jck

Snail, Study amounts to a lot of hard work and to gain something at the end of 9 months is something to celebrate for you personally but everyone will be pleased that you were able to post good news. best wishes from john jck

psynapse, Nice try but the consideration does not allow theoretical anything before providing the foundation conditions for the creation of a universe. Still you are on the right track with opposite energy particles. We establish a single energy particle that by default must be the smallest particle that can exist for the building block for all matter. Two things need to be explained before the particles can do anything, one is the movement of the particles and the other is direction of the movement. You have also identified a need for the particles to collide into each other. Movement in all directions would allow such collisions and thereby creates particles coming from opposite directions which could be transposed to positive and negative as much as anything. Movement has to be c+ in order to establish a means for anything in the universe to travel at c. There is a problem with a solution from scratch having an energy particle travelling at c+ with no energy input to allow it to do that and a certain method must be explained before moving on. For a particle to pass in the opposite direction of two particles coming the other way the empty space factor must be at least + the size of the energy particle so that any particle is accelerated directly into an actual vacuum. Using the tiny vacuum of empty space that a particle travels towards at all times solves the zero energy input problem and provides the c+ speed collisions to fuse the energy. So we have opposite particles, empty space vacuum for movement and c+ speed for collisions. That is all that is required for creating the universe from scratch, it can now be done. john jck

This so far must be well within what everyone can logically agree with for the consideration. I will expand on why it is energy that would be certain in empty space to create a universe and not mass. Anything that exists can be considered mass but mass can be composite of energy particles which would need a fundamental explanation, by selecting a single fundamental energy particle there can be no arguement as to its origin as it is required by default. No energy particle means no universe. The definition of particle for this consideration is part of the energy being the smallest part that can exist. The energy cannot fill the empty space so there is no empty space left as nothing would be able to move. This is all that is required to create a universe. Empty space and a single fundamental energy particle with room to move in that empty space. It cannot be made any simpler. john jck

Edtharan, Just a note on your remarks about distance. The earth is here. The moon we would conclude was here as well if we were on the moon. So everything is where it is and it is not somewhere else so it is not any distance from itself. Where did this distance come from exactly? Well I can tell you where exactly, someone invented a ruler and took two seperate completely self contained masses and decided to join the dots and call that distance. Now if that is not inventing distance then I don`t know what is. john jck

Edtharan, You have a mixture of quotes that are not all mine. If everything down to the last single particle in the universe stopped moving the only time would be the concept of time which would be meaningless. If time is meangingless for the above scenario then it is not difficult to conclude that something that can suddenly appear useless had any use in the first place. I doubt if a rock that did not move would experience time unless you attributed your own personal experience of time to the rock. Time gives people a feel good factor, they set their alarm clocks and sit watching the second hand go round all day and consider they have complete mastery over time. Time is the slave of mankind in a universe where movement is the master, it is just a made up word in a language used like any other to convey some meaning to speach. Time is for telling the time so everyone can agree what time it is at any given time. A large lump of rock racing through the universe for the last billion years is hardly interested in what time it is here on earth. Time and again people ask what is time and try to explain it from all angles, that should convince anyone of the problem with the concept. Ok, everything in the universe has stopped moving and will never move again so now you can explain in that situation exactly what use the concept of time would mean exactly? john jck

Yes I agree, very limited indeed. Still the post seemed to refer to eyesight and what a person would see with their own eyes travelling at c. john jck

Edtharan, I do not have a problem with theory or the terms associated with theory. There is a problem, when debating in general, should everyone insist on using different interpretations for the same terms. The question is does everyone want to discuss the issue generally or does everyone want to discuss it from their own personal viewpoint? If the idea is to debate time at a fundamental level then introducing geometric constraints restricts the arguement to those constraints meaning there is no actual open minded discussion apart from personal choice. If the definitions were clear and simple then everyone would be clear about the definitions but that is not the case so mostly we get different views of the same terminology. john jck

swansont, That is simple enough. No need to worry about speed at all or wavelengths. The eyes can only take in a certain amount of information and then the brain has to decode this so no one would expect to see anything travelling at any speed close to or faster than c would they? lol, john jck

Hi, Just browsing stuff as I am fairly new here. Even the theoretical associations with light speed fail to convince me very much something of nothing may be of interest. We are approximately 0.5 seconds behind time as that is how long it takes for all senses to become aware as we wake up. Now while we may not detect a mass in the same place hitting us with a considerable force at the same time as it happens the fact would remain that it would have to hit us before we were aware anyway and in the same place as we were to be hit. What you see is what you get, if you were passing anything at a million miles per second you would hardly expect to see a blur never mind anything else. Naturally anyone considering travelling at speeds greater than c anytime soon would have some advantages over those of us who lack the actual experience. john jck

Perhaps it has to be made simpler? Given a blank canvas of endless empty space what is the next certain thing that empty space must contain in order to create a universe? The answer is energy. It cannot be made any simpler. john jck

