The True Nature of the Universe.

[Traxcat]

The true nature of the natural universe in 10 easy steps:

 

1) The universe is not physical.

 

2) The universe consists of two(2) elements, time/space. This means that time/space "is" the universe.

 

3) Time and space do not require matter/energy to exist.

 

4) Entropy has no effect on time/space.

 

5) Time/space has always existed.

 

6) Time is independent of space and space is independent of time. The only thing they share in common is that they are both eternal. (without beginning and without end)

 

7) Time and space are independent of energy/matter.

 

8) If matter/energy can't be created or destroyed then matter/energy has always existed in some form.

 

9) Matter and energy are independent of each other but they are in a constant state of change. A state of perpetual motion.

 

10) Nothing in the universe is in a state of rest with the exception of space which is part of the universe. (space is static not dynamic)

[insane_alien]

points one and two are inconsistent.

 

time and space are physical therefore 1/ must be wrong.

 

3/ we know

 

4/ we know

 

5/ current predictions say 'probably not' with that one. we need to get the unified field equations to work back to t=0 (or the event that most know as 'the big bang')

 

6/nope, they are related. space can act like time and time can act like space. this typically happens at high velocities and is the reason behind time dilation and length contraction

 

7/ you already mentioned this

 

8/ energy can't be created or destroyed, matter is a form of energy. current observations say energy has been around as long as time and space have.

 

9/ nope, they are the same thing. existence is not perpetual motion

 

10/ space is expanding, that seems pretty damn dynamic to me.

 

your physics is lacking in many areas with that. i suggest you read some university level books on the subject to get a better understanding of what you are dealing with.

[stevo247]

8/ energy can't be created or destroyed, matter is a form of energy. current observations say energy has been around as long as time and space have.

 

What is the conventional understanding? Did space, time, and energy exist, and then matter?

[Zephir]

1) The universe is not physical.

2) The universe consists of two(2) elements, time/space.

3) Time and space do not require matter/energy to exist.

4) Entropy has no effect on time/space.

5) Time/space has always existed.

6) Time is independent of space and space is independent of time.

7) Time and space are independent of energy/matter.

8) If matter/energy can't be created or destroyed then matter/energy has always existed in some form.

9) Matter and energy are independent of each other but they are in a constant state of change.

10) Nothing in the universe is in a state of rest

1) violates the 2), as insane_alien already said. This effectively renders the rest as an inconsistent view of reality, if all points depends each of other.

2) cannot be disproved at this moment, but here are many theories, based on such approach already, for example Wheelers geometrodynamic

3) Aether Wave Theory (AWT) violates this. Every space can be interpreted as a surface of gradient of matter/energy density, enabling the transversal energy spreading, the time is direction normal to this surface, after then.

4) Is disputable, because in Universe everything is related to everything

5) AWT doesn't requires this. The completely chaotic state of matter doesn't exhibit both time, both space, but still can exists.

6,7,9) By AWT the mass, energy, time and space are related together via wave equation, from this the theory name follows.

8) It can be right, but it violates the 2) and 3) again, apparently.

10) The motion is relative, therefore the absence of motion is relative too. Therefore any claim about rest is relative as well.

[insane_alien]

What is the conventional understanding? Did space, time, and energy exist, and then matter?

 

Well, the conventional understanding is that space, time and energy were all created at the same time(if they were created at all) matter condensed out later when the universe got cold enough and large enough.

 

To Zephir: this is what we mean by you hijacking threads. this is NOT about your AWT. If you are going to respond please use accepted theories. keep AWT to your own threads.

[HannonRJ]

The true nature of the natural universe in 10 easy steps:

 

1) The universe is not physical.

HANNONRJ ASKS: Please define "physical".

 

2) The universe consists of two(2) elements, time/space. This means that time/space "is" the universe.

HANNONRJ ASKS: So "the universe" excludes its contents?

 

3) Time and space do not require matter/energy to exist.

HANNONRJ COMMENTS: Probably, but for what purpose?

 

4) Entropy has no effect on time/space.

HANNONRJ ASKS: Please define "entropy".

 

5) Time/space has always existed.

HANNONRJ COMMENTS: Agreed.

 

6) Time is independent of space and space is independent of time. The only thing they share in common is that they are both eternal. (without beginning and without end)

HANNONRJ ASKS: So "motion" does not relate space and time?

 

7) Time and space are independent of energy/matter.

HANNONRJ: Agreed, but the reverse is not true

 

8) If matter/energy can't be created or destroyed then matter/energy has always existed in some form.

HANNONRJ: Agreed. What is the fundamental form of "energy"?

 

9) Matter and energy are independent of each other but they are in a constant state of change. A state of perpetual motion.

HANNONRJ COMMENTS: Disagree. "Matter" is a form of energy.

 

10) Nothing in the universe is in a state of rest with the exception of space which is part of the universe. (space is static not dynamic)

HANNONRJ: Please define "at rest".

 

HANNONRJ: In my opinion, SPACE is void, and is analogous to the "stage" on which TIME and ENERGY interact to produce the dynamic universe in which we exist. Our universe had no beginning and will have no end, but its contents have changed and will continue to change.

