Edgar L. Owen

Applying Godel's incompleteness theorem to a computational universe is incorrect. Godel's theorem applies to systems in which someone can arbitrarily state a wff (well formed formula) in the system and then it may be impossible to determine whether or not it can ever be reached (proven) from the axioms. But computational reality (universe) doesn't work like that. The computational universe just always directly computes its next data state from its current data state and that can always be done and Godel doesn't apply. The universe doesn't make up states and then try to figure out ways to reach them. It's not teleological, it just computes one state from the previous state. Edgar L. Owen

All A computational universe must be logically consistent and logically complete. If it weren't it would tear itself apart at the inconsistencies and pause at the incompletenesses and could not exist. < huge plug for book removed - no more ads please>

THE AXIOM OF EXISTENCE Something rather than nothing exists because only existence can exist. Non-existence or nothingness cannot exist because nothingness is non-existence and only existence can exist. Thus nothingness cannot exist and can never have existed. Only existence exists or has ever existed or can ever exist. Thus there is not and never was and never could or can be a nothingness out of which something came into being. There is and has always been only existence and whatever forms exist within it. There is not even nothing outside of existence, or before or after or beyond existence. There is no outside or before or after or beyond existence. There is only existence and everything that exists is part of that existence. Thus Existence exists, or more concisely just Existence! which implies the necessary existence of existence, is the self-validating self-necessitating fundamental axiom of reality upon which all else depends. This is the ultimate turtle upon which all other turtles stand and the ultimate source of the entire logical structure of reality (Wikipedia, Turtles all the way down). Because the fact of existence is self-evident the axiom is self-evidently true. You would not be reading these words if existence didnt exist. At first this may appear to be a mere sophism or tautology but it accurately expresses the actual logic of reality and is the only possible self-contained explanation for the fundamental fact of existence. One might argue the axiom of existence is circular and of course it is but that is precisely the point since the fundamental axiom of reality must be circular; but it must also be self-evident and meaningfully so. A meaningful circular self-necessitating fundamental axiom is much preferable to a set of axioms that has no underlying logical foundation such as those of Euclidean geometry (Wikipedia, Euclidean geometry). Because there never was a nothingness out of which something was created there is no need for a creator or creation event. All the interminable disputes about creators and the creation of the universe immediately become illogical and meaningless and must be abandoned. The axiom of existence immediately renders much of philosophy and religious doctrine moot and answers the first question of why something rather than nothing exists. Thus the fundamental question becomes not why something exists, but why what exists is what exists. Through this proper self-consistent, self-necessitating definition reality becomes much simpler and illogical questions concerning non-existence disappear. Reality is the existence of what exists, and existence is the manifestation of reality. Reality and existence are different perspectives on the same thing. Thus the only thing that can ever be real and actual is existence and the only thing that can exist is reality. The question of how existence arose out of non-existence is nonsensical and meaningless and should not even be asked. Its based on a misapplication of the logic and language of everyday things where individual things do suddenly appear out of non-existence into existence. But whatever appears always actually appears out of something else, its always a transformation of things rather than a creation out of nothingness. Nothing ever appears out of nothing at all or nothingness. The forms of reality often transform from one thing to another but since reality itself includes everything there is nothing for reality itself to transform from or appear out of. Of course the physical universe as we know it originated in the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago but this was not the beginning of existence as the universe originated not from the absolute absence of anything but from the quantum vacuum which contained the unactualized virtual possibilities of all possible actualities. We must not mistake the apparent beginning of the physical universe and clock time at the big bang for the beginning of existence itself. Thus existence has always existed. By always we mean here that there was never a time in which existence did not exist. In Universal Reality clock time is computed along with all the other processes of the universe and so clock time would only have begun with the big bang. Thus there was no clock time prior to the big bang and properly speaking no before. Nevertheless there was a timeless present moment in which a prior virtual state of formless existence existed and there was never a time this was not true. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. The existence of non-existence is a logical contradiction, and logical contradictions cannot exist in a computational universe, since for the universe to be computational it must follow consistent logical rules that dont generate logical contradictions. Thus the axiom of existence provides a clear and convincing answer to the fundamental question of why something rather than nothing exists. Its simply impossible for nothingness to exist so there was always a something that existed and that was the originally formless substrate of existence itself. From the new book advertising removed Edgar

Modred, As a physics professor at a major university I'm astonished you are unable to answer the simple question of whether the anisotropic expansion of space around galactic peripheries produces warps in space that have gravitational effects or not. You've continually avoided this simple question throughout the discussion. Anyway thanks for your posts... Best regards, Edgar

Strange & Modred, Well thanks for all the math guys but the crux of the argument is whether or not the anisotropic expansion of space around galactic boundaries creates warps in space or not. I think it has to. And second whether or not those warps in space have gravitational effects (are equivalent to free gravitational fields). I think they have to since GR says that gravitational fields are precisely warps in otherwise flat space. If this is true then we do have FGFs in the right place to be the source of the DM effect and then we can worry about the math. If it isn't true then the theory doesn't work and the math is irrelevant. Edgar

