The ToE Is The Logical Science of All Thought Possible…

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thats good.

No .... point me to the evidence. 13.7 billion years only covers the final period, 99% of events occurred in the first few nanoseconds ?

I suggest that you are mis-interpreting 13.7 billions years age as a distance ... the Universe diameter is approx 78 billion light years ... not years in age ... but distance ?

But lets not get sidetracked here !

And as I stated, the calculations don't line up. I'm well aware of the light years distance of 13.7 and 78__There's no match, unless the Universe exceeded the speed of light at initial state, of which we have zero evidence, so the calculations are off, as a 13.7 only figures to a max of 27.4 light year diameter, approx__at c, which happens to be all science has any evidence of... The assumed figured Universe is too big for the proper calculations to match their own models... The logic doesn't work, because there's a logical contradiction between this necessary hyper-light expansion and the actual slowing it would require for today's speed of light__no matter when it happened, in the first nano-seconds or later... These logical contradictions are unresolvable with the laws of motion, and the conservation laws, not even counting the thermodynamic laws, and all the other laws of physics__It's cooling off and c slowing, yet it's expanding near the speed of light at the edges__Whoooooooooooooooot...???

You can accept these numbers, if you want to__They don't compute...
I did all that math back in the `80's then gave up on physics, when I saw everybody was hopping on the figures nonsense bandwagon. It made a bit of sense before the `80's because there was the more realistic numbers of a 30 billion year old Universe__Still not right, but a considerably closer model to fit all the figures and galaxy formation times needed... Still, think about it__Iff the Universe is of any set age__That logically purely requires it to be a god hypothesis, as it's a creation model__from whooooooot?__No-thing... No-Thank-You__Get Real...

There are definite Laws of Symmetry in relation to QM... we are at total odds here.

Yeah, what Laws Greg...??? State them, other than the weak correspondences of single point references I mentioned...
Mathematical Symmetry...? That's an axiom, not a law__Big diff... Most axioms can't be derived from the fundamental logic__They be most often conjectured statements__not all, but most...

Good ... lets go with this to start ?

greg

PS: Lloyd ... you are one of the most difficult people to keep to the point under discussion i have ever known ... rotflmao

I gave the point of this thread in the first post. You're the one who's running away from the points...

The ToE Is The Logical Science of All Thought Possible…

Getting sub-technical while skipping the explicit technical bores me...

Btw, I'm always on subject... It's the Universe__Ain't It...???

Big Subject...!!!

[Graybeard]

And as I stated, the calculations don't line up. I'm well aware of the light years distance of 13.7 and 78__There's no match, unless the Universe exceeded the speed of light at initial state, of which we have zero evidence, so the calculations are off, as a 13.7 only figures to a max of 27.4 light year diameter, approx...

27.4 would only work if special relativity ruled ?? How far are the galaxies you mentioned ... that is originally what I asked ??

look ... Lets let the WIKI have the last word on this for the moment ?

Many secondary sources have reported a wide variety of incorrect figures for the size of the visible universe. Some of these figures are listed below, with brief descriptions of possible reasons for misconceptions about them.

• 13.7 billion light-years. The age of the Universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities equal to or greater than light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.7 billion light-years. This reasoning makes sense only if the Universe is the flat spacetime of special relativity; in the real Universe, spacetime is highly curved on cosmological scales, which means that 3-space (which is roughly flat) is expanding, as evidenced by Hubble's law. Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance.
• 15.8 billion light-years. This is obtained in the same way as the 13.7 billion light year figure, but starting from an incorrect age of the Universe which was reported in the popular press in mid-2006.
• 27.4 billion light-years. This is a diameter obtained from the (incorrect) radius of 13.7 billion light-years.
• 78 billion light-years. This is a lower bound for the diameter of the whole Universe (not just the observable part), if we postulate that the Universe is finite in size due to its having a nontrivial topology (as discussed in this article), with this lower bound based on the estimated current distance between points that we can see on opposite sides of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). If the whole Universe is smaller than this sphere, then light has had time to circumnavigate it since the big bang, producing multiple images of distant points in the CMBR, which would show up as patterns of repeating circles. Cornish et al. looked for such an effect at scales of up to 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light years) and failed to find it, and suggested that if they could extend their search to all possible orientations, they would then "be able to exclude the possibility that we live in a Universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter". The authors also estimated that with "lower noise and higher resolution CMB maps (from WMAP's extended mission and from Planck), we will be able to search for smaller circles and extend the limit to ~28 Gpc." This estimate of the maximum diameter of the CMBR sphere that will be visible in planned experiments corresponds to a radius of 14 gigaparsecs, or around 46 billion light years, about the same as the figure for the radius of the observable Universe given in the opening section.
• 156 billion light-years. This figure was obtained by doubling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it is a radius. Since 78 billion light-years is already a diameter, the doubled figure is incorrect. This figure was very widely reported.
• 180 billion light-years. This estimate accompanied the age estimate of 15.8 billion years in some sources; it was obtained by adding 15% to the figure of 156 billion light years.

