The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Myriad]

The last paragraph of the post (7th paragraph of the whole article) is corrected as follows:

[ There are infinite such universes forming and deforming within the Infinite; by either their comprising parts attracting and being attracted by parts of other universes, due to their gravitational forces surpassing the force of the Big Bang occurence; or by the outcome of the Big Bang occurence reversing, due to the gravitational forces of the various parts of the Universe surpassing the force of the Big Bang, before the point during which they would in turn be surpassed by the gravitational forces of the .parts of other Universes. Such reversal would continue till the parts of the Universe reach the point of tolerance during the so called Big Crunch. At some point during the Big Crunch, when the compacting forces surpass the point of compacting tolerance, a singularity is formed which leads in turn to a new Big Bang occurence. By parts of the Universe I mean stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.]

Even if one were to grant that this is all true...

So what?

We live on a planet, not multiple universes. We have access to the resources of the near-surface of a planet, not of the universe or of multiple universes. The time scale of our lives is in the tens of orbital periods of that planet, not the cycles of forming and collapsing universes. The reach of our agency extends at most (to a very limited extent) to the other bodies of our own solar system, not to the universe or multiple universes.

We are finite and everything in our experience is finite. Infinities, when they're not trivial mathematical artifacts resulting from the zeroing of the denominator of a ratio (a perfectly vertical plank has infinite slope; for every winged cow there's an infinite number of ordinary walking ones), are out of our reach by definition. If some infinite being has infinite knowledge, it can still only convey to us the portion of that knowledge we could process and understand, and that portion is finite. (It is therefore a mathematical truth that precisely 100% of the infinite being's infinite knowledge would be useless to us.) Anything finite (that is, anything in our experience) measured against the infinite is precisely zero.

Coming to terms with the finite seems to be the greater, and more important, intellectual challenge.

 

[Craig4]

Who am I to judge ? I took it as someone who had not had the pleasure of reading the Hitchhiker's guide.

I screw up math all the time. So no big deal, especially in this thread.

The Ultimate answer is 42. "What is six times nine," is the question Arthur Dent spells out after randomly pulling stone Scrabble tiles he made to help early humans to evolve on a primordial earth infested telephone sanitizers from another planet from a bag.

 

[tazanastazio]

According to Einstein's postulate ,"The speed of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference and is independent of the motion of the source." Could that be because the energy for the speed of light is not actually generated by the light source, that is why light does not accelerate (neither does sound)? Could that be because light does not travel on its own, but it is instead passed on by particles, from particle to particle (present even in what we consider as empty space) at the original speed, which we interpret as a wave (due perhaps to their wavy motion)? Whereas with sound, vibrating surfaces vibrate in turn particles and set them also in a wave motion? Ex. (Young and Freedman, University Physics 13 Edition, pgs 1224-1225) If a spacecraft travels at speed of 1000m/s and fires a missile straight ahead at 2000m/s, according to Newtonian mechanics, the missile's speed relative to the spacecraft would be 3000m/s. Suppose that the spacecraft turns on a searchlight, pointing to the same direction the missile was fired, the speed of light according to Einstein's postulate will not replicate the behavior of the rocket's and will not be 1000 + C, it would still be C. Why does light defy common sense, or does it? When the spacecraft which travels at 1000m/s, turns on the searchlight, the particles instantaneously start passing on the generated photons at standard speed c, independent of whether the spacraft accelerates or decelerates; after all, any speed of the spacecraft would be insignificant to the speed of light at c = 299,792,458 m/s. Now suppose the spacecraft accelerates to a speed close to c (model experiment excluding other factors, spacecraft distruction, relativity etc.), and it turns on its thick laser beams, would the pilots at some point approach close enough to see the end of the laser beams? In Einstein's type of mental experiments the original positions of an object moving light-speed would be invisible. Despite the fact that according to MIT experiments the human eye can discern moving pictures changing as fast as 13 milliseconds/0.013 sec, at that time a craft traveling with the speed of light, would have traversed 3,897,302 meters. Also light from any source would reach the craft too late to reflect back the craft's original position, since the craft would be one step ahead of the light. What an observer would see with delay would be the next position the craft is, since the craft would meet with the photons approaching that position, already, simultaneously with the craft.

