The Universe and the True Principles of Nature

[divinum1]

The universe for example is a huge system of self repetitive actions of Numbers Space and Light, who are the three basic quantities of nature by which all things consist and are subject to for as long as any reality exists. However to explain how the universe came into being and how it now operates, I would have to explain some fundamental facts about mater and energy.

The most common explanation about matter is that matter is anything that possesses 'mass' and occupy 'space'. Now from this very simple description one can clearly see that matter is perceived as a composition of two quantities, mass and space, both of which are scalar in character, but according to the True Principles of Nature no scalar quantity of any kind can exist nor come into being without a vector quantity and vice verse. Hence the present held view about matter is not based on the true aspect of nature and is therefore incomplete and therefore not yet fully understood. The same apply to energy the universe and everything in between.

However to make everyone to understand what is what, I have to explain the meanings of the three basic quantities of nature; Numbers space and Light.

These three quantities now exist in many different forms, hence each quantity represent a multiple variety of different things, consequently each quantity has a multiple variety of different meanings, and here are some of them;

Numbers for example indicate, an amount of, mass, matter, energy, molecule, atom, or particle e,t,c.

Space may indicate, an area, a volume, a sphere, a domain, a length, a distance, a diameter or a radius e,t,c.

Light on the other hand has many more qualities, but its general meanings are; action, operation, cooperation, motion, speed, velocity, force, power, might, and it even spells into the realm of life and knowledge such as mathematics and intelligence, and many more.

Now, these are just my opening remarks, and I am not to sure if i am on the proper forum.

 

[lemur]

Is it accurate to say that a black hole "occupies space?" Isn't a BH more like a rate of spacetime curvature into an undefined gravity well? Since it absorbs any and all energy, it doesn't really have inertia - or maybe you could say it has infinite inertia. I suppose it could have inertia in the sense that it can be pulled by gravity external to itself. Still, how can you say it "occupies space" if its gravitation exceeds the ability of its "contents" to achieve distance from each other via momentum? I would think that protons and electrons would collapse into neutrons and that neutrons don't have any ability to maintain volume under their own >C gravitation. But then maybe their are anti-collapse forces among their constituents (quarks?) that exceed the ability of BH gravity to compress them. Is there even sufficient knowledge to predict this?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved from Science News to Speculations due to its speculative nature.

[truedeity]

eh i dunno what all your saying... but I did wonder, maybe it could be easier to state that space can be identified by a minimum of 2 plank lenght's? I mean protons contain astronomical amounts of space I grasp, wrong? curious...

[Ophiolite]

Divinum, I find your opening remarks confusing. You appear to be using words in unconventional ways. For example you say "Light on the other hand has many more qualities, but its general meanings are; action, operation, cooperation, motion, speed, velocity, force, power, might, and it even spells into the realm of life and knowledge such as mathematics and intelligence, and many more."

 

That is certainly many more attributes of light than I would consider. I would need to see considerable justification to convince me that light = power, or light = velocity. Perhaps you will clarify matters in later posts.

[divinum1]

Is it accurate to say that a black hole "occupies space?" Isn't a BH more like a rate of spacetime curvature into an undefined gravity well? Since it absorbs any and all energy, it doesn't really have inertia - or maybe you could say it has infinite inertia. I suppose it could have inertia in the sense that it can be pulled by gravity external to itself. Still, how can you say it "occupies space" if its gravitation exceeds the ability of its "contents" to achieve distance from each other via momentum? I would think that protons and electrons would collapse into neutrons and that neutrons don't have any ability to maintain volume under their own >C gravitation. But then maybe their are anti-collapse forces among their constituents (quarks?) that exceed the ability of BH gravity to compress them. Is there even sufficient knowledge to predict this?

 

I am sorry for not answering to your questions, but my intent is to explain virtually everything about the universe rather than answering some specific questions. By continuing my writing, you and many others will find that the questions you or anybody else may ask will be answered in my topic.

However to answer on your question on Black Holes and space curvature, yes they do exist, but to explain why do they exist I would have to write many pages, but instead I will answer these questions in some future topics.

[lemur]

I am sorry for not answering to your questions, but my intent is to explain virtually everything about the universe rather than answering some specific questions. By continuing my writing, you and many others will find that the questions you or anybody else may ask will be answered in my topic.

However to answer on your question on Black Holes and space curvature, yes they do exist, but to explain why do they exist I would have to write many pages, but instead I will answer these questions in some future topics.