------------------------------------

 

insane_alien said:"your physics is lacking in many areas with that. i suggest you read some university level books on the subject to get a better understanding of what you are dealing with."

HANNONRJ: So "university level books" constitute what we are to believe? Who has decided this?

[Sayonara]

HANNONRJ: So "university level books" constitute what we are to believe?

No, they include what is to be understood by the use of terms which are conventional within physics at that level. What people 'believe' is their personal choice.

 

Stop straw-manning please.

[HannonRJ]

No, they include what is to be understood by the use of terms which are conventional within physics at that level. What people 'believe' is their personal choice.

 

Stop straw-manning please.

 

HANNONRJ REPLIES: To raise questions or to disagree is "straw-manning"?

There is no "authority" as to the nature of the universe. There is only opinion. Current physics in that regard is nothing but the generally accepted opinion of members of the physics establishment.

-----------------------------------

Why has the anti-relativity forum been closed? It had barely started, and for no apparent reason was "locked".

[Sayonara]

HANNONRJ REPLIES: To raise questions or to disagree is "straw-manning"?

No. You have used enough web forums to know what a strawman is, and I am not going to be drawn into an academically dishonest argument.

 

There is no "authority" as to the nature of the universe. There is only opinion. Current physics in that regard is nothing but the generally accepted opinion of members of the physics establishment.

The point made by insane_alien has nothing to do with any notion of "authority". It is simply the practical observation that one cannot object to a physical principle without first understanding what that principle is supposed to explain. Considering what you have said in your many discussions on the Michelson-Morley experiment, I would have thought you might easily grasp such an idea.

 

If you wish to start a new thread relating to "authority" and "establishment" in physics, do so, but do not derail this thread further with what is ostensibly a separate issue.

[swansont]

Why has the anti-relativity forum been closed? It had barely started, and for no apparent reason was "locked".

 

It's explained in the last post. Posts were off-topic and moved to a new thread. None of the moved material had much to do with the OP, which hadn't drawn a relevant response in almost two years.

[HannonRJ]

Please define "OP"

I am prepared to enter into a detailed discussion of Einstein's algebra in section I-3 of ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES. IMO, that is where the faults of Einstein's Special Relativity reside.

[Mr Skeptic]

7) Time and space are independent of energy/matter.

 

In addition to what Insane Alien replied, this is also questionable. Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle applies to time/energy, as well as space/momentum, showing a relation between the them. Wave equations also relate time, space, and energy.

[stevo247]

Originally Posted by stevo247

What is the conventional understanding? Did space, time, and energy exist, and then matter?

 

Well, the conventional understanding is that space, time and energy were all created at the same time(if they were created at all) matter condensed out later when the universe got cold enough and large enough.

 

So the energy got cold and that is what caused matter to form?

 

When it was just space, time and energy; is the energy throughout space assumed to be hot?

[Graviphoton]

The true nature of the natural universe in 10 easy steps:

 

1) The universe is not physical.

 

2) The universe consists of two(2) elements, time/space. This means that time/space "is" the universe.

 

3) Time and space do not require matter/energy to exist.

 

4) Entropy has no effect on time/space.

 

5) Time/space has always existed.

 

6) Time is independent of space and space is independent of time. The only thing they share in common is that they are both eternal. (without beginning and without end)

 

7) Time and space are independent of energy/matter.

 

8) If matter/energy can't be created or destroyed then matter/energy has always existed in some form.

 

9) Matter and energy are independent of each other but they are in a constant state of change. A state of perpetual motion.

 

10) Nothing in the universe is in a state of rest with the exception of space which is part of the universe. (space is static not dynamic)

and even chaos

 

It is within my speculations, that the nature of the universe can never be known, due to the uncertainty principle exciting possibilities of sqrt-1, and even chaos theory... The theory which states that any quantum system cn undergo a drastic change at any time.

[Vexer]

1) The universe is not physical.... kinda lost me there.

[mooeypoo]

and even chaos

 

It is within my speculations, that the nature of the universe can never be known, due to the uncertainty principle exciting possibilities of sqrt-1, and even chaos theory... The theory which states that any quantum system cn undergo a drastic change at any time.

 

.... what?? I.. don't quite get your point.. plus, stating that chaos theory states that a system can undergo drastic change at any time is a huge oversimplification, wouldn't you say?

[Daecon]

1) The universe is not physical.... kinda lost me there.

 

Nope. The Universe is actually a giant 4-dimensional hologram.

[Phi for All]

HANNONRJ REPLIES: To raise questions or to disagree is "straw-manning"?

Wow, you can actually respond to an accusation of strawmanning with another strawman. That's a rare talent.

There is no "authority" as to the nature of the universe. There is only opinion. Current physics in that regard is nothing but the generally accepted opinion of members of the physics establishment.

"Generally accepted" in science is not "opinion", in the same way that "theory" in science is not just "an idea". I see why you would want it to be otherwise; you seem interested in having your "opinion" hold the same weight as someone who has studied and applied what is generally accepted (and understands it).

[Vexer]

Nope. The Universe is actually a giant 4-dimensional hologram.

 

I quite go for the hologram idea. Fractal too. I really do.

 

I guess, "physical" seems some defining.

 

(But I'm sure someone has said that before (before(before(before)))