Thanks for moving my initial posting as this happened when I originally joined and was not sure where to post which topic. The forums are well organised and there seems to be a place for everyone providing they keep to reasonable guidelines. john jck

Edtharan, Movement is displacement, a period of time is whatever value you personally give it. Look movement was happening long before time was invented so this notion of seconds did not start the movement did it? Now if you take away the seconds and the other concepts then you are left with no way of timing anything from your point of view, while I am in the happy position of watching the displacement carry on regardless. You cannot invent time and give values to durations and attribute the durations happening because of the time you have personally set. Perhaps you may argue that it is not the timing of time but the duration itself that time reflects but then all the mathematics are using set values to prove theories which depend on the set values themselves? You can of course hold the view that time removed from the universe would stop all movement and you are entitled to that view but if I do not remove movement but remove what I consider to be a conceptual time factor then my view is just as valid. john jck

Edtharan, For me personally I would like to know in clear simple terms exactly what everyone is saying so that some logic that everyone else can understand can be applied to consider the issue. Without doubting anything that has been said I am getting the feeling the issue is speed. Now when the video tape recorder was in developement they could not get the tape to run fast enough till someone had the bright idea of spinning the drum at the same time as passing the tape through at a speed it did not break. The point here is if you alter speeds then you alter results without changing time or space. A human brain is slightly limited in the visual cortex/decoding complexity department, yet this is ignored as if it was foolproof? These are my initial thoughts. john jck

Interesting so far no response. Instead of endless empty space as your canvas for working out how the universe was created I could have chosen "absolutely nothing at all" and we could be sitting here a million years from now with nothing at all. To save a considerable amount of time I have given the prime requirement for having anything at all, somewhere for anything at all to exist. What is the one thing that is certain to be required now before anything can be created? It could not be made any simpler. john jck

Tycho. Make yourself a clock and set the seconds to any duration you like. Time is anything you want it to be, others have decided the duration of a second for you then convinced you that time is real. A concept is something you can remove from the universe without changing one single atom. No humans, no clocks and no time and the universe carries on regardless. Take movement out of the universe and there is a dramatic change, everything stops moving. So given a choice what would you remove from the universe? Time or movement? john jck

It has proven extremely difficult for anyone to comprehend how anything can be certain but having a certain beginning and restricted to moving on only when the next step is certain does provide a solution that can then be used to compare with anything in mainstream science that is obtained theoretically and observationally. Science has a multi choice section regarding how the universe came about but the clean alternative that space was always constant everywhere at all times, although more valid, does not gain the same amount of research. While theory almost ignores there being space as we know it before big bang then any solution using space as a certain beginning has certainty by default, if the theory is correct then that is available to all but should space exist before the universe then the alternative becomes certain. There is no cause for alarm for all I am asking is for space before big bang to be considered as a certain base for determining what then must follow given this consideration. Anyone not willing to consider space existed before big bang simply as an exercise in logic need not take part. It is a clean slate, everyone has only empty space and has to work out what else is needed before a universe can be created. Because this is starting from scratch no theory can be used until the logical steps confirm the theory. Space itself is not well understood at the best of times but for the purpose of the consideration it is absolutely empty, the only thing that can be added is the next thing that must exist in the empty space before any further steps can be taken. I am not creating the space, I am not taking the space away or doing anything else with the space that we already know exists in the universe. Apart from theoretically no one can show how it would be possible to take space away from space without leaving a space, the space we have here and now creates that problem with any solution besides having the same space before big bang and then it has no arguement. So with a certain consideration that absolute empty space is the blank canvas for working out how a universe could be created all that is required is for someone to come up with the next certain requirement in that empty space before moving on to the next step. john jck

Farsight, This house thing, the bricks are energy so take away the bricks and do as much work as you like you will not have a house. I say that mass is like the word "house" in the example where it is impossible to call something a house when the bricks are taken away. It may well require work to get the bricks together for the house and work to take the bricks away again but all the work in the world will not be a house without the bricks. Work is energy, it is not free energy. No bricks-no house No energy-no mass john jck

Farsight, Then it is you that has to explain exactly what is in the empty space that gives it the means to create anything at all. There is a problem here in as much as there is space everywhere but without the energy there is no mass so mass being the empty space does not constitute any substance for the mass. I do not have a problem with the energy containing empty space being mass, but with so much empty space the universe would be a solid block of mass if the space itself was mass. john jck

I have energy as absolute. No energy means no universe apart from empty space. The question is simple, take away the energy from any particle and there is no particle so someone must put forward the substance that is left that is not energy based that can be anything else. Electrons are energy, quarks are energy and energy is energy. Different states of energy does not create substance that is not created from energy. It is not difficult to work out what matter is created from and no one needs a peer review to get permission to make the obvious deduction. As no matter means no mass then it is resolved. john jck