You referred to "occupying space" as a fundamental aspect of matter. That's why I brought up the issue of black holes, not because I wanted to discuss them specifically. Personally, I don't think space is something that exists prior to its being "occupied" by anything else. I think it is constituted from the relations of gravity and other forces, which is why I responded to that part of your post. It sounds like, however, that you just want to assert your ideas as "True Principles" and skirt any questions that bring up issues not convenient to supporting your ideas.

[divinum1]

The total amount of energy the universe consists of is; 1.65x10>71 Jules.

One half of which transformed into matter-mass; 9.17x10>53 kg.

While the other half remains in the form of energy-as gravitons; 8.25x10>70 Jules.

The total energy became divided into 2.60x10>13 groups.

One half of each group transformed into a 'proto star', whose mass was; 3.53x10>40 kg.

The total radius of the universe is; 6.77x10>26 m. (7.16x10>10 light years)

In the beginning this energy was introduced in tiny proportions, whose total number is; 1.24x10>104.

Each of these tiny unit of energy was preordained with the three basic quantities of nature. Hence instantly upon their introduction, they established a state of 'cooperation' (Light) between themselves.

And their cooperation was preordained to be on 'one to one' bases. And as the very first act of their cooperation became established they formed the very first complete particle of matter, which may be called 'gravitons' since the conditions they established we call 'gravitation.

Although the very first particle which I named 'divinum' is the one that exists in the highest form of energy (c/s>2). However, this tiny unit of energy-divinum is only a semi complete particle of matter or energy, because as an individual entity it only represents one half a complete reality.

After all divinas transformed into gravitons, then the gravitons took over all the actions upon themselves. And here is the order of particles as how they came into being;

 

First was the divinum, second was graviton, then there are four sub-particles, and then came the electron, and diatron, and neutron, and ultimately the proton, in that particular order. However, they all became created by gravitons.

A neutron for example is composed of; 5.67848x10>22 gravitons, and this number actually represent the extent of the electromagnetic spectrum.

A neutron is in fact a direct descendant of diatrons, who are paired units of electrons which exist in a contracted form, where their radii decrease by 12.8 times from their original state.

On the other hand, an electron for example is the second descendant of Numbers Space and Light, but but the very virtue of their nature (Light that is) they must establish a cooperation between themselves on one to one bases. And as they do so, they transform into a unit of two electrons, which I named 'diatron' (which may not be a proper name, but?). but as such they become neutral. And thereafter such diatrons under the squeeze of gravitons are forced onto the third and final descent, where they contract in radius, and in an orderly fashion through seven energy levels transform into neutrons. But even neutrons themselves are subject to cooperation (to light that is), and their cooperation must be established between themselves. But because neutrons are neutral, which clearly means that they arrived to the end of their spectrum, where their quantity 'Light' stops, it ceases in motion, and as a result, they exhibit no charge. But regardless of all this they still must establish a cooperation between themselves, and their time is limited to approx. 15 minutes after their creation. And here is what it happens when they do come to the end of their life-half life that is.

Such neutron reverses in its action of Light, what this means is that instead of adding up which it was doing up to the point of its completion, it then reverses in its action, which is, it turns into a state of subtraction. And since the neutron is composed of diatrons (920 of them) hence its subtractions are conducted in the form of which it is composed which is in the form of diatrons. And it is very well known in science for example what happens when a neutral atom for example looses some of its electrons, it become 'ionized', it become positive in nature, and exactly the same thing happens with a neutron. It subtracts by 20 diatrons, and this is considered as a mass defect. And thus a neutron transforms into a proton, hence a proton is not another particle, it is a neutron in an ionized state, but because it acts positive and is a bit smaller in mass, and is thus perceived as being another particle.

However, in nature there are eight (8) different proton masses, hence there is no such a thing as one kind of proton only.

Furthermore, all particles of matter are formed-created in the 'cores' of the stars as well as in some bigger planets like the Earth for example, and precisely for this reason, there are live volcanos on the Earth.

However, the entire universe is a self equilibrated system of Numbers Space and light. What this means is that if one side of either matter or energy overlaps the other side, then the other side contributes to the side that is under-lapping. An example; The Sun is radiated energy at a constant rate, all of which is being easily calculated, but what is not known is the reverse action that is taking place within the Sun at the same time. What this means is that whatever the amount of mass that keeps transforming into energy, a virtually equal amount of energy keeps adding up to the Sun at the same time. But because the fission of matter into energy is clearly visible to us, whereas the addition-fusion of energy into matter is completely invisible because it is contributed in the form of energy-directly by gravitons. Hence, you do not have to worry about the Sun ever burning out.

