The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[austintorn@aol.com]

The Vault of Everything

Part 2 of 2 or 3



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlQsEwReAHs)

[austintorn@aol.com]

Part 3 of 3



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVc6XcbDTBk)

[Fredrick]

Please refer post #704 in this thread, and proceed thence...



Dear Fredrick:
My statement is a compendium of facts and beliefs (the subjective latter preceded by the objective former); as accessed in the red lettered url (UPDATED PRESENTATION - Total Field Theory...) in the below package of information.
It is also accessible via Member Articles here in our (Robert hosted) TQ Forum.
Have you read it? Total Field Theory: Reinstatement of Cosmological Constant & Steady State Theories
**********************************************

INTRODUCTION

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/help/introduction-physics-philosophy-metaphysics-space.htm

4-D accelerating expansion to macrocosmic infinity.

Copyright 1968 by Masao Komura Special Effects Copyright 2007 by Austin Torney

An ensemble of systems. A Hierarchy of multi-moment 4-D space-time surfaces. - K.B.R.

("We cannot visualize such a curved space, because humanity is not 4-dimensional" - Time-Life Science Series, p. 172)

TOTAL FIELD THEORY - No Space Empty Of Field.
(The statement 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', includes time & motion)
The Reinstatement of Einstein's Presently Abandoned Unified Field (Steady State) Theory.
by K. B. Robertson

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended." - Einstein

"There is no space empty of field." - Einstein

Updated presentation: http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-theory-articles/2516-total-field-theory-reinstatement-cosmological-constant-steady-state-theories.html?ltr=T

"There is nothing new about Newton's Classical Mechanical gravity or Einstein's 4th dimension of time, except preeminent non-mathematical proof that they are one and the same. The New Gravity Is The 4th SpaceTime Dimension."
- K.B. Robertson

Sincerely respectful regards,
- RP (aka Kai)

Hi Kai,

Thank you for your information. And yes I read it. Yet before we are moving towards a discussion that is besides the point, I'd like to hear you clarify how you use the word continuum. I have no problem with the aspect of continuation, since that is what the scientific facts are telling us: the universe is in a motion of continuation. Yet I have been reading about the word continuum in the special circumstance of the universe expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting, and so on. I consider that a belief, not grounded on scientific facts (though not conflicting with it either, like most well-thought out beliefs).

For me, the scientific information points to the universe as the vase that broke. The pieces are eternally there on their treks through space, undergoing some changes sometimes.

Are you talking about continuation (as I describe with the broken vase never to be put back together again) or about continuum (where the pieces of the vase somehow return to being a vase again and then break again)?

[Fredrick]

Fredrick's Belief Conundrum...

Belief is__at limit__an infinite regress to pure ego__thus unscientific...

Though we all may have beliefs, at certain levels, and theorizing is helped by early beliefs of sound thoughts over lesser other thoughts, no real hard science is possible without eliminating beliefs for Facts...

Beliefs will not suffice for any ToE__The ToE, if even possible, will require the Absolute Facts of the Known Universe...

The Absolute Facts exist within the Known Universal Continuum...

Thank you very much for that information, Lloyd. You are normally not the person to use the word absolute, except when you claim other cannot use it at the overall level, so I appreciate it very much that you do make that step now. I fully agree with your words. That is, if you agree that the word continuum means continuation of the current state (with all its happenstances), and not that it indicates the universe will reverse course.

[Fredrick]

There are facts for the universe being a continuum, that is, a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct, for we know that protons forms stars which then exude a few lower elements, then all the rest, if they go supernova, some of these atomic elements then going on to form molecules, which in turn may compose cells, leading to life, etc., some of these stars collecting into galaxies, the galaxies then forming clusters and groups, some even then becoming super clusters.

Besides, the atoms’ emanating fields fill up space.

My TOE theories, of which I have about four, are not believed but merely proposed.

I even have a 5th one that says some of the fundamental may actually be fundamentals, in that they may be separate, but still elemental, and, as in most of my TOEs (but for one) they are not ultimate but penultimate (secondary).

The subjective realm the upper floor), if not informed by science (the floor beneath), can really go bonkers and off of the chart. Michael Shermer is good at explaining why people believe weird things. When a pure subjective person is confronted with Shermer’s ideas, they will often cast doubt rather than even begin to entertain the findings, for perhaps they have so much become their beliefs that they can’t escape them.

P.S. “Fredrick” in the video was named after Fredrick of ToeQuest, but does not necessarily reflect his views. (I will be paying a five-cent royalty for the use of the name.)

I do not understand the intention of using a name that rings like mine and that looks like mine. Had it not been handier to use a different name, even when you partially had its character be built on your experiences of your interaction with me?

I believe I am battling the word continuum here instead of the idea of eternal expansion and retraction. I am not interested in words; I am interested in discussing ideas. Has everyone backed off from the idea of a continual expanding and contracting universe? Because then the discussion is moot.

To start it up again, I consider the idea of an expanding and contracting universe a belief.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thank you very much for that information, Lloyd. You are normally not the person to use the word absolute, except when you claim other cannot use it at the overall level, so I appreciate it very much that you do make that step now. I fully agree with your words. That is, if you agree that the word continuum means continuation of the current state (with all its happenstances), and not that it indicates the universe will reverse course.