The ToE Is The Logical Science of All Thought Possible…

Getting sub-technical while skipping the explicit technical bores me...

Me toooo .... lets move to an outline of the 'Decay model' ??

greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

27.4 would only work if special relativity ruled ?? How far are the galaxies you mentioned ... that is originally what I asked ??




look ... Lets let the WIKI have the last word on this for the moment ?

• 13.7 billion light-years. The age of the Universe is estimated to be 13.7 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities equal to or greater than light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.7 billion light-years. This reasoning makes sense only if the Universe is the flat spacetime of special relativity; in the real Universe, spacetime is highly curved on cosmological scales, which means that 3-space (which is roughly flat) is expanding, as evidenced by Hubble's law. Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance.
• 15.8 billion light-years. This is obtained in the same way as the 13.7 billion light year figure, but starting from an incorrect age of the Universe which was reported in the popular press in mid-2006.
• 27.4 billion light-years. This is a diameter obtained from the (incorrect) radius of 13.7 billion light-years.
• 78 billion light-years. This is a lower bound for the diameter of the whole Universe (not just the observable part), if we postulate that the Universe is finite in size due to its having a nontrivial topology (as discussed in this article), with this lower bound based on the estimated current distance between points that we can see on opposite sides of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). If the whole Universe is smaller than this sphere, then light has had time to circumnavigate it since the big bang, producing multiple images of distant points in the CMBR, which would show up as patterns of repeating circles. Cornish et al. looked for such an effect at scales of up to 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light years) and failed to find it, and suggested that if they could extend their search to all possible orientations, they would then "be able to exclude the possibility that we live in a Universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter". The authors also estimated that with "lower noise and higher resolution CMB maps (from WMAP's extended mission and from Planck), we will be able to search for smaller circles and extend the limit to ~28 Gpc." This estimate of the maximum diameter of the CMBR sphere that will be visible in planned experiments corresponds to a radius of 14 gigaparsecs, or around 46 billion light years, about the same as the figure for the radius of the observable Universe given in the opening section.
• 156 billion light-years. This figure was obtained by doubling 78 billion light-years on the assumption that it is a radius. Since 78 billion light-years is already a diameter, the doubled figure is incorrect. This figure was very widely reported.
• 180 billion light-years. This estimate accompanied the age estimate of 15.8 billion years in some sources; it was obtained by adding 15% to the figure of 156 billion light years.

Me toooo .... lets move to an outline of the 'Decay model' ??

greg

Greg, my gray matter calculator works better than that...

Yeah, I'll get to it tomorrow, but if you have time just punch in the seconds, minutes, hours, weeks, and years__times the speed of light(186,000) to come up with the actual miles of the Universe's real size__then work out the other realities necessary to match these calculations, and you'll come a hell of a lot closer than Wiki, or the standard models... In other words, do the real numbers yourself, for all possible models...

Oh yeah, use two constants__15 billion light years and 30 billion light years__just to make physicists and QM'ers happy... Compare the distances and fit the pieces... Oh, be sure to double the distance results, to account for light going in all directions at once...

Makes for pretty math on paper...

Finally realize it's all eternal and infinite, and this may__just may__be all pure bs...

And not because god said so__but required for science, to refute god, to solve the world's religious nonsense...