[divinum1]

You referred to "occupying space" as a fundamental aspect of matter. That's why I brought up the issue of black holes, not because I wanted to discuss them specifically. Personally, I don't think space is something that exists prior to its being "occupied" by anything else. I think it is constituted from the relations of gravity and other forces, which is why I responded to that part of your post. It sounds like, however, that you just want to assert your ideas as "True Principles" and skirt any questions that bring up issues not convenient to supporting your ideas.

 

Space is a quantity, but as space becomes a quantity, so do the other two Numbers (mass) and Light (force). And these three quantities are always directly proportional to one another regardless of the state they may exist, all of which can be mathematically formulated and verified. Therefore I am not hiding anything, because it is the language for mathematics that speaks for me, as well as for the nature itself. I only discovered the rue principles of nature, I didn't invent them, hence in the future you will come to a conclusion that they are the true principles of nature.

[mississippichem]

And these three quantities are always directly proportional to one another regardless of the state they may exist, all of which can be mathematically formulated and verified. Therefore I am not hiding anything, because it is the language for mathematics that speaks for me, as well as for the nature itself.

 

Alright then, lets see the said maths. So far you've posted a couple of tens of lines of word salad and dodged a question. You're not convincing me very well at this point.

 

I'd like to see your justification for:

according to the True Principles of Nature no scalar quantity of any kind can exist nor come into being without a vector quantity and vice verse. Hence the present held view about matter is not based on the true aspect of nature and is therefore incomplete and therefore not yet fully understood. The same apply to energy the universe and everything in between.

[lemur]

Space is a quantity, but as space becomes a quantity, so do the other two Numbers (mass) and Light (force).

how is space a quantity or how does it become a quantity? What do you mean by light being force? Do you mean it consists of electric and magnetic fields, which are force? Do you realize these fields also move and transmit energy? Do you see any difference between force and energy? And what do you mean by "Numbers (mass)?" Are you writing these things as physics or metaphysics?

[Ophiolite]

I am sorry for not answering to your questions, but my intent is to explain virtually everything about the universe rather than answering some specific questions.

I am reasonably sure that this is against the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules. Please respond to the questions aand points raised in my earlier post. If you choose not to do so I will be compelled to report your thread and ask for moderator action. This is a discussion forum, not a blog or pulpit.

[divinum1]

Divinum, I find your opening remarks confusing. You appear to be using words in unconventional ways. For example you say "Light on the other hand has many more qualities, but its general meanings are; action, operation, cooperation, motion, speed, velocity, force, power, might, and it even spells into the realm of life and knowledge such as mathematics and intelligence, and many more."

 

That is certainly many more attributes of light than I would consider. I would need to see considerable justification to convince me that light = power, or light = velocity. Perhaps you will clarify matters in later posts.

Yes, the connotation of the word 'light' does pertain a multiple variety of different meanings as I stated them above, but in our ordinary everyday language light has only one meaning, and that is 'light' as we understand it; that by which we see; or as a form of radiant energy that act on our retina of the eye and thereby we see things as they are.

whereas the multiple meaning of the word 'light' I extracted from the Bible, where I became fully convinced that this is exactly what it means. Because it doesn't refer to the light as we understand it, instead the word 'Light' is a vector quantity, hence it has direction and power and speed, and as I stated above, it has direct relationship with the other two quantities Numbers (mass-energy) and Space (distance-radius). And because these three quantities are always directly proportional to one another regardless of the state they may exist in, for this reason, these three quantities can be mathematically formulated-into an equation and clearly verified. And because the quantity "light' is a limited factor in the universe (c/s), consequently all other quantities are limited in accordance of such, which includes the universe itself and everything within it.

And from this very basic factor of light (c/s) and the gravitational constant (G), I came to a conclusion of how big the universe is, in all three respects; in mass-energy, in radius-diameter, and in force as well. But 'Light' as a quantity pertains many more qualities, many of which can not even be perceived as quantities; such as life, knowledge-intelligence and even self consciousness; can these be classified as quantities?

For this reason, Light was considered as the prime quantity of 'All', and rightfully so, since everything that is created by this specific quantity is called "God" or the Spirit of God.

Now if I am trying to describe the creation of the world in a scientific manner, It is virtually impossible without including the word "God" or the Spirit of God in to it. And yet in science the same God is described as "matter and energy" which are just two different modes of God's own manifestation, but nobody is aware of this. I hope that this clarifies the multiple meaning of the word"Light'.