Imagine if light didn't truly travel on its own as believed! Imagine if it was rather a ripple particle reaction our brains understand as "light"; like water waves having a ripple reaction the impact of which we feel or see on objects. There is movement of water, but it is not the first molecules in line which reach us, but the last ones . When light (or sound) occurs (electron jump in the case of light - explosion or vibration of a surface which sets in motion sound waves in the case of sound), in most cases it can be observed from every direction (unless there is an obstacle blocking their way). Could that mean that light doesn't actually travel? Could it be that the electron jumps which generate photons, cause a ripple effect from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as " light?" Maybe the size of particles determines the size of what we understand as the wavelengths. It would be like if people would stand in line in every direction and in the middle there was a fire. The people around the fire, fire up a torch simultaneously and almost instantaneously pass the torch to the next person. It is not the first people that lighted up the torch who ran with it and lightened up an area a few miles or light years away, but the last person/particle at the end of the line! Maybe the passing along of the photon (the torch), is what causes the wavy motion. Perhaps this is why during the "Double Slit Experiment" light behaves both as a wave and a particle; whereas in the case of sound we have just the vibration of particles and nothing gets passed on; therefore we observe only waves and no particles occupying the second surface of the experiment after they go through the first one, the one with the two slits. Also it seems that photons occupy first areas on the surface that had not been recently occupied; areas without light energy or not enough light energy remaining in them. When it comes to colored surfaces, it could be that after the molecules of a colored surface absorb the energy level corresponding to a particular color, reducing the energy level of light, the light is then passed on; only to the particles the size/type of which, corresponds to what we understand as the wavelength of the particular color in the spectrum. In a prism, after the passing of the light is delayed by the molecules of the prism, each of its energy levels is split and passed on to the particular particles corresponding to the frequency of the various colors in the spectrum. How long it would take from the particle jumps that occurred to create the photons (or rather the ripple/passing of the photon effect) to the effect that those particle jumps (creation of photons) would have on our brains, times the distance between our eyes and the particle jumps, we could be interpreting as light-speed. This hypothesis could explain why it takes light speed for a photon to have its effect on our brains and while though it can be observed it has no mass let alone acquiring infinite mass. This could also explain how it is that light having no mass is affected by gravitational forces, is pulled by a black hole (not the photons themselves but the particles of space involved in the light ripple/passing on of the photon effect).

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Could that mean that light doesn't actually travel? Could it be that the electron jumps which generate photons, cause a ripple effect from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as " light?"

How do you explain light passing through a vacuum without any particles in it?

It is clear that you don't know what any of these things are. You are simply writing as many random sentences as possible hoping you will get something right.

 

[tazanastazio]

How do you explain light passing through a vacuum without any particles in it?

It is clear that you don't know what any of these things are. You are simply writing as many random sentences as possible hoping you will get something right.

What is clear is that you attempt to find wrongs to nullify the whole concept.

There is no such thing as absolute void, absolute void is unattainable.

 

[abaddon]

What is clear is that you attempt to find wrongs to nullify the whole concept.

That is how the scientific method works. Falsify the proposition. If any single point is demonstrated to be false then the entire edifice is false.

There is no such thing as absolute void, absolute void is unattainable.

Prove that claim.

 

[Loss Leader]

Okay, I stopped reading when the OP cited a broken clock in his car as some sort of evidence for a grand, unified theory. If it helps, twice a year the clock in my car is off by a full hour. I have generated no theory regarding this phenomenon.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That was a mistake; there is no delete button, the post was the last one on the page but was appearing also on the top of the next one when initially tried to edit (cell phone, tiny letters; enhancing does not work well). I could still only edit the one that was edited last, but that was on the preceding page. So I left them both.

What is your theory on the appearance of Hawking's singularity? Why wouldn't my theory suffice better as opposed to "I don't know"?

Because it means the same as "I don't know".

Hans

 

[tazanastazio]

That is how the scientific method works. Falsify the proposition. If any single point is demonstrated to be false then the entire edifice is false.

Prove that claim.

If that was indeed the case, there goes relativity. Because "you can't eat your cake and have it too." You cannot assume a theory which is based on the visual behavior of objects traveling light-speed, when you state that such a feat is impossible, and especially when such objects would be invisible (for one, if they travel
300,000 meters every 0.013sec) and the outcome of such an impossible happening uncertain.

I could be philosophical and say, "well as I have repeatedly stated, you can't have something out of nothing and therefore you can't have a perforated Infinite, let alone space", but that may be too deep a concept for some to wrap their brains around.

How maby things we accept in physics axiomatically, without proof to make our calculations and theories fit? Many.

Here is one: according to Newtonian physics since a photon has no mass, gravity would not affect it, yet near a black hole, Newton's theory doesn't apply, and relativity takes over. Also while a photon does not have mass, it does have relativistic mass and gains momentum can indent matter etc.;

E=mc^2-> c = sq. root (*m*×E)-> if m=0 then c is zero. So for convention or rather convenience we say photon does not have mass, it has relativistic mass. With other words "have your cake and eat it too."