[Graybeard]

Cool bananas .... Am looking forward to the outline ..... I have some conventional, but probably to you, unconventional ideas on Entropy .....

I can use it to explain rite thru too life ...... really .... so some tolerance of my ideas please ..... rotflmao ...

nice torkin for a change ... greg ....

[labelwench]

Hi Lorrina... My thinking always goes back to a theorized cave-man days, where I usually assume a far less civilized state of being. Of course, we can't be positive of such, where loneliness may have been a controlling factor on their base emotions, but from all my extensive readings of history, and not allowing women to even be educated for millennia, and the books filled with mens' abuses of others, especially women, I'd assume the male to be the stonger and more evil species__if we simply consider strength and opportunity alone. There's not much history of women raping men, and neither is there a great deal of history of women in power annialating whole other communities, though some queens did so__the numbers are rather low, compared to men. And then, as to today__The prisons are far more full of men, and many of the incarcerated are in for abuses and murders of their spouses or other crimes against women. To me, it seems far more likely that men, having the strength and opportunity, have acted throughout history, at a far higher level of evil than women... That's all I'm basing my statement on. As to women's defenses against the stronger evil species, I as a man have always noticed the leariness of most all women when confronted by a long haired biker with tatoos, especially when alone__to use every trick in the book of emotions to advantage her position against what she may mistakenly take for danger, in the event she is facing such percieved danger__whereas men in the same situation usually haven't the fear and intelligence to do so__They usually just blunder in hoping their good natures to care for them, and quite often end in trouble, with these more dangerous men...

Also, I know as a fact of experience all the emotional, logical and intellectual tricks my wife and her friends have always employed against men they did not take a liking to. I've personally seen them take the bad guys heads with pure sheer will to purposely do so__yet they must be very careful not to do this to those very evil bikers from the bigger cities, as they are well aware of it__and it angers them even more, if they percieve they are being taken advantage of__and then watch out, as the woman has put herself in jeapordy... Not that you haven't lived in an area where these ill actors live, but I do think you'd maybe have had to walk in my footsteps to fully understand what I've actually witnessed__especially with gangs like the Devils Desciples or Iron Horsemen, to see the worst side of men, as the Hell's Angels are civilized in comparison to these lesser wannabes. They all exist and party each summer in our home town of Rockland, Maine... The Devils Desciples are the worst of the stonger evil I've ever witnessed, and they're out of Boston, Mass__and even the cops hands are shaking close to their guns, when these 1% outlaws are in town__Always hopped up on hard drugs and booze...

I also steer clear, unless I have an army with me... I could really tell some stories about these bad actors__and then the bad districts of Boston__or even Lewiston, Maine, where the locals in the stores will tell you to get outta that particular section of the city, if it's after hours__and they're being kind to you, to help save your life...

These bad actors were not women__as a matter of fact, all my life I've only witnessed one stabbing incident of a woman on another woman, and that was in Myrtle Beach, S.C., in 2002 in front of my motel room... I locked the door and went to bed, as it was a bad district__and I wanted no part of it...

So, all in all, my experience shows an overwhelming stronger and more evil side to the male species... There are men I fear__There are no women I fear__unless she has a gun pointed at me...

If you may have noticed, the key word in that paragraph was bolded as count... That morality which can not be compared by count, can not be analyzed, but most all actions can be compared by the count system of ratings from good to bad, to worse... Johann Herbart(LINK) showed how most could be logically mathematized, back in the 1800's__It's just most are not aware of this amazing educator... The Wiki article doesn't represent his ideas very well, but he truly was an amazing logician of esthetics, or the Scientific Logic of Morality, in his full life's works__His books, in English, are available at Google Books... He is studied by most all the great aestheticians, logicians and educators__as he's considered the founding father of pedagogy(education of teaching how to teach...LINK...)

In order for us humans to be judges, and have any form of law to govern civility, we must judge good from evil__It's an absolute necessity, and we are Nature, so Nature does judge good from evil... I could throw in about twenty or thirty quotes, I've collected through the years here, but I'll just give a few...