Modred, OK, we agree that these "gravity wells" produced by the anisotropic Hubble expansion in the areas of galactic boundaries must produce actual gravitational effects. So unless you can point to some other gravitational effect in those areas the dark matter effect is the obvious candidate because that's the only actually observed gravitational effect. BTW I prefer the term 'Free Gravitational Fields' (FGFs) indicating distortions in spacetime not directly tied to mass concentration sources. The term 'Gravity Well' implies spherical symmetry around mass concentrations and these fields are not spherically symmetric. Now as to the math. The issues you raise are secondary because they have to do with consistency with other theoretical models. The math that's important here is straightforward. It's simply comparing the expected forms of the FGFs with the actual distribution of DM in the real universe to see how well they corellate. While this is straightforward it's complex and requires a simulation approach in which the expected development of FGFs over the age of the universe is modeled in various situations and compared with the DM distribution relative to actual galaxies. There are a number of relevant issues and effects that influence the forms of FGFs: 1. A shepherding effect in which the surrounding dark matter tends to guide the motion of galaxies. 2. A trailing effect in which the movement of galaxies tends to leave a trail of FGFs behind it. 3. A smoothing effect in which detached FGFs tend to be smoothed out due to further Hubble expansion. 4. A reinforcing effect in which FGFs being gravitationally bound areas themselves tend to lead to strengthening along their boundaries. 5. The general effect of both galaxies and FGFs gravitationally interacting with other local galaxies and FGFs. 6. The effects of the intrinsic relative motion of galaxies and FGFs due to their gravitational interactions rather than the expansion of space. 7. A distortion effect due to the collision interactions of both galaxies and FGFs. So all these must be modeled and compared against the real world distribution of DM in specific situations. The other issue is of course that current maps of DM are very imprecise since DM can only be observed by gravitational lensing and its effects on surrounding visible matter. So the real mathematical issue is how well do FGFs simulation models correlate with real world distributions of DM. And if FGFs do correlate to DM they should provide an important additional tool for tracking the actual expansion of the universe and the motions of galaxies over the history of the universe. So all in all the FGF theory of DM is quite promising because it provides a reasonable model of DM in the generally correct location based entirely on the accepted fact of anisotropic Hubble expansion, and the established fact that distortions of spacetime manifest as gravitational fields. Not only that it automatically explains why DM is dark because FGFs aren't particle based. Compare this with particle based theories of DM which are based entirely on 1. particles outside the standard model which are not even known to exist. 2. The extremely improbable distribution of those particles in just the right locations to account for DM. From this perspective it begins to look like it's the particle based DM theories that are the 'speculative' ones. Edgar

Hi Modred, We can get to the math shortly, but first help me out. I'm really seriously trying to learn here. You seem to agree there are gravitational wells produced around galaxies by the Hubble expansion. My very simple question to you is why don't these gravitational wells have any gravitational effect? Don't gravitational wells always have gravitational effects? Thanks, Edgar

Modred, Again I'm disappointed you aren't willing to help me out by answering my very simple questions. I'm seriously trying to learn from you. Of course I understand the theory needs to be put on a mathematical basis to be taken seriously. But right now I'm just trying to see whether or not it's logical or not before proceeding. It would be a great help if you could simply address the two points I raised in my previous post. You seem to agree that there are ,"Gravity well(s) as this denotes a localized inhomogeneous and anisotropic metric within a global homogeneous and isotropic (uniform) metric." I simply ask you what is the observational effect of these anisotropic local metrics in your opinion? You don't think it's the dark matter effect so how do they manifest observationally? Thanks, Edgar

Modred, 1. OK, you seem to agree that the anisotropic Hubble expansion should produce warps in the fabric of space that should have gravitational effects. So what and where are these gravitational effects if they aren't the dark matter effect? Since the universe has expanded roughly 1100 times since the CMB don't you think they should be quite significant and easily observable? So where are they if not dark matter? And since the anisotropies are produced at galactic boundaries what gravitational effect is there that isn't a dark matter effect? Can you please be kind enough to answer this simple question? Thanks.... 2. The argument you raise in your last post roughly seems to be that in the FLRW model dark matter is a component of the expansion therefore it can't be produced by the expansion. Is that correct? But this is true only in a non-iterative (time stable) system. There are numerous examples of iterative systems in which two states are functions of each other. The initial state of one system is affected by the other and in turn affects the first which in turn affects the second and so on. In fact that's generally the way things work in an time evolving universe. There are continual feedbacks among systems. So I don't see 2. as a problem unless you can make your argument clearer. So I don't see any at least logical contradiction in assuming an expanding universe which produces anisotropies which in turn influence the subsequent expansion, and that this process continues in an iterative manner. Thanks, Edgar

