about the TOE.

[Profpat]

I know Linda has cute little toes that she paints pink. The only TOE's I need to know.

I agree that the yin/yang and pos/neg are two sides that make up the ONE coin. Which is a good thought Austin, maybe the SINGULARITY has two sides or aspects to it.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

I think it was at 10^-33 seconds after the big bang that the forces seperated....

I'm not sure Dipayankar, but that is a very interesting thought you have. I never thought that it may be the spatial inflation which divided the forces. You may indeed be correct there sir.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

I think it was at 10^-33 seconds after the big bang that the forces seperated....

Yes and I believe according to the spatial inflation theory, space ( whatever that was at the time ) was traveling faster than the speed of light. That in itself could have broke the unification of the 4 known forces. ( I only believe right now in 2 forces, EM and Gravity. I believe the strong and weak nuclear forces are part of the EM force )

Best to you sir,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Yes and I believe according to the spatial inflation theory, space ( whatever that was at the time ) was traveling faster than the speed of light. That in itself could have broke the unification of the 4 known forces. ( I only believe right now in 2 forces, EM and Gravity. I believe the strong and weak nuclear forces are part of the EM force).

We do disagree somewhat here, Pat, though I can follow where you are going. The main obstacle to overall singularity is that we are not at the source. Materialization has happened on this side of the universe, and as such, no overall singularity could have ever existed on this side, not even before the 10^-33 seconds given to us in a theory about the beginnings.

Each particle in our universe is a singularity on its own. Yet collectively we cannot get a singularity out of all the separate singularities. Opposition is natural on this side of the universe, because we manifested in this location that is void of the source, except of that what originates from the source (i.e. all matter). The source exists on this side only as chunks, not as the overall whole source. In as far as singularities can exist, they can only exist within their own specific frameworks.

Because we can consider each ourselves a singular entity, it is normal to expect a larger overall singularity as well. Yet that is just a trick of the mind. Many singularities of a varied kind do not make an overall singularity in an absolute sense; only in the abstract can we make a single overall singularity.

As far as the forces are concerned, a pentaist pyramid contains the three forms of opposition:
A/ the general force vs. the specific forces (gravity vs. the other four)
B/ the absolute oppositional forces (strong vs. weak);
C/ the transformational forces (electric vs. magnetic).

Naturally, this can be described differently, such as gravity being an internal force and the others as external, but that does not create a different way of ordering them.

Invitation extended: have a guess where I am vacationing:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/3916-win-free-access-search-cyclops.html#post61828
There are three ways to win!

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

While I don't know for sure, in my An Idea, the Proton/Neutron is built in steps. ( strings, quarks, proton, hydrogen atom, helium atom, heavier elements, compounds, everything else. ). 1,2,3, infinity. Or if you will: Tao begets One, One begets Two, Two begets Three, Three begets All Things.

I know we differ on this, which is OK with me. The difference of opinion is what makes horse racing, according to Mark Twain.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

I believe according to the spatial inflation theory, space (whatever that was at the time ) was traveling faster than the speed of light.

Hi Pat

But what is it that was expanding faster than the speed of light???

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

Hi Pat

But what is it that was expanding faster than the speed of light???

regards
Felix

The whole universe Felix. Here is a NASA article relating to that topic.