`Ethics cannot be taught by an unethical state.' L.J.G.
`We judge intelligence from what we like and dislike and not what they know.' A.
`Obviously a mans judgment cannot be better than the information on which he has based it.' Sulzberger
`Every law is an evil for every law is an infraction of liberty.' J. Bentham
`Law must be governed to the child's mind or there is no just law.' L.J.G.
`You can't legislate morality; We legislate little else.' Bork
`Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.' A.
`Most all law is legislated morality.' Bork
`The constitution is the soul of one's morality.' L.J.G.
`The state is the determined morality of everyone's soul in the state.' L.J.G.
`Laws should be constructed so as to leave as little as possible to the decision of those who judge.' Aristotle
`Justice - The preservation of human dignity over sterile doctrine.' A.
`Virtue Can Not Live By Ethics Alone.' L.J.G.
`Let none be like any other; But let each be like the highest.' Goethe
`The foundation of all knowledge is in the senses.' A

Didn't mean to throw in so many__got carried away...

Thanks Lorrina...

Hello Lloyd,

I thank you for your reply and it may surprise you that I quite agree with your assessment of 'the stronger evil species'. I confess to playing 'devil's advocate' in the hopes that you had more to add to your remark.

The response, you see, had to come from a man, spoken in words that other men might possibly understand, because when spoken by a woman, even if the exact same words were selected, the pre-conditioned response would be different.

As this thread seems open to broad discussion, I thought I would make response, though no need to interrupt your present dialogue with Greg.

Perhaps we may all move beyond our 'conditioned response' into the arena of respectful dialogue on many of the topics which have hindered us thus far.....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A Decay Model of Universal Matter to The FS-Field…

(mainly addressed to Greg…)
Mans search for the most accuracy of measurement possible has produced the single aluminum ion clock, accurate to within 1 second in 3.7 billion years. N.I.S.T. LINK… NIST's Second 'Quantum Logic Clock' based on an aluminum ion is now the world's most precise clock…

Let me lay out the pre-requisites for my model of Universal decay, by offering a primary list of facts to be considered. This is going to be a general model of Universal decay, due to the fact we actually have no confirmed experiment of the decay of the proton of diamond, which is still being carried out by IBM and other physicists and Doctoral students… LINK… We do have very accurate experimental evidence of uranium 235 decay to lead. In fact, this is one of the ways of how we carbon date all past histories of geo- and bio-time, here on Earth. Scientific accuracy in this field of study is confirmed through the crystal structure of zircon trapping minute bubbles of Earth’s atmosphere, and many other elements within such structures, as far back a 4.4 billion years old. Uranium and thorium trapped inside is used to accurately date the geology of Earth… LINK… The process of dating is accomplished through Geochronology… LINK… Here’s a simple radio-active decay chart, to give the general idea… LINK…

Now, for a general list of the pre-requisites…

1. A general study of radio-active decay… A LINK…
2. Alpha, Beta and Gamma decays of atomic nuclei… LINK…
3. Especially caesium _9,192,631,770cycles/sec_ LINK… LINK... LINK...
4. A general understanding of cosmic time… LINK…
5. A general understanding of Condensed Matter Physics... LINK…
6. A general understanding of Solid State Physics… LINK…
7. Theoretically build and understand a virtual cosmic-time cyclotron…
8. Factor all decay rates to cosmological time, or their exponentials…
9. Do the actual maths in light-years…
10. Calculate all the way to theorized re-cycle state…
11. Use thermodynamics, hydrodynamics and wave mechanics...
12. Relate all cosmology through wave mechanics…
13. Show the necessity of finiteness to decay to FS-Field and back…
13. Absolute LS(lowest state) decay formulas__E = MC^2_ & _X/X = 1 + IIEE(infinite isomorphic extension and entanglement...)

Greg, this is enough to start with for now. Let me know which one, or ones, you may need further explanation with…

My view is as it's been since I was a child__When I want to know how something works, I take it apart__and put it back together. What I'm proposing is using the two above formulas to either install all of finitness into a virtual theoretical cyclotron__use Einstein's formula__speed all matter/galaxies/black-holes, etc., to the speed of light__thus converting all finiteness to ground state EM-FS-Field, or, use the second formula and take apart the entire Universe__bit by bit__tick by tick__by the total decay of finiteness, to its absolute ground state EM-FS-Field... This way we can have a fully grounded and derived logic and physics from the existing Universe__to solidly ground all of RM and QM, in the real existing Universe...