But, you asked for a proof, even though you are content with all the other axioms and conventions taken by scientists and physicists. Well here it is even though I don't need to provide one, since the person offering the counter to my argument, has to also provide proof that there is such thing as "absolute void":

If the photon has no mass, then the only reason it would be affected by the gravitational forces of a black hole, is because the space (the infinitesimally minute particles that comprise the fabric of space) through which light traverses is also affected, pulled by gravitational forces, and the "massless" photons are pulled along simply because their movement is dependent upon the particles that comprise what you deam as void (they pass on photons as if through a wavy motion). If we say that the gravitatinal force of a black hole is simply too large for light to avoid, then by G = (Mxm)/r^2, by setting m = 0, light should have no problem crusing through at a straight line with speed = C, because then G force on light would also be "0". But it doesn't happen does it?

Regardless whether the photon has mass or not (relativistic or otherwise, and relativistic would mean too small to measure and therefore we call it "zero."), the photons could not have acquired the energy to travel without it being somehow replenished, they would need something to pass them along, even through what you call "vacuum" or void. The fact that light travels through void, is proof enough that absolute void does not exist. The fact that the oldest and longest galaxy we can see, is 32 billion light years away, is proof that light does not loose kinetic energy, which means something provides it by moving it along, even through the void. That is why absolute void cannot, exist, because if it did, the aforementioned galaxy GN-Z11 would be lost in oblivion; since even if the "massless", or "relativistically massed" photons have gained enough momentum to jump through gaps of void, at some point something still would need to drive them on. How did light found its way, through 32 billion years of "vacuum" for us to see it, when the momentum of light would be P= (->0) x c which means the tangent line of the momentum of light would be approaching "0" value (light would have no momentum despite its speed of 300,000,000 m/s).

So simply put, the proof that there is no such thing as absolut void, is that light traverces through it, because particles, however minute, pass it along in a wavy motion at a speed of C.

 

[tazanastazio]

Okay, I stopped reading when the OP cited a broken clock in his car as some sort of evidence for a grand, unified theory. If it helps, twice a year the clock in my car is off by a full hour. I have generated no theory regarding this phenomenon.

No that simply said that clocks are affected by various forces, and gravity is one of them, being the tools that they are; and they should not be used as a telltale sign that time exists. If anything since they don't float on water they can provide one more piece of evidence out of the trillions we can account for, that gravity exists (time does not).

 

[tazanastazio]

That is how the scientific method works. Falsify the proposition. If any single point is demonstrated to be false then the entire edifice is false.

Prove that claim.

If that was indeed the case, there goes relativity. Because "you can't eat your cake and have it too." You cannot assume a theory which is based on the visual behavior of objects traveling light-speed, when you state that such a feat is impossible, and especially when such objects would be invisible (for one, if they travel
300,000 meters every 0.013sec) and the outcome of such an impossible happening uncertain.

I could be philosophical and say, "well as I have repeatedly stated, you can't have something out of nothing and therefore you can't have a perforated Infinite, let alone space", but that may be too deep a concept for some to wrap their brains around.

How many things we accept in physics axiomatically, without proof to make our calculations and theories fit? Many.

Here is one: according to Newtonian physics since a photon has no mass, gravity would not affect it, yet near a black hole, Newton's theory doesn't apply, and relativity takes over. Also while a photon does not have mass, it does have relativistic mass and gains momentum can indent matter etc.;

E=mc^2-> c = sq. root (E/*m*)-> if m=0 then c is zero. So for convention or rather convenience we say photon does not have mass, it has relativistic mass. With other words "have your cake and eat it too."

But, you asked for a proof, even though you are content with all the other axioms and conventions taken by scientists and physicists. Well here it is even though I don't need to provide one, since the person offering the counter to my argument, has to also provide proof that there is such thing as "absolute void":

If the photon has no mass ( or "relativistic"/ too small to count, or care to count), then the only reason it would be affected by the gravitational forces of a black hole, is because the space (the infinitesimally minute particles that comprise the fabric of space) through which light traverses is also affected, pulled by gravitational forces, and the "massless" photons are pulled along simply because their movement is dependent upon the particles that comprise what you deam as void (the particles pass on photons as if through a wavy motion). If we say that the gravitatinal force of a black hole is simply too large for light to avoid, then by G = (Mxm)/r^2, setting m = 0, light should have no problem crusing through at a straight line with speed = C, because then G force on light would also be "0" or minute (relativisticly small). But that is not what happens, is it?