No Fredrick, I use the term as Poincare' used it in debating Boltzmann, at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. The Universe is cyclic, as a final decay of the particle/waves, within the Entire Universal Continuum, absolutely must recycle__for there to be any sort of continuing Universe, as you also mention__And we scientifically know it's a continuing Continuum... Their debate was about the thermodynamic motions of gas molecules, with Boltzmann stating the 'total entropy of molecules' and Poincare' arguing a 'return state beyond entropy'. Poincare' has been proven correct with later scientific developments enabling atomic electron microscope evidence of gas' atoms settling to the bottom of the elemental scale within closed containers. Of course, at the Universal level, all we have is the science of Entropy's Decay Rates, The Universal Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and The Conservation of Universal Momentum, requiring a return cycle of all atomic and quantum decayed matter particle-waves, to their final state changes of 'The Necessity of Re-Combinatoric Logic', to have any Universe at all__as past time eternity, 'Necessitates' this cosmic journey's state change time, Many Times Over__in the eternal distant past. Whether it be any of the Big-Bang, Inflation, Expansion, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Emergence or whatever your flavor of theory, that's another question__as to me those are not scientific thinkings__'Only the Necessity of The Decay Model Re-Cycling Combinatoric Logic is Science'__since Time/Distance Maths Absolutely Require It to Re-Cycle__To Exist__or It Would Have Long Ago, Passed Out of Existence__and We Wouldn't Be Here...

We Exist__It Exists__It Recycles...!!!

It's Logically and Combinatorically True, by The Absolute Necessity of 'No Other Scientific Arithmetic Logic Exists', or Is Scientifically Possible To Prove__This Logic Proves Itself__By Contradiction Being Scientifically Impossible...!!!

And Falsifiability Is Achieved By The 'No-Thing State' Being Impossible__Also__So Two Non-Contradictions__Against Each Other__Prove The Truth Caught In The Included Middle Ground of All Possible, Probable and Necessary Thought__At This Level__The Highest Level Possible...!!!

This is the first quote, on the first page of 'East Meets West Logic...'

"Equator of Self-contradiction is the Absolute logic. It is the Nuclear Logic Cross of cosmic unity and Self-creator of All in all.

There is nothing that is not an aspect of the All in all - Spacetime. This fact is the most elusive truth about the geometry of Cosmos. It is the Singularity, the Equator and common String of All in all. Hold on to it, for its the future not the past." - Aiya-Oba... 2/12/2007

[RascalPuff]

Hi Kai,

Thank you for your information. And yes I read it. Yet before we are moving towards a discussion that is besides the point, I'd like to hear you clarify how you use the word continuum. I have no problem with the aspect of continuation, since that is what the scientific facts are telling us: the universe is in a motion of continuation. Yet I have been reading about the word continuum in the special circumstance of the universe expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting, and so on. I consider that a belief, not grounded on scientific facts (though not conflicting with it either, like most well-thought out beliefs).

For me, the scientific information points to the universe as the vase that broke. The pieces are eternally there on their treks through space, undergoing some changes sometimes.

Are you talking about continuation (as I describe with the broken vase never to be put back together again) or about continuum (where the pieces of the vase somehow return to being a vase again and then break again)?

Dear Fredrick:
As an advocate of the (formally abandoned) 'Steady State' theory (reinstated) my views on 'continuum' do not include reversals of directions of motion - regarding the observed red shift expanding universe, for example. There is no 'pulsating' universe or something-out-of-nothing 'big bang beginning' universe, or serial occurrences of 'little big bangs'. No broken and reassembled vase dynamics.

The ('4-D space-time) 'continuum' is represented by the illustrations in post # 713 of this thread. The ever-expanding concentricities are a continuum; sub atomic particles (neutrons, protons & electrons) are in a constant state of continuously enlarging expansion. Just as the surface of the earth is (consequently) a continuously accelerating frame of reference. The Calculus measures the - at any given moment - progressively continuous acceleration of non uniformly moving (omnidirectionally expanding) coordinate systems. There is no 'fragmentation' (beyond a microcosmic consideration of the discontinuous emissions of Planck's constant h).

Please consider the dynamics of the series of concentricities illustrated at post #713 and the 'ensemble of systems, heirarchy of multi-moment 4-D space-time' representation in the profile of the goddess. I submit that this is the meaning of what Einstein called 'the 4-D space-time continuum', viz., everything is constantly expanding at right angles to the three recognized dimensions. This does not infringe on the law of conservation of mass-energy, because it is the same amount of energy constantly distributing itself through and over increasing volumes of space. Does that clarify my intended meaning with regard to the usage of the world 'continuum'?

Best regards,
- Kai

[austintorn@aol.com]

Since the universe is here now, this being any old unspecial time and place (its seems), the universe must have a way of keeping on going (recycling). It could be that the cycle is in many billions of years, leading one to falsely interpret that the universe is only 13.75 billions years old.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Link to Greg's Thread About True c-Space-Time...

[G_burnett]

thats what happened to my slinky... !!!!