To me, the problem of all existing theories and models, is the problem of no ground__at the Universal level, without invoking a 'god' hypothesis from no-thing, an emergence hypothesis from no-think, or other such superstitions... I find none of the standard models with a clear and logically derived, grounded path to real, possible and necessary Universal Mechanics... Let's put one together, by first taking it completely apart, to see just exactly what makes it Tick, Tick, Tick__Then possibly, we can attempt a theoretical re-assembly or two, or three or so...

[Graybeard]

Far out .... I was hoping for a summary .... I have to work for a living, where am I gonna get time ??

A Decay Model of Universal Matter to The FS-Field…

(mainly addressed to Greg…)

1. A general study of radio-active decay… A LINK…

Radioactive decay: The process where a nuclei contains so many protons that the Strong force, thru internal conflict, is unable to contain the nucleus and is overcome by the Electromagnetic force ??

It flies apart.

2. Alpha, Beta and Gamma decays of atomic nuclei… LINK…

Particle Decay: The process where an elementary particle transforms into another elementary particle. This process continues if the 'new' particle is also unstable. Distinct from Radioactive decay.

3. Especially caesium _9,192,631,770cycles/sec_ LINK… LINK... LINK...

Atomic Clocks: A process where electrons emit signals as they change from one fermi orbit to another. Not a Nuclear process. Accurate provided conditions around the 'Atom' can be maintained

4. A general understanding of cosmic time… LINK…

Cosmic time: Decimal or logarithmic time where each interval is seperated by a factor of 10.

5. A general understanding of Condensed Matter Physics... LINK…

Condensed Matter: Substance that has passed thru a phase transition where the 'conditions' of the transition are no longer available, and so it continues in its new identity, until a similar condition should re-occur.

6. A general understanding of Solid State Physics… LINK…

Solid State: The methodology of 'materials' that have undergone 'intense' phase transitions, and are usually available for study and interpretation in matrice form. Semi-Conductors one example.

7. Theoretically build and understand a virtual cosmic-time cyclotron…

Cosmic Cyclotron: Phuc**** off !! From the largest accelerator (The Universe) to the simplest (Wood Fire) .... all are cyclotrons.

8. Factor all decay rates to cosmological time, or their exponentials…

Decay and Time: This depends entirely on your definition of time. Decay is periodical, counted by the number of events.

9. Do the actual maths in light-years…

Why ??

10. Calculate all the way to theorized re-cycle state…

There is no evidence that the Universe is cyclic. If you start with this as a given outcome ... then you will end with that outcome. I suggest you leave the outcome open .. and thereby free for other ideas and inputs. Lets just say that we will calculate all the way, as far as our limited abilities allow, and then decide, given the data, the most probable outcome for the Universe.

11. Use thermodynamics, hydrodynamics and wave mechanics...

YES !! ....

12. Relate all cosmology through wave mechanics…

OK .... but this means QM and uncertainty ... something you don't agree with at present.

13. Show the necessity of finiteness to decay to FS-Field and back…

As above ... this may be a one way street ... no 'back' ... once again we cannot predict the outcome until we have discussed. Otherwise there is no point in the discussion.

13. Absolute LS(lowest state) decay formulas__E = MC^2_ & _X/X = 1 + IIEE(infinite isomorphic extension and entanglement...)

Einstein's formula has no direct relation to Thermodynamics or Hydrodynamics .... at the level of our discussion ... so why ??

To be honest, and you have explained before ... I do not understand your second formula .. ??

Can you provide a description for X, I, and E.

Greg, this is enough to start with for now. Let me know which one, or ones, you may need further explanation with…

My view is as it's been since I was a child__When I want to know how something works, I take it apart__and put it back together. What I'm proposing is using the two above formulas to either install all of finitness into a virtual theoretical cyclotron__use Einstein's formula__speed all matter/galaxies/black-holes, etc., to the speed of light__thus converting all finiteness to ground state EM-FS-Field, or, use the second formula and take apart the entire Universe__bit by bit__tick by tick__by the total decay of finiteness, to its absolute ground state EM-FS-Field... This way we can have a fully grounded and derived logic and physics from the existing Universe__to solidly ground all of RM and QM, in the real existing Universe...