Regardless whether the photon has mass or not (relativistic or otherwise, and relativistic would mean too small to measure and therefore we call it "zero."), the photons could not have acquired the energy to travel without it being somehow replenished; the photons would need something to pass them along, even through what you call "vacuum" or void. The fact that light travels through void, is proof enough that absolute void does not exist. The fact that the oldest and longest galaxy we can see, is 32 billion light years away, is proof that light does not loose kinetic energy, which means something provides it by moving it along, even through the void. That is why absolute void cannot, exist, because if it did, the aforementioned galaxy GN-Z11 would have been lost in oblivion; since even if the "massless", or "relativistically massed" photons have gained enough momentum to jump through gaps of void (that being the case their would not be a wavelength at some point and perhaps even the direction of light would change), at some point something still would need to drive them on. How did light found its way, through 32 billion years of "vacuum" for us to see it, when the momentum of light would be P= (->0) x c which means the tangent line of the momentum of light would be approaching "0" value (light would have no momentum despite its speed of 300,000,000 m/s).

So simply put, the proof that there is no such thing as absolut void, is that light traverces through it, because particles, however minute, pass it along in a wavy motion at a speed of C.

Here is a link from wikipedia (now yhat I can provide them):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

From wikipedia:
"According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be "empty" due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics. In the study of electromagnetism in the 19th century, vacuum was thought to be filled with a medium called aether. In modern particle physics, the vacuum state is considered the ground state of a field."

In order to achieve absolute vacuum in the lab, we need to install a small blackhole at yhe edge of the chamber which is to be containing it.

 

[tazanastazio]

Because it means the same as "I don't know".

Hans

No it means: "I have an idea."
Whereas in your case it means: "I'm clueless."

Who is more content?

Taz

 

[Matthew Ellard]

What is clear is that you attempt to find wrongs to nullify the whole concept.

The entire basis of the scientific method is "falsifiability". You are again posting your insane religious incoherent random thoughts on a science forum.

Go away and post your rubbish on a religious forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Matthew Ellard]

That is how the scientific method works. Falsify the proposition

If that was indeed the case, there goes relativity.

No. You don't know what relativity is, remember. You simply make up sentences and throw in science words to get attention.

There is a hypothesis called the general theory of relativity, which makes predictions. You have not offered one test or experiment that falsifies the general theory of relativity,.

Hypothesis : "All swans are white". The moment someone presented a black swan, the original hypothesis has been falsified.

You were told this over and over at the Skeptic Society forum, so you simply came here to copy and repeat all your same incoherent religious rubbish.

 

[tazanastazio]

No. You don't know what relativity is, remember. You simply make up sentences and throw in science words to get attention.

There is a hypothesis called the general theory of relativity, which makes predictions. You have not offered one test or experiment that falsifies the general theory of relativity,.

Relativity; the Universe according to Einstein:

https://m.dhgate.com/product/led-flashing-light-balloon-with-stick-night/418025464.html#pd-102

 

[tazanastazio]

The entire basis of the scientific method is "falsifiability". You are again posting your insane religious incoherent random thoughts on a science forum.

Go away and post your rubbish on a religious forum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Matthew, if you want to believe that the Earth is sitting like a round egg and curves a flat space with everything sliding down the curve by all means suit yourself (towards the North or the South pole?). I Believe in patterns and I extend them and extrapolate them to infinity. I believe in the laws of chemistry the bonds between protons, neutrons and electrons and their subparticles, and the subparticles of them towards the infinite microcosm, and I say such has to be the case towards the macrocosm; mainly gravity generated by the interior of the planets and stars due to the electromagnetic forces they radiate at an astronomically greater degree than the subatomic particles, but just as well in a similar way.

I never doubted Newton! One of the keenest minds ever lived. Einstein, man I wish I could take him for a coffee at Starbucks to ask him, "If the Universe expands, after the singularity erupted, how the heck is the Earth sitting on its surface, bending it like an egg in the nest, and what is inside the baloon?" Also why is it we have two poles and not only one, since it seems we would all slide down one side, and how come we have gravity all around and not only on one pole? Unless of course the Earth and all the stars and planets got stuck inside the hide of the universe like cysts.

 

[tazanastazio]

No. You don't know what relativity is, remember. You simply make up sentences and throw in science words to get attention.

There is a hypothesis called the general theory of relativity, which makes predictions. You have not offered one test or experiment that falsifies the general theory of relativity,.

Hypothesis : "All swans are white". The moment someone presented a black swan, the original hypothesis has been falsified.

You were told this over and over at the Skeptic Society forum, so you simply came here to copy and repeat all your same incoherent religious rubbish.