 

how is space a quantity or how does it become a quantity? What do you mean by light being force? Do you mean it consists of electric and magnetic fields, which are force? Do you realize these fields also move and transmit energy? Do you see any difference between force and energy? And what do you mean by "Numbers (mass)?" Are you writing these things as physics or metaphysics?

 

The universe is divided into two equal halves, one of which we now call 'matter', and the other we call 'energy'. The so called matter or mass is the physical part of the universe, whereas the part we call energy is the metaphysical part of the universe, and the two are connected, not only connected but directly related and dependent on one another, which means that one can not exist without the other.

The metaphysical half of the universe exists in the highest form of energy, which is actually in the form of 'gravitons' who are composed of two sub particles. And these tiny sub particles are also in the highest form of energy (c/s), but their energy is expressed in a form of kinetic energy, which clearly means that each of these sub particles pertains a mass, or otherwise it could not carry kinetic energy. And the same is true about gravitons. Now these so called sub particles of which a graviton is formed, is the smallest piece of matter in the universe, or the smallest unit of energy, and as such it may be considered as a metaphysical reality and so is the graviton. None of which can be excluded from the realm we call 'universe'. And from these tiny units of energy the universe itself is formed-created.

In the beginning when the first of these tiny particles came into existence, so did the three basic quantities Numbers (energy-mass) Space (radius of it), and Light (force of it). Therefore it is this tiny quantity that displays itself in three different forms or quantities. And this is how the very beginning of the universe was initiated, and all aspects that we can see and measure and even the one we can see derive from these tiny units of energy (which I estimated to be approx. 1.4745x10<50 kg.)

Thus space does become a quantity as this tiny unit of energy establishes its domain in it, but please do not ask me how these tiny units of energy are initiated, by who or by what?

However, these tiny units of energy become an 'action' in space, and this very action expresses itself in a multiple variety of different forms or qualities, and this action was called 'Light', hence i only reinstated it in its original form, which does not relate to light as we understand it. The meaning of the word 'Light' is by far more profound then anyone can think. I hope you got the message.

[lemur]

However, these tiny units of energy become an 'action' in space, and this very action expresses itself in a multiple variety of different forms or qualities, and this action was called 'Light', hence i only reinstated it in its original form, which does not relate to light as we understand it. The meaning of the word 'Light' is by far more profound then anyone can think. I hope you got the message.

I think this line of thought contains ideas that could be philosophically interesting at a metaphysical level. But since you're posting in a science forum, I would recommend posting such thoughts with a title other than "the universe and the true principles of nature," which sounds like physics. You should make a post in religion or philosophy titled something like, "philosophical significance and meaning of light and other physical entities in metaphysical terms." I can certainly see how the association of light with God and creation could relate to the physics line of research that finds light to have energy, momentum, force and other action-producing qualities, including perhaps being a basis for matter itself. But if you want to discuss the philosophical significance of that, you should be up front about it when starting a thread.

[Dave49]

Well....sure. What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

[divinum1]

Well....sure. What I want to know is, simply, when did the first "something" appear in the void of "nothing"? And how did it come into "being"?

 

Well to answer to your question as when did this first something come into being out of nothing, it is virtually impossible to know time-wise. But this was long before the universe was initiated. How this something itself became initiated I do not know, but what I do now, or at least I believe that I do know, is how small it is (was) in proportion of mass, space and speed; My estimation is that it has a mass of; 1.4745x10<50 kg. with a radius of; 2.718x10<14 m. and its speed is equal to; c/s. I even have an idea how it gained its mass, but this is more than speculative, so leave it at that for now.

What this leads into is that there never was a Big Bang, because there is one specific formula-equation that proves mathematically that this is an impossibility, because gravitational force first keeps increasing up to the speed of light (c/s), and then it turns into a reversible state, which means that as the radius of a mass increases, the force inversely decreasing. And if the mass would increase for indefinitely, then the force would become zero again. Although this never happens due to gravitons limitations. For this reason, the entire energy of the universe became divided into 2.60x10>13 individual groups, each of which first transformed into a

'proto star' whose mass was; 3.53x10>40 kg. And at that point in time and space the proto star fells apart, it disintegrates into billions of smaller pieces, which later became a galaxy.