Inflation
The Big Bang theory remains the leading scientific explanation for the origin of our Universe. It has withstood numerous challengers, and has survived virtually unscathed. Compelling evidence for the Big Bang began to surface in the 1920s, and the observational support continues to grow stronger. But by the late 1970s, the Big Bang had developed a few chinks in its armor, and the concept of inflation would come to the rescue.
By the late 1970s, observations had accumulated showing that the Universe’s overall geometry was nearly "flat." This means that on large scales, parallel lines would remain perfectly parallel, instead of diverging or converging. If one used the numeral 1 to specify the average density of matter and energy needed in a given volume of space to make the Universe flat (designated by the Greek letter omega, W), the measured density was about 0.3. This might not seem very close to 1, but according to the Big Bang, any slight deviation from 1 in the early universe would quickly diverge from 1 as the Universe expanded. If the initial value of W were 1.01, today W would be many orders of magnitude larger than 1. If the initial value were 0.99, today W would be an incredibly small number. There was no reason why the Big Bang should produce a universe so finely tuned to have W exactly equal to 1 at the very beginning, a seeming coincidence that troubled cosmologists.
In addition, measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) showed that its temperature was extraordinarily uniform in all directions. But why should this be the case? Shouldn't some regions of the early universe been slightly warmer or cooler than others? This conundrum came to be known as the horizon problem.
Third, calculations showed that the hot, dense conditions of the early universe should have allowed heavy particles to form with just one magnetic pole. The primordial soup should have produced these so-called monopoles in numbers so enormous that physicists should observe them to be extremely abundant in nature. But no monopole has ever been found.
Dr. Alan GuthIn a stroke of brilliance, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford University named Alan Guth realized in 1979 that one process could solve all of these problems in one fell swoop: inflation. Guth showed that as the early universe expanded and cooled, it might suddenly transition into a new state, called a "false vacuum." Under these conditions, the universe could suddenly expand at an exponential rate for as long as the false vacuum remained stable.
In just a tiny fraction of a second, the Universe could have expanded many, many, many orders of magnitude in size. Two points in space would have moved away from each other faster than it would take light to travel between them. This faster-than-light expansion does not violate Einstein's Special Relativity, since that theory applies to the motion of light within space, not to the expansion of space itself.
Inflation solves the flatness problem since inflating space automatically drives W to a value nearly equal to 1, just as inflating a balloon to an enormous size makes its surface nearly flat. Inflation solves the horizon problem by kicking in at the very earliest moments of cosmic history, when the Universe was still in thermal equilibrium (meaning every region had the same temperature). Inflation would greatly magnify these uniform initial conditions, insuring that all regions of the Universe at later times would have nearly equal temperatures, as seen in the CMB. Finally, inflation solves the monopole problem by spreading monopoles over an enormous volume of space, insuring that their spatial density is so low that it’s unlikely we will ever see one.
If inflation actually happened, the Universe visible to our telescopes is just a minuscule portion of the entire Universe. Distant regions will forever remain out of view, since their emitted light will never reach us. More modern variants of inflation, proposed by theorists Andrei Linde, Alexander Vilenkin, and others, posit that inflating space is an eternal process that continues to spawn new universes—distinct regions of space that are physically separated from and inaccessible to one another. Each universe could, in principle, have its own distinct laws of physics (many of which will be incompatible with life). In recent years, these theories have gained acceptance in the cosmological community, and the idea of multiple universes has entered the mainstream of scientific thought.
Cosmologists find inflation to be an extremely attractive idea because it solves many problems at once. Moreover, inflation makes specific predictions that have been confirmed by observations. The discovery of the accelerating universe in 1998 shows that W is almost exactly equal to 1 today, which is easily explained by inflation. Inflation also predicts that the dominant warm and cool spots in the CMB should be about 1 degree across on the sky, and that’s exactly the value measured by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Still, cosmologists have yet to explain exactly how or why the Universe would have inflated, and to date, no satellites have had sufficient sensitivity to detect the imprint on the CMB of gravitational waves produced by inflating space-time. So inflation remains a widely accepted but unconfirmed modification to the Big Bang theory.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Guth showed that as the early universe expanded and cooled, it might suddenly transition into a new state, called a "false vacuum."..........This faster-than-light expansion does not violate Einstein's Special Relativity, since that theory applies to the motion of light within space, not to the expansion of space itself.

Hi Pat

Coincidently, I've just been reading John Gribbin on the same subject - one sticking plaster after another!

Alan Guth does not accept the aether so what is his "false vacuum"?

If space has no structure - by what do we measure its expansion?

regards
Felix

[Fredrick]

Hi Pat

Coincidently, I've just been reading John Gribbin on the same subject - one sticking plaster after another!

Alan Guth does not accept the aether so what is his "false vacuum"?

If space has no structure - by what do we measure its expansion?

regards
Felix

Excellent post, Felix,

And one clearly pointing to the two frameworks that are used incorrectly at the same time. Matter is what is experiencing the expansion, Space is not experiencing any expansion. Space is space, nothing more, nothing less. The source for Matter is not found in the framework of Space, so using the vacuum as a special place to prove any point is done incorrectly by the brain. It is like the Black Hole theory moving all the way to singularity, which is understandable, but fantastically incorrect.

Same goes for horse-racing, Pat: one only races horses with horses, not horses with dogs or ants. I can set them up in an order you can recognize: ants, dogs, horses. Simple. But that does not mean it is a meaningful line-up.

The way out is to recognize that specific truths only exist within specific frameworks. By mixing up frameworks we confuse ourselves. There is no single overall framework (though we ordinarily think there really must be a single framework).