For initial progress .... I don't know that we should bring RM or QM into it at this level.

Can we start with an overview of the Universe as described Thermally or fluidly ??

To me, the problem of all existing theories and models, is the problem of no ground__at the Universal level, without invoking a 'god' hypothesis from no-thing, an emergence hypothesis from no-think, or other such superstitions... I find none of the standard models with a clear and logically derived, grounded path to real, possible and necessary Universal Mechanics... Let's put one together, by first taking it completely apart, to see just exactly what makes it Tick, Tick, Tick__Then possibly, we can attempt a theoretical re-assembly or two, or three or so...

This may be toooooo ambitious from the start, further along once the process has a 'summary' then we can 'dig' in .... .but no-one has yet contributed to this thread with they're overviews.

I think we should establish an 'outline' first ... so that 'deeper' explanations or proposals can placed in context.

I can see no reason why we should not do this. When you enter a lecture hall the Prof does not start the semester by scribbling vast equations on the blackboard ?

An overview is always given, just for us dummys at least, so that comprehension is not totally blocked.

cool bananas ... greg

PS: lets not get too hung up on my interpretations of your definitions ... there is the Pacific Ocean between us .... no matter how I have interpreted in 'text' I am capable of understanding your definitions. If there is a 'glaring' misinterpretation then OK ... let me know.

I am at work and don't have as much time to reply as I would like .... so easy and lenient .. OK ??

Ta !!

[Meem]

13.7 that's almost the number everyone goes nuts for is it not? But, if there were this huge thing there, 13.7 billion LY away, am I to assume it just appeared there? Is there in estimated time of formation? How many billions of years does that add on? At this point of what we think we know, saying that we know the universe is "this old" seems just erroneous as saying it came about, for no particular reason, or in such a way.

13.7 is just the current depth of our cosmic vision, yes? It certainly isn't any younger, and surely must be somewhat older if not much more, and even in the realm of all possibilites, it has no age, just many ages. If that makes any sense.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Cosmic Cyclotron: Phuc**** off !! From the largest accelerator (The Universe) to the simplest (Wood Fire) .... all are cyclotrons.

Greg, all this means is to imagine the entire finite universe__Total Galaxies/Black-Holes/Planets, etc.__inside a cyclotron, so's we may accelerate the entire finiteness to the speed of light. I mentioned doing the math below, so's one can get their thinking outside the entire finiteness, to its highest objective virtual observation position possible. Without doing this, it's probably going to be impossible to follow what I'm trying to show__and that is as an entire finiteness manipulatable by us, for such theoretical purposes, as the decay model requires. Tim was able to follow such thinking, so I don't see any reason why you can't also... The Universe becomes as small as a pea when looked at in such a Universal Cosmic Cyclotron... More properties of decay mechanics can be witnessed in mass action this way...

Decay and Time: This depends entirely on your definition of time. Decay is periodical, counted by the number of events.

I convert all time to distance of motion of any particle-wave studied__whether QM, RM or Cosmological... It's all distance of motion to me... To make it easier we can consider two states of Time__1. Ocurrence and 2. Progression, so's we'll know whether we're talking about a point state; 1. Ocurrence, or a traveling particle-wave or other such condensed mass; 2. Progression. That seems to be the easiest mechanics to me... Your choice...???

Why ??

Because if you don't work your way through the actual maths, you'll never accept the fact the mind is capable of standing virtually outside of all finiteness, as understood by all the simple standard models. I didn't realize how easy cosmology could be until I actually sat down and did this math, to position my mind ahead of the light cone of finiteness. Once I stood outside, in what would be infinity, I could far more easily manipulate my theorizing, to see vastly more of how theory and fact could function... It's the best intellectual gymnastic excercize I know of... It won't hurt__try it... It only takes about 10 minutes with a calculator...

There is no evidence that the Universe is cyclic.