In the beginning the entire energy of the universe first transformed into 'gravitons', and because gravitons are limited in all three respects, as a result, they can not cooperate as one single system, because they can only extend up to the speed of light (c/s), which determines how many gravitons, and how much space they can occupy. And precisely for this reason, they became divided into so many groups. And from each of those groups one half of gravitons transformed into matter-mass. Although it took a long time before they transformed into the first proto star. I call it a proto star because it only existed once. However, to understand how and why it happened the way it happened, one should have a complete knowledge about gravitation. For what I will tell you now it may be a surprise to you.

And that is; gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces, one of which is already known as 'g' force or as centripetal force (Fc), and the other is; the orbital force (Fo). And these two forces are directly proportional to one another, and the radius of the mass from which they derive. Moreover, this new force (F0) orbital force that is, is hundreds and even thousands of time more powerful than the force that we now know. And I believe that it this force that is now being perceived as; 'dark energy'.

I hope that this answers some of your questions; have a good day!!!

[Ophiolite]

How did you arrive at the figure of 1.65x10>71 Jules for the energy of the universe?

Is this only the visible universe? If not, how have you determined the total size of the universe?

 

.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you Divinum for your clarification of your usage of the word light. As lemur has pointed out this is not a scientific use of the term and your associated thoughts do not really have a scientific basis. They are speculations of a philosophical, or even religious nature. As such I'm not sure I have much interest in pursuing them further. Thank you for your time.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Threads with almost identical titles merged. Only one per customer per topic.

[divinum1]

How did you arrive at the figure of 1.65x10>71 Jules for the energy of the universe?

Is this only the visible universe? If not, how have you determined the total size of the universe?

 

.

I simply used the two basic constants of nature; c/s and G (universal gravitational constant)

both of which are directly related to the three basic quantities; mass, space, and force.

And by reversing the process I obtained the amount of energy that the universe consists of, as well as how many energy units (divinas) there are. Since the speed of light is a limited factor in the universe, and light being one the principal quantities of nature, consequently all quantities of nature are limited in accordance of such.

 

Alright then, lets see the said maths. So far you've posted a couple of tens of lines of word salad and dodged a question. You're not convincing me very well at this point.

 

I'd like to see your justification for:

 

I clearly understand your frustration about my claims, but you do not understand mine. Do you really think that I should just give my mathematical formulas-equations away without any consideration?. For I am fully aware that without them I can not prove anything, specifically in science. And precisely for this reason my threat was removed from science forum to speculation, and now I do not know if I should participate on any form at all. Now if you understand my frustration, give me a suggestion as what should I do:

[Ophiolite]

I clearly understand your frustration about my claims, but you do not understand mine. Do you really think that I should just give my mathematical formulas-equations away without any consideration?

So far your posts, as mississippichem has pointed out, are mainly word salad. They are almost incoherent, sound like fourth rate waffle, offer no clear terminology, present no cohesively linked argument and deliver a vague speculation which is completely unsubstantiated. And these are the good points!

 

The only way you can retain a smidgeon of credibility is to offer something substantive in the way of a mathematical treatment of your idea. If you choose not to do so the conclusion will likely be that you are another sincere individual who has deluded themselves into believing they have discovered something fundamental about the universe, but actually has only some trite, vague oversimplifications.

 

You could start by explaining this in rigorous terms: "I simply used the two basic constants of nature; c/s and G (universal gravitational constant)

both of which are directly related to the three basic quantities; mass, space, and force.

And by reversing the process I obtained the amount of energy that the universe consists of..."

[swansont]

I clearly understand your frustration about my claims, but you do not understand mine. Do you really think that I should just give my mathematical formulas-equations away without any consideration?. For I am fully aware that without them I can not prove anything, specifically in science. And precisely for this reason my threat was removed from science forum to speculation, and now I do not know if I should participate on any form at all. Now if you understand my frustration, give me a suggestion as what should I do:

 

!

Moderator Note

This is a discussion forum, so you really have only one option if you continue to post.

[divinum1]

eh i dunno what all your saying... but I did wonder, maybe it could be easier to state that space can be identified by a minimum of 2 plank lenght's? I mean protons contain astronomical amounts of space I grasp, wrong? curious...

 

It is true that each particle of matter occupies a volume of space that is equal to E= mc2, which means that the density of every particles is limited in accordance of E=mc2. And the same apply to all masses.

[lemur]

It is true that each particle of matter occupies a volume of space that is equal to E= mc2, which means that the density of every particles is limited in accordance of E=mc2. And the same apply to all masses.

How do you define the boundaries of a fundamental particle of matter in order to measure its volume?

[divinum1]

How do you define the boundaries of a fundamental particle of matter in order to measure its volume?

 

It is the