Critiquing the enlightened

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by universaldistress, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Not sure if this has any legs so please bear with me and be kind.

    I am getting so sick and tired of hearing scientists saying that because they have some math that works they are going to sit on that side of the fence and say that surely this is the way it is. The universe comes from nothing because I am looking at the evidence with my bias of trying to prove not the facts, but that my philosophical and religious beliefs are true because its supported by my maybe hypothesis. Everyone looks at everyone else to see what side of the fence they are on. Like minded people flock to each others banners, banners that support their preemptive respective positions. Answers to questions that are unanswerable or that are able to be interpreted in different ways.

    Why the hell do you want to know what side of the fence I am on? Do I have an approach that puts the scientists and the religious to shame? For a scientist to vehemently refute the existence of god based on evidence, but to then assume a philosophical (scientifically based) corollary that is evidentially unprovable and use it as tool in the bow/body of work which they essentially use to claim their own scientific theory of the cosmos over other scientific theories of the cosmos; and then use to ridicule others like theists, or even claim that it somehow MUST be true, is for me highly hypocritical.

    Matter can be in more than one position/configuration at once, even behave in different fashions depending on its circumstances. Why can one not apply this organisational-type to one's own thought processes and therefore one's personal philosophy?

    Ok, I feel that here, after my rant, and as I may possibly have you intrigued now, I am going to outline this mode through analogy. I have stated in the past on this forum snippets of my own approach to existence and infinity, I suppose specifically infinity. I am aware many shy away from the extent to which I myself embrace infinity. Generally mathematicians have a begrudging respect and dissatisfaction where they are involved, I believe. And theoretical physicists also seem to, in a lot of cases, not like the inconclusiveness of infinities. But I am known to (wrongly or rightly) take the stance that to truly understand existence one must learn to embrace infinity in all its garbs. To understand existence one must not take a subjective POV position, and instead think of infinity and about infinity by having one's mind's POV in every area of infinity at once, simultaneously. To process these ideas by looking at all from all angles, assuming only that existence is TRULY infinite and not that all that is is what one can see.

    Ok, I know by now you may be thinking that I am pushing my idea and that's hypocrisy as I was just moaning about fixing oneself to one mode of thought that espouses one's own existence-view. But I am not saying this theory is true or definitely my position, It's just my analogy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ok, so now confusion may possibly be setting in. I go back to the more simple analogy of being on one side of the fence. To religious nuts I say, why sit on that side of the fence? To the stalwart atheists who say I am an agnostic but god really isn't that possible surely in fact I really think he doesn't exist but I am just going to claim to be an agnostic so I don't lose arguments with religious nuts who say I am just as nutty as they are (which you are by the way), why sit on the other side of the fence?
    In fact why the hell don't you sit on the fence as I traditionally do: maybe this, maybe that.

    But that isn't why I am sharing my thoughts with you all today. I didn't plan to bore you with things you already know. I am attempting to forge a possibly new approach (which no doubt already has an entry in any philosophical dictionary; and I just don't own one so . . .). I am not sure that this position is even one that it is possible to take, but at this stage I am just stream of consciousness flowing onto the page (though surely I am just incorporating a long winded way of stating a basic and fundamental positional type?).

    Like a particle that could be in many places at once. Like a particle, I propose, that could not only be in many places at once but all places at once simultaneously. We may just be able to attain a position of being not only on both sides of the fence at the same time, but also sitting on the fence. But not even just that. A philosophical position where one is in all positions simultaneously (whether we have knowledge of them or not) with the express purpose of maintaining a floating, truly non-fixed position of everything is possible. Totally devoid of final judgement, corollary or conclusion. All avenues to still be trodden, but to not allow one's personal bias to filter into the searching process.

    Is this position even possible?

    Is this position even possible due to the specialisations and will of searches?

    Some atheist scientists tend to lean towards something from nothing because they see it as a way of putting the nail in the coffin of religion, despite the fact of course it doesn't because the well known logical weaknesses abide. Believers look to understand everything from the assumption it must be created so they seek to explain how it could be without scientists being able to refute it.

    To all of you I say: maybe all of you are right, and maybe all of you are wrong, all at the same time. Interesting?

    Or maybe all conjecturalisations are nothing until irrefutably proven.

    Or maybe it is best to just be in all positions simultaneously?

    Surely just by being a human with a belief/evidence system with bias or swayings in any direction one is actually affecting a process of searching and discovery which is forever destined to be flawed with the tendency to root around in the shit that comes out of the arse of our own dog?