Your analogy would be successful if you were referring to me presenting the black swan. I have told you before, the character of Santa Claus was based on a real personality, Saint Basil of Cappadocia in the Middle East, but time travel is only good for sci-fi tales. "The general theory of relativity which makes predictions." I guess good old Albert is a seer now, aye matey?

 

[tazanastazio]

Speaking of patterns and sometimes the analogies they may generate in our imagination, the movement of the sun and the planets, and in the case of Earth with us on it, brings to mind a roller coaster park; with its rolling carts on rails, spinning interconnected gears and repeated revolutions. The planets and the sun, without having a mind or kinetic energy of their own; follow an intermingling, spiral course; without bumping/crashing on each other. The stars, the galaxies and everything in the universe; Everything in the Infinite moves. To move is to continue to exist. Our Sun with its planets, spinning as if balls going through invisible tubes which are comprised of particles of space-fabric, at vertiginous extreme speeds; immensely attracted to a source of gravitational pull, which in turn is also affected by gravity. As is everything within a spinning, like a gear, galaxy. A galaxy which follows too, never ending revolutions, like an incomprehensibly gigantic gear, in a yet more incomprehensible number of gears, inside an infinitely more incomprehensible number, of such spinning spheres. As if the Universe, and the Universes within the Infinite, were the intricate mechanism of interwoven gears, together with the particles of energy that power them, inside an infinitely large and therefore shapeless clock. Movement though does not happen to create time so the aforementioned, often incomprehensibly gigantic objects within the space and the Infinite, would count it. It is actually the other way around! Time is a universal concept, conceived to measure movement. Movement on the other hand is caused to create energy and therefore an outcome; which is existence, and the action and reaction results that come from it. Like a living being which needs to move for the blood in its veins to better circulate, and the synovial fluid in its joints to keep in good condition; like the interconnected metal gears of machinery need to keep moving to circulate grease and prevent the formation of rust; like a rolling rock which gathers no moss; so does everything within the Infinite move! Perhaps, the spiral motion of the planets as they revolve around the galaxy, pulled by a gravitational source, facilitates their revolutions around the galaxy reducing friction as they are going through the fabric of space. Still perhaps, from the friction generated as the planets roll through the fabric of space, energy/heat is produced, which sustains the temperatures in their nucleus; similar to electrons going thought resistance and heat being generated as a result. Gravity between the planets keeps their own revolutions to regulated periods around the few various fixed positions of their poles. Magnetic and electric fields are continuously generated on the planets as they move through the electromagnetic fields of space; similar to electrons going through rotating coils in a magnetic field and electricity being generated. Whenever there is an electric field, a magnetic field could be generated by a metal being exposed to it, setting the electrons in it in motion and therefore polarizing the metal. And whenever electrons are exposed to magnetic fields, they are set in motion and their motion in itself produces energy we call electricity. Planets have both metals and electrons abundant.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Matthew, if you want to believe that the Earth is sitting like a round egg and curves a flat space with everything sliding down the curve by all means suit yourself

The theory of curved space has a mathematical and testable basis. It has not been falsified.

In contrast, you have no theory but rather unrelated strings of incoherent sentences that you spam onto forums.

. I Believe in patterns and I extend them and extrapolate them to infinity.

No. For the last three years you have been unable to write any coherent hypothesis. In fact as you don't even know what a hypothesis is, we had to explain what falsifiable means.

 

[tazanastazio]

The theory of curved space has a mathematical and testable basis. It has not been falsified.

In contrast, you have no theory but rather unrelated strings of incoherent sentences that you spam onto forums.

No. For the last three years you have been unable to write any coherent hypothesis. In fact as you don't even know what a hypothesis is, we had to explain what falsifiable means.

Brother, you loose no time! Perhaps one day over coffee or tea, after 20 hours of in person conversation, I may get to convince you; that maybe, just maybe, despite the fact that somehow, and it truly beats me how, certain things went by the most brilliant minds amiss; I was correct. And I am not taking the credit for it, because when you spend all your time figuring the gravitational force exerted by a black hole on a photon you may just miss some of the simple stuff, here and there. So let the scientists figure out the complicated mathematical proofs, and the philosophers the simple things that go amiss. And not that I want to ruffle your feathers anymore, but:

Some scientists tend to insist in the arbitrarity of things; neglecting that even the things that do happen arbitrarily; are caused by objects, entities, existences, beings and yes intellect, that came to be for a purpose.

Hypothesis from the greek word "Υπόθεση" which is a compound word from the words "Υπό" = under + "θέση" = position; which means to "sup-pose." ( trust me on this one bud, greek being my native language and all.)