Farsight, I am a lateral thinker so have no problem understanding your posts, I do not take them out of context. My definitions relate to my personal solution Certainty, this is simply to give clarity to the meaning so that no further explanation is required as far as the solution is concerned. When I look at your thread on mass I will grasp your definition without any trouble but will compare your findings with the results my solution give me. The only reason for money at all is to make sure a small minority get a lot more than the majority. Anything that humans invent and bring to the universe is superflous to requirements. Rest assured not only will I understand what you say but I will also understand what you don`t say. It is your post and your context and that is how I will read it. Naturally anyone reading you out of context will confuse the issue. john jck

Farsight, I hardly talk about anyone in particular, my views were a generalisation and I leave it to the individual to decide if it applies to them. Being new here there is no intention on my part to directly insist my views are any better than anyone elses. After spending time on the BBC science forums this place is a pleasant change. I am impressed not only by the replies but the nature of the replies. john jck

Swansont, If you choose to have a viewpoint from more than one observed position then you create a seperate opinion from a single observed position. As the multi observed theory uses only the multi observed findings to support itself then not suprisingly when those findings are compared to the single observed source they show the single observation out of context. It is no concern of mine whether a person chooses to look into multi observed states and comes to the conclusion that is the state that exists using the findings from the multi states theory. In fact everything relative to the observer actually is, should you accept that it is in the first place. While most people are struggling to work out everything from one observed state it is nice that some have advanced to the multi state position and I wish them good luck. john jck

Hi, I have never posted on evolution as mainly I am interested in particle physics before big bang. However watching the tv series "The Secret Life of Plants" something did not seem right, of course plants evolve but I never really thought about it before. See the problem was with one plant in particular, a certain kind of butterfly would lay its egg on the plant leaves. The egg was like a small yellow berry and somehow the plant had evolved to grow a striking number of similar small yellow berries. Now the certain butterfly would always look over the plant carefully before laying the egg as it did not want too much competition from other eggs for the food the plant would provide. There is a serious problem with this scenario. I am sure those of you who understand plants and evolution far better than myself will have answers for how this evolved but right now I have a serious problem regarding the nature of how this was done. I assume that the plant did not work out this butterfly was laying the small yellow eggs to eat it later. How did the plant know there was a problem that could then be solved by producing a berry similar to the small yellow egg and indeed whether this would be effective at all? I mean this is a smarter solution than many humans would work out. Plus how long a period would it take to mutate to produce the berries? I have absolutely no prior ideas on evolution apart from what is in the general domain and it is only this problem that finally got me posting here. Nice to get some views from those in the know. best wishes, john jck

Hi, As someone who has an alternative perspective of looking at things perhaps I can explain my sentiments. Along with many others with any interest in science we do spend a lot of time trying to understand exactly what has been determined and what is theoretical and there is the crux of the problem. At the same time as passing off the theories as the best explanations science can offer many are determining those explanations as the correct explanations even when theoretical. The amount of thinking time given over to alternative methods of looking at the problems from new perspectives is not slight and does not carry a convenient text book to look up any answers. I can see how it can irritate those who have had to slog through the theories and mathematics while someone else has spent just as many hours pleasantly working things out through thought alone. There was for me absolutely no reason not to consider space existing before the universe without the need for theory but simply as a consideration. The problem arose from that single consideration that the theories were in conflict almost from the start with the logical steps taken to create the universe from that position. This is not actually stating the theory is wrong, it is simply saying that a consideration that space existed before big bang provides a completely different set of answers. Like many others I can certainly agree with the theories providing I only use the theories so that everything has been determined to be correct so there is no point in me not agreeing from that perspective. The fact is that the solution based on space existing before the universe has given me the opportunity to understand the universe more completely from that perspective than any theory ever could, I am now far more capable of debating fundamental issues with theory because of this. The nice thing about my solution is no one has to agree with the findings as it is my personal solution. If anyone does not agree with my logic then why should I insist they agree, each person is entitled to think for themselves and choose the option that they do agree with. By far the worse case scenario for anyone is to have an opinion and to be totally ignored so mostly solid critisism is the method used for all considerations really. The theories have substantial history and support so it is only right that these should be mainstream, there is no reason for anyone to accept the theories on face value should they decide the evidence to be flawed for them personally and why should they? best wishes, john jck

Anything that exists is energy based and anything that is not energy is a concept. Time is a concept which gives conceptual views of what does exist so it is very simple to confuse the logic. Duration of movement is either the same or different, if different then it is the duration that is different. While the concept of time can appear different during the same duration the duration cannot be different as the duration is absolute. A bomb cannot explode like an action replay, it is absolute in the duration it explodes. Once a bomb explodes once there is no bomb for it to explode a second time. As far as the twins paradox is concerned the only way the twin in space would be younger is if the cells in the body aged more slowly and all the evidence points to space travel having an adverse affect on human cells. Therefore the atomic clocks showing one billionth of a second difference has timed the duration differently but as with the bomb scenario the duration is absolute. It is funny that people are more than happy to accept the views of multi observers when it agrees with what they think but are not happy at all to accept the views of anyone who does not agree with what they think. Even when everyone agrees it is hardly cause for celebration given the record for complete agreement over the decades is it? john jck