That's why I'm getting you to do the decay mechanics math, and also getting you to figure the actual light-cone's true size in light years and or miles, then to be able to stand outside it, you just may realize a cyclic Universe is absolutely necessary. If you possessed the logical results of such a cyclotronic model, as I do, you may just come to the same conclusion. This is a new science and logic path, Greg__so naturally there's no evidence, but this model produces the evidence from the necessities of its findings, when combined with modal logic necessities of logical existence necessity of eternity__as the only other choices are the infinite regresses to logical impossibility. If you'd rather choose to have me show you why the existing standard models all contain logical contradictions and infinite regresses, I'd be glad to, as I've posted about it many times in many threads... It doesn't take long... I don't work with axioms__I work with derivations of all my ideas, logics and maths__Sound grounded derivations...

If you start with this as a given outcome ... then you will end with that outcome. I suggest you leave the outcome open .. and thereby free for other ideas and inputs. Lets just say that we will calculate all the way, as far as our limited abilities allow, and then decide, given the data, the most probable outcome for the Universe.

Greg, most everyone thinks they observe the Universe, but from my perspective the True Universal Observer must be self-created by our logic evolution, and only by expanding one's logic to this new perspective of seeing the Entire Universe, from the outside-in__can one gain a True Objective Observer Position...

This model is more about clearing the existing theory cobwebs of one's present mind, than any other factor... It offers a better logic to view the Universe with... It's that simple...

YES !! ....

OK .... but this means QM and uncertainty ... something you don't agree with at present.

Greg, I've never stated I don't accept many aspects of QM and uncertainty. It's all in how it's being interpreted. Even Feynman stated; 'He actually saw no further need for quantum uncertainty', as he thought more information was then known about it to remove the mystery. Though we can't measure it absolutely with present instrumentation, we do now know how it functions, and there are many models of these functions, even though many dis-agree with each other__they are all basically the same mechanics, i.e., two opposing photon-em-waves anywhere in the particle-wave-field meet at 2c, yet all waves leave at 1 c__thus energy is transferred upon meeting to keep the entire em-field functioning__At least, that's my basic interpretation of it. I just don't any longer see the uncertainty I once did__The em-field is always going to function identically the same anywhere in the Universe, by and in accordance with all the laws of physics__Which we all must respect... There's just far too many bad theories in QM I do not agree with, such as hyper-light and whatever super-symmetry is, other than a mathematical formulation, that's still horribly incomplete... My understanding of this is that all the maths are supposed to unify at 10^-31cm, but so far physics can only measure to Planck 10^-18cm distances__so what good is such math, if we have no way to experimentally test it...??? That's my problem with this route...

As above ... this may be a one way street ... no 'back' ... once again we cannot predict the outcome until we have discussed. Otherwise there is no point in the discussion.

So discuss it, that's what it's all about... My models logic and math shows all the decay-particle-waves approaching a more symmetric over the asymmetric proportions at absolute decay limit__which the same as Lene Hau's stopping of light experiment shows, produces hydrodynamic wave forces on light to stop it, and this is where we can theorize QM ground state changes taking place at the absolute limit of Universal Expansion to possibly reverse its direction, back toward another structural Universal formation__But, and this is a big but__you won't see this necessity until the Decay Model is followed through to the end of its wave-mechanics limits... As waves become more symmetric, they are required by the laws of physics to become hydrodynamic, which means a pressure at limit is created by this special state space of limit mechanics. It's a one-off prime-mover event at limit only, as the existing hot expansion can always overcome such hydrodynamics, even if it still exists, since its actions are of the principle of least action, and works only on what the low energy em-waves of a complete expansion and final limit decay would provide... Even the present physics shows us that scalar waves weaken over distance, or the gamma ray blasts from Super-Novas would be blowing us off the face of the Planet__That don't happen, so gamma scalars weaken with distance__We know this is factual...
(continued...)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(continued...)

Einstein's formula has no direct relation to Thermodynamics or Hydrodynamics .... at the level of our discussion ... so why ??