Modred, Certainly the theory needs to be given a firm mathematical basis to be taken seriously. All scientific theories do. However I am disappointed you are unable (or perhaps just unwilling) to provide simple answers to the very simple questions I asked above to see whether the theory is worth pursuing or not. Either the uneven Hubble expansion does or does not produce warps in space which have a gravitational effect or they don't. Which do you think it is? A very simple question I'd think you'd easily be able to answer. Thanks, Edgar

Modred, Do you think this theory is obviously incorrect? In which case I'd very much appreciate you explaining why you think so. Or do you think it just needs an examination of the mathematical implications to be taken seriously? In which case I completely agree. I don't see any obvious logical inconsistencies with GR that would immediately falsify it. Could you please kindly explain if you think 1. Thorne and Misner are incorrect that the Hubble expansion is gravitationally bound locally? 2. Anisotropic Hubble expansion would or would not produce warps in the boundary areas? 3. Warps in the fabric of spacetime are or are not equivalent to gravitational fields? Many thanks, Edgar

Mordred, I think you are being arbitrary in redirecting my post. 1. Thorne & Misner on page 719 of Gravitation clearly state there is an uneven Hubble expansion in the areas surrounding galaxies and galaxy clusters. 2. An uneven expansion of space must clearly result in warps in the fabric of space. 3. In GR any curvature or warp in space is equivalent to a gravitational field. 4. So the Hubble warps must be producing some effect. If it isn't that attributed to dark matter what do you think it is? 5. It has 3 significant advantages as a theory of dark matter: It's in roughly the correct location, it's automatically a dark effect since no particles are producing the warping, and it requires no new unknown speculative particles. That's entirely consistent with the science. 6. Don't you think a warping of space has to have some effect, and if not dark matter then what do you propose that would be? 7. Also since space has expanded roughly 1000x since the CMB it has to be a very large effect just as the dark matter effect is known to be. Edgar

The existence of an invisible form of matter called dark matter was first proposed to explain observational anomalies in the motion of galaxies. For example observations suggest that galaxies rotate as if they had halos of invisible mass around them because they are rotating faster than would be expected based on their apparent masses. The amount of dark matter necessary to explain the movements of galaxies is huge, about 5 times the amount of visible matter in the universe (Wikipedia, Dark matter). Dark matter has been sought in the form of various types of new particles but so far none have been found. This proposal is a simple and rather obvious consequence of the Hubble expansion. The Hubble expansion is an expansion of the relatively empty space between galaxies and galaxy clusters which makes up most of the universe. By contrast the space within galaxies isn’t expanding because it’s gravitationally bound by their mass (Misner, et al, Gravitation, 1973, p. 719). Thus the earth, the solar system, our galaxy, and we are not expanding but the space between galaxies is expanding. This is obviously true because if everything was expanding uniformly the expansion wouldn’t be observable. The result is an uneven Hubble expansion that warps space around the boundaries of galaxies; precisely in the area that dark matter is expected to be found! And from general relativity we know that any warping of space must manifest as a gravitational effect. Thus we have a natural explanatory mechanism for the dark matter effect that involves only the expected warping of space from the uneven Hubble expansion around galaxies and doesn’t require the existence of any new particles. This warping may or may not be the cause of the entire dark matter effect, but it certainly should be producing a very large gravitational effect, since the uneven expansion over the lifetime of the universe should produce a very large warping of space. Distributions of dark matter can be mapped by tracing gravitational deviations of the expected paths of light beams from sources beyond them. These maps indicate a distribution of dark matter generally around galaxies but sometimes offset as well. However there is nothing to prevent these Hubble space warps, once they are created, to have a life and movement of their own. Thus dark matter distributions should initially form as halos around galaxies and galaxy clusters but then be able to move as massive objects on their own due to gravitational forces. Once Hubble warps are formed they are effectively just additional areas of gravitational mass that can move through space just as galactic masses do. The continued existence of a dark matter mass is not dependent on the original galaxy it was created from. There will be a continuous creation of new dark matter warps around galaxies, but once created these can trail away and should leave detectible plumes of warping behind that reveal how galaxies moved over time. Over the course of the expansion of the universe the actual effects will be extremely complex because the distribution of galactic matter with time is extremely complex. It should be fairly easy to test at least the viability of this theory by comparing the current distributions of dark and visible matter and inferring their relative motions over time and making a calculation of whether the expected warping would account for the gravitational effects of known dark matter concentrations. This is one possible explanation of the dark matter effect, but not necessarily the only one. Nevertheless there should be a very substantial warping due to the uneven Hubble expansion, and that warping should be producing quite a large gravitational effect. Where is that effect if it isn’t the dark matter effect? It must be somewhere. The evidence seems quite strong and it certainly simplifies things by not requiring any new unknown types of particles. This theory of dark matter also neatly explains why dark matter is dark. Not being an actual form of particulate matter it obviously doesn’t emit light. Thus it’s invisible and interacts with regular matter only via the gravitational force. From my Book Relativity Made Easy, The Hidden Principles Edgar