    I was going to post this in 'Religion' but I think it applies not only to belief in god but to all assumptive behaviours.

    All that is known, all that is thought to be possible, is. God exists and god doesn't exist. God is all gods simultaneously, and yet he/she/it at the same time doesn't exist. We live in a universe from nothing and we also live in a closed universe, and an open one, and a flat one. Also it is holographic, and yet it isn't as well.

    Non-fixedisms of varying class.

    Does anyone have an alternative summary/interpretation of what I am trying to get at?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Everyone is correct to themselves because that's what they believe, whether or not it is factual or otherwise. Therein lies the problem for facts and beliefs become intertwined and convoluted into so many ways to see reality.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    While it is not possible for actuals to be infinite or eternal, actuals thus having to come from nothing, there must also also be a ‘non-actual’ potential/possibility for nothing to become something, and it is this potential/possibility that is both infinite and eternal, as the potential can be such, as it can ever create, any ‘time’, ‘anywhere’, to various degrees, such as even a universe, but it is more like that it creates its own ‘when’, ‘where’, and ‘what’, which is why it is before any of those as non-actual and potential.

    The only good metaphysic is one that employs epistemology, that it, operating from the known, and that is what I have done, finding that the solution is forced to what are the strict default conditions. Maybe I’ll put a recap, as I have new information.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I'm not aware of any instances in which scientists have done that. Can you please provide an example?

    Unlike mathematical theories, which can be proven true because they deal only with abstractions rather than reality, scientific hypotheses can only be proven false. We have no way of being certain that tomorrow new evidence will not arise that falsifies relativity, or plate tectonics, or evolution. However, when a hypothesis is tested exhaustively, including by hostile people who would delight in its falsification, without being disproven, then we say that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt and it becomes a scientific theory.

    The ridicule with which we treat claims of the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe, from which fantastic creatures and forces emerge at random intervals to whimsically and petulantly perturb the behavior of the natural universe, is based on the Rule of Laplace (or "Sagan's Law" as American laymen call it): Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.

    The premise that underlies all science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. This hypothesis has been tested aggressively for half a millennium and has never come close to being refuted, even though millions of people would love to be featured on the cover of Time magazine with the caption, "The man/woman who disproved science." Therefore this hypothesis has not only been promoted to the status of a theory, but it is in fact the canonical theory upon which all science is based.

    Any hypothesis that claims to falsify this theory is therefore, by definition, extraordinary. Nonetheless, given the gravity of the issue, we would waive the Rule of Laplace and treat our opponents with respect if they could provide merely ordinary evidence to support their claims of supernatural creatures and events. Yet they have never done so. The best they can come up with is a tortilla with a scorch mark that is said to be the exact image of a biblical figure--of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.

    Wherever did you get that idea? Many mathematicians are fascinated with infinity and have done considerable work with the concept. Since you say this is one of your areas of interest, I presume you're familiar with the orders of infinity, such as aleph-null?

    You're in way over your head. The universe you see around you appears as "something" only because of the limitations of your senses. There is in fact a balance of matter and antimatter as well as everything else and anti-everything else. The quarks, bosons and leptons are in exact balance so the total mass and energy of the universe is zero.

    What you see around you is organization, and yes, this organization appeared where there was none: the Big Bang. But this is no violation of any scientific law or principle. The Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that entropy (the opposite of organization) only tends to increase, not that it increases at all times and in all places. Spatially and/or temporally local reversals of entropy are allowed, and there is, very tellingly, no limit on their size. For the universe to pop into existence with all of its organization, yet with no increase in mass and energy, is merely one of the exceptions that the Second Law allows. It may appear to be a really big exception to us, but really big exceptions are allowed. Besides, how do we know whether this is a big exception? How many universes have we watched pop into existence? Maybe this is actually a very tiny one.

    We humans are consumed by vanity, and we assume that everything revolves around us. So naturally we assume unconsciously that our universe is the only one that ever existed, or at least the dadgum biggest one that ever popped up in a local reversal of entropy. This assumption is baseless.
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Good post, Fraggle.

    (Metaphysics without epistemology is worthless)

    From maternity/paternity to here, beyond, and the end

    0. No-thing:

    ‘It’ is perfectly unstable, as potential/possibility, since it is the simplest state, and thus productive/creative/actualizing of continuous functions only (elemental, so no parts, as they cannot precede the First), such as waves, that must still sum to zero overall, so as not to really get something from nothing.

    The ‘it’ of no-thing is not actual. ‘It’ is potentially ‘infinite’, as ‘it’ can be ‘anywhere’; however, it has no ‘where’ or ‘what’, for it generates its own ‘where’ and ‘what’. ‘It’ is potentially eternal, but too unstable to be. Low probability events can catch up to ‘it’, in a big way, such as an entire universe coming forth.

    Note that the simpler and simpler existent and actual things are also less and less stable, readily going through phase changes, reacting, and combining; so that’s why the simplest state of no-thing or nothing must be perfectly unstable. There could have been no holding of ‘it’ together, as there is not now a lack of anything; so, nothing, as the only source, is the basis of all, plus the the potentiality/possibility default of the nothing state.

    An infinite regress of actuals can be ruled out, since infinity for actuals is impossible, for that ‘count’ can never be attained.

    Eternal actuals can be ruled out, since eternity for actuals is impossible, for actuals cannot be already made and defined in a certain, specific way without ever having been made and defined, nor can their total amount be defined without ever having been. Plus, what doesn’t come from anything, as the so-called ‘causeless’ that was ‘forever’ is the same as it becoming from nothing.

    We see that the only option is that the actuals must appear out of the no-thing of nothing. For further confirmation, we indeed note that nature consists of a distribution of nothing—in the zero-sum balance of ‘sum-things’ of the only possible stable oppositely charged matter/antimatter particles, with the only possible stable energy particle being neutral. We will see that these particle types are of the only ways to make them, which is why there are no other types of particles in free space, further confirming the necessary aero-sum.

    1. Opposing primal waves/oscillations:

    These are the only actual existents—the real reality.

    The equation of existence:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    N0 is the number of envelopes. Cosine, especially as '1-cosine', which part is yet to be explained, but went away, is the only function that works, in that it and all its derivatives don't have an infinite rate of change.

    There are ‘something’ and ‘anti-something’ waves/envelopes, opposed, as oscillations, summing to nothing, whose accumulations met a bandwidth limitation, for actuals cannot be infinite, and thus ‘blew’ and ‘banged’ as the universe, before total particle annihilation could complete, leaving electrons, as the wave envelopes, protons, as the waves, and photons, as of opposing waves 180 degrees out of phase (thus neutral, with no mass). These particle types were all that could be produced, for there were only those few ways to make them.

    All in all ‘it’ was as a giant neutron—a cosmic egg, one as large as the universe it became, potentially containing 2 x 10^85 particles of ‘sum-things’, from the 2 x 10^85 waves/envelopes accumulated—at which point the cosine function exploded. The resultant particles in the universe is 2 X 10^76m, not 2 x 10^85, since there are one billion photons for every matter particle, so there were 10^9 annihilations. The rest could not complete, since the whole thing blew up into the universe. Knowledge must ever be used in metaphysics.

    2. Mass-energy-charge effects:

    These have no primitive identity, are metaphysically second-grade, and have no independent existence; they are of wavelength, wave frequency, and wave amplitude, respectively. The only real reality is the oscillations.

    3. Things/objects:

    Again, they do not exist independently of each other, they are not self-subsistent, and not ontologically fundamental.

    4. Beings/creatures/plants:

    They have higher complexity, from metabolism conquering entropy.

    5. Mental representations:

    These are the re-presentations of externals/internals, with a more useful face painted upon, sometimes radical, such as the e/m waves from the visible spectrum turning into colors. Our senses are our spy outposts, having direct contact to what comes in, but mentally we do not contact directly. That we have senses confirms that there is something ‘out there’.

    The conscious ‘I’, of awareness, is a subject-only that observes/witnesses/experiences the objects of experience that appear in the conscious sea in which we ‘see’, these objects being those few that have surfaced on the ‘mind’ at any given moment, after the whole self, the brain, has completed its subconscious analysis, which takes a small amount of time, making consciousness the last to ‘know’; yet, these results are incorporated for future reference, not just disappearing,; however they are still the last step of the experiential moment, making us rather like tourists along for the ride.

    Imaginations may refer to objects that are not possible, and frequent reoccurrences may wire the brain into strong belief, unto falsely claiming the objects to be true.

    6. Causes and effects:

    There are none; there is only the one continuing and unfolding effect of the one big event of the beginning of the universe, and no local causes and effects, even if we seem to ‘‘place’ local boundaries. Everything is ongoing, doing what it must, for there is nothing else to inject its influence.

    7. Time:

    Everything cannot happen at once, since the speed of light is finite. Infinites are not possible for the actual. The speed of light is due to the primal waves’ restraints, and is a kind of dimensional equivalent ratio of space (distance to time), with time and distance wrapped up together into 4D spacetime. External to 4D spacetime, as like Einstein’s block universe, time is the ‘distance’ of ‘ct’, a 4D index to our 3D spaces.

    8. Energy:

    The universe unwinds, like a spring, but slowly, restrained by time. Energy’s quality decays, but can temporarily arrange into order.

    9. After the Stars have gone:

    The there is the final, silent dark, from dissipation and dispersion. Our beginnings ultimately meant nothing, from which they also came, and will go unto.

    10. All that lies between:

    This is now. Enjoy.

    11. God:

    Complexities cannot be First, as the parts would have come before. Beings take billions of years to form. ‘God’ is neither the notion of nothing nor the notion of elemental substances forever (which ‘forever’ is that same as from nothing, anyway). The theory of the beginning presented here does not require a Super Being. There was no thinking, planning, designing, and implementing by a 'God', but just the default conditions that made for that which could be no other way.

    12. What is that which the potential/possibility waves are composed of?

    It is not a ‘what’, for a ‘what’ is what it makes; so, it comes before the ‘what’. This seems to be more than nothing but less than something. Nothing and something are as two locked boxes, each of which contains the others key.
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Is this an attempt to argue via intimidation?

    \(U(t) = \pm U_0 \cdot \left[ \cos^{N_0} \left( 2 \pi \cdot f_{\textrm{env}} \cdot t \right) \right] \cdot \left[ \cos \left( 2 \pi \cdot f_{\textrm{wve}} \cdot t \right) \right]\) is not even an equation, and has no demonstrated connection with existence. It maximally violates the observed Lorentz symmetry and you have erred greatly in your interpretation of \(N_0\).

    Same content written more concisely: \(U^2 = U_0^2 \, \cos^{2 N_0} ( \omega_{\textrm{env}} t ) \, \cos^2 ( \omega_{\textrm{wve}} t) \)
    Same content written more evocatively: \(U^2 = U_0^2 \, \left[ \cos ( 2 \omega_{\textrm{env}} t ) + \frac{1}{2} \right]^{N_0} \, \left[ \cos ( 2 \omega_{\textrm{wve}} t) + \frac{1}{2} ]\)
    Same content written more evocatively: \(\frac{d \ln U}{dt} \, + \, N_0 \omega_{\textrm{env}} \tan ( \omega_{\textrm{env}} t ) \, + \, \omega_{\textrm{wve}} \tan ( \omega_{\textrm{wve}} t) = 0\)
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member


    In fact, a very succinct definition of life is "a local reversal of entropy." All living things "extract the complexity" from their surroundings and use it to increase their own complexity. This is most obvious in animals, who extract chemical energy from other living things and turn much of it (but not all) into kinetic energy. But the other five kingdoms of Earth life--plants, algae, fungus, bacteria and archaea--all have their own ways of reducing the complexity of the space around them in order to increase their own complexity, always with a net increase in entropy.

    In each case there is a net energy loss in the transition, the manifestation of an increase in entropy of the entire local system. Plants, for example, take the extremely high-frequency energy of solar radiation and change it into the extremely low-frequency energy of their very sloooow metabolic processes. Most algae also perform photosynthesis. Most fungi use processes more similar to animals, of extracting energy from living things or in some cases scavenging the remaining bits of energy from dead things. Both bacteria and archaea have many different types of metabolism.

    But they are all instances of local reversals of entropy... until you look a little farther outside their bodies into the nearby regions of their environment.
  11. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Hi SciWriter; thanks for your reply.

    This is an assumption. Existence is actual? Can you prove existence isn't infinite and eternal?

    Assuming that existence and time are not infinite/eternal is a big one. This is the type of assumption I am talking about as regards theoretical physicists. The nothing that Krauss proposes could be a nothing, that exists before the big bang/this section of universal time, such as an area of protomatter. There is no physical evidence that proves this nothing is truly nothing, as in has no substance. I find it far more logical to assume a prior state for matter before the inception of the visible universe. This can't be proved either way so to assume one over the other is folly. We can say that certain math points to this or that, but there is always an alternative theory based on alternative math and alternative evidence. What of Dark Flow? What of the holographic universe models. Both have evidence attributed to them, but conflicts do lie between all or some of these theories.

    But you operate from the known evidence you choose from a sea of differing evidence that can point to different conclusions. Would you deny that you choose the direction that most appeals to your logical reasoning and possibly predisposition of assumptive paprameters, like god does or does not exist, or there are limits to the extent of existence, or no limits (you is universal). But would you also admit that others who use the same framework of logical reasoning come to different conclusions by immersing themselves in different evidence/fields of study? And therefore have their own pet theory of all?
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2012
  12. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    The oscillations are the real reality, as the only something, which are the ‘sum-things’ of a distribution of nothing. What is of them, as higher, is still real, for they are of the real, but they do not in themselves have an independent and primary existence, such as Aristotle thought.

    Neither one can ever complete as an actual extent or duration, which is really what ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ mean. Using their shortcut words as actuals without regard to their definitions doesn’t make sense. Besides, as to why their definition, there would always be more, and no beginning, which I guess I already said. What doesn’t come from anything is an incompleteness that can only be reduced to coming from nothing.

    We can skip that, as we’d only have to go on to the first matter. Besides, my theory show itself so well in confirmation as we we see in the universe.

    Maybe the third dimension doesn’t exist, as suggested by the fact that the maximum entropy of a black hole depends on an area, not a volume.

    All are forced:

    —Nothing to make anything of.

    —Waves are ubiquitous.

    —No infinities.

    —No infinite rate of change of nothing into something.

    —A lack of anything is not the present state, so no eternal duration of nothing.

    —Only three stable particle is free space (and their antiparticles).

    —‘God’ disproved.

    —No intermediate causes and effects.

    —Opposing waves.

    —No other trig functions work for the opposing waves.

    —Various zero-sum balances of opposites noted in the universe.

    —The universe had a beginning.

    —More, as in the theory.
  13. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Any scientist who claims that god is impossible fits this category by default. Come on, we both know lots of scientists deny the existence of god, as in say "God does not exist".

    I must admit that I have been watching debates between Dawkins and Kraus on youtube. They both take up a "lets assume god doesn't exist" approach to their work. I personally do not believe in god, never will bar the incredible. But for Krauss to pursue only thought experiments which preclude the existence of god seems to be narrowing the field? They do both seem to have learnt to argue more along agnostic lines, but blatantly give out the impression they only do that to not lose logical arguments with theists. I do honestly believe that Dawkins still believes god is impossible, even though he doesn't say as much any more. Anyway, that's the impression I get. I admit that this could be wrong, but maybe you would like to check out the debates. There are 4 or 5 which are easy to locate on youtube.

    Thanks for the science lesson

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    This is philosophy, not general science. Speculative philosophy as an imaginative exercise is fine, as long as it isn't directly contradicted by physical/scientific/empirical evidence?

    Again, thanks for the unneeeded science lesson. I don't question any theories which are fact, like plate tectonics or evolution. I am debating about the theory that something comes from nothing. This is an unproven. Although this was only the build up for my philosophical question.

    I am a scientist. I do not refute any proven theory. And I will over look the condescending manner, as I am sure you obviously do not know me well enough to know my stance as regards science.

    Not sure why I need to apply mathematical ordinalities of infinities to this debate. I have seen documentaries describing theories of everything where mathematical physicists shy away from infinities as they find them inconclusive as regards describing TsOE. Of course mathematicians play with infinities. My bad. I should have been more concise.

    Thanks again for the lesson-but no thanks for the assumption that I am in over my head-but the things you describe are all things, not no-things. Can you provide PROOF that the total mass and energy of the universe actually is zero? There isn't equal amounts of antimatter compared to matter, as far as we can prove? So what POSSIBLE framework (of many) are you siding with? How can you assert this as a fact? This is the kind of assumption I am talking about. We don't even know what form the majority of energy in the universe takes?

    None of this proves something from nothing.

    I agree. I can only logically suggest that space and matter and time are all infinite in scope, just subject to differing configurations. That is the only state I find appeals to my logic, but I wouldn't state that I am definitely correct.

    I didn't open this thread to specifically talk about the pros and cons of this theory or that. I am talking about the ability to look at all theories without bias from a hard to attain stance of Non-fixedism

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Assumption. I have countered this many times. Why do you think something needs to be attained; as in why does the actual have to be limited? You don't need to see it for it to exist; or do you ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not the same. Maybe the cause only travels in one direction? Maybe cause travels in both directions. Maybe cause doesn't travel in either (zoom out or zoom in). We do not know the answer. This is a logical conclusion, assumed from a counterable inconclusiveness . . ? Facts can't be based on assumptions.

    So there is only one way for something to express itself within All? Another assumption.


    If All (as in infinite existence) has always been, then there is no beginning. Therefore there is no first. I do get you point, but this doesn't prove that our visible universe isn't an influenced by (or made by) higher intellect construct. I am not saying there is a god. I am just saying it is possible. You say it isn't possible. More assumption. The kind of assumption I was talking about. Fraggle, take note

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    More than nothing? Maybe a protomatter soup?
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2012
  15. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Thanks for the back up rpenner. I am arguing from a philosophical stand. I never get intimidated. Only learn.
  16. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    You are wanting to show that any one single metaphysical position is absurd, and thus some or all of them combined could be the answer, not that this is a unity.
  17. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Observation is confirmation and so it is as good a gold.

    No, less than something.
  18. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    I know that you aren't really claiming your theory to be true, just the one that makes most sense to your POV. Therein lies the crux, philosophically, and indeed scientifically. Presenting evidence and theory as a maybe until proven is a prerequisite?

    The truth is that you want some kind of complete scheme so it better fits to your model. But the truth is that you can't prove this theory over say an opposite assumpption that infinity and eternity are actual.

    Sorry. Don't buy this. To say that, if there is no beginning to All, there is a beginning from nothing, is highly assumptive and unverifiable. It is however your view, and I respect it. BUT, I find the idea that All is infinite and eternal far more logically likely than something from nothing or "If there is no beginning to All, there is a beginning from nothing."


    That could be but a matter of categorisation.

    I won't counter every point here, it's late, though I could (as regards their relevance to this debate)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The universe has a beginning, but there is no proof that this "beginning" was the first . It could have also been an ending of a previous matter state.
  19. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    It was a conjectural position, not my position. More a thought experiment. I'll consider your thoughts on this carefully.
  20. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    OK, take this:

    That day has arrived.

    This is for your T-shirt—The Equation of the Universe:

    The ideal form of the equation cannot be realized (no infinities), due to bandwidth limitations:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is reasonable that there be some aspect of the medium, which, as we know, already limits the speed of medium wave propagation to the speed of light, which aspect sets a limit on the highest frequency / lowest wave length waves that can propagate as medium. That must be the case if for no other reason than to again avoid an infinity and as a result the series of envelopes, of factors in equation (24), was limited to some finite but quite large amount. The real universe original U(t) had an enormous set of envelopes but not an infinite set; they were cut off at some point.

    This reasoning yields a revised U(t), the form of the original oscillation, the ‘Cosmic Egg’, as equation (25), below. There N0 is the number of envelopes. The ‘[1 -’ parts, have been eliminated from all but the ‘∞th’ envelope (the ‘most infinite’, the ‘last’ or ‘outer’, envelope), and that envelope does not appear in the expression because the envelopes effectively cut off long before that point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That is the equation.

    None of the derivatives have an infinite rate of change. The other trig functions don't work.

    N0 = 10^85. 2·10^85 is the number of particles the universe would have had, if not for some early annihilations. There are now about 10^9 photons per proton. The universe now has 2·10^76 particles. The calculations are not shown here, but are available.

    ‘±’ is there to show that the something wave has an opposite ‘anti-something’ wave, to preserve conservation, and so there is a matter effect and an anti-matter effect, and opposite polarity of charge effect (from the wave amplitude). Electrons are of the wave envelopes and protons are of the waves. What we observe as a mass effect is from wavelength, while the energy effect is from the wave frequency. The only real realities are the oscillations, not all the effects. Photons are of the 180 degrees out of phase waves of the 'something' and the 'anti-something'.

    There are only these three stable particles in free space (and their antiparticles), in the exact forms they are, and no other, since there was no other way to make them. So, there can only be two stable charged matter particles in free space, the electron and the proton, oppositely charged, and no more, and no uncharged matter particles, for a matter particle represents half of totality. And there can only be one stable uncharged energy particle, the photon, and no more, and no charged energy particle, for the energy particle represents all of totality.

    The equation is due only to the default conditions, and it is the only possible one.
  21. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Observation is confirmation of that which is observed. It then falls to us lot to dig out/up the gold. Your gold could be fool's gold to me (please, no offense intended; I couldn't resist it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I can't jump on any miner's wagon yet. I might join you in the future, once more has been proven. Until then I remain on the fence.
  22. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Anti something is still something. Your equation describes the universe. Does it describe the previous state of the universe? Does it exclude the possibility of a previous state? As you well know, I am not a mathematician. I'll let others critique your equations.

  23. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    SciWriter, can I ask you a direct question? How does Dark Flow fit into your equation/mindset?

Share This Page