Yes it does, and just as Einstein himself stated; 'Everything is thermodynamic field...' Einstein's formula is used by me to show the effects of finiteness inside a Virtual Universal Cyclotron, as a short-cut to show decay mechanics, in the simplest model possible. Install the entire finite Universe into a Cosmic Cyclotron, and mentally accelerate it to the speed of light, and according to E = MC^2, all of it must turn to the FS EM-Field__as none of the matter can hold together at the speed of light, due to all the energy being used by velocity__Vu + Vr to Va... It's just a crude model to show a quick decay process through virtual acceleration to c... Matter at Va has no field possible to hold it together__It must become the field itself... An example to show this would be me and you in two rockets with one window to see each other as we theoretically approach the speed of light. Before we reach the absolute velocity of Va, we will disintegrate, along with our rockets, due to the forced decay of mass at velocity. No thing known can reach the Va except the em-field or photons, as all matter's mass is dissapated away as it approaches c. Take a titanium baseball and theoretically accelerate it to c, and all's will hit you if I chucked to c at you, would be photons... This is the Lorentz math's outcome if he hadn't run into the infinities. He was thinking in the wrong interpretation of velocity and math at the time, and so was Einstein, even though they got much of RM correct, except for this mechanics...

To be honest, and you have explained before ... I do not understand your second formula .. ??

Can you provide a description for X, I, and E.

X/X is just the old mathematical formula for dividing any object by itself to infinity, or the most infinitesimals possible. Euler even played with it, but really took it nowhere. All I've done is show that no matter how far we Decay the entire Matter/Mass of Finiteness, all the way to the smallest infinitesimals possible__it's still 1 Universe containing all its infinitesimal isomorphic extended/expanded and entangled FS-EM-Field of these infinitesimal photons... In my model, the Field is absolutely fundamental matter, at its lowest ground state, at Decay Limit...

For initial progress .... I don't know that we should bring RM or QM into it at this level.

Can we start with an overview of the Universe as described Thermally or fluidly ??

You'll have to offer you view here, as I use standard, thermodynamics(mainly decay entropy), hydrodynamics and wave mechanics and the existing RM and QM physics...

This may be toooooo ambitious from the start, further along once the process has a 'summary' then we can 'dig' in .... .but no-one has yet contributed to this thread with they're overviews.

And who cares about others overviews, since science has always progressed quite usually by only two people talking about new ideas, just as Fermat and Pascal... History is full of such examples, and great ideas have most often only had a few followers, to begin with... Look at all the great PhD professors' number of students to stay the course__7 is a miracle and only Tarski achieved that. Most were lucky to hold 3 or even 2 or 1... Greg, true knowledge marches very slowly... Einstein and Godel produced none, but they were at the special institute at Princeton...

I think we should establish an 'outline' first ... so that 'deeper' explanations or proposals can placed in context.

Greg, Tim and I didn't need an outline, why do you... If you are interested enough, you can follow the logic... It's an open model of The Entire Finite Universal Decay__That's pretty simple... We all know it's decaying__Just what are its exact mechanics, times, distances, implications and outcomes...??? You know, like what decays first...? What decays last...? What shape does this decay light cone take...? How long for all the different elements to decay...? We know large stars and black-holes burn out and decay before smaller ones, etc., on and on... Why an outling. If you want an outling, read my posts in Tim's thread, as I went over much of this material there... Or, just plain ask questions... You ask me... I'll ask you... Simple enough...

I can see no reason why we should not do this. When you enter a lecture hall the Prof does not start the semester by scribbling vast equations on the blackboard ?

An overview is always given, just for us dummys at least, so that comprehension is not totally blocked.

cool bananas ... greg

PS: lets not get too hung up on my interpretations of your definitions ... there is the Pacific Ocean between us .... no matter how I have interpreted in 'text' I am capable of understanding your definitions. If there is a 'glaring' misinterpretation then OK ... let me know.

I am at work and don't have as much time to reply as I would like .... so easy and lenient .. OK ??

Ta !!

Overview: It's A Complete Decay Model Of Everything To The Absolute Fundamental Field__Then How Does The FS-Field Build New Structure...??? It's a long ways from here to there__10^137 years, doubled for the return trip, as all in my model is limited to c, since sound science has absolutely no evidence outside of c__No matter whooot the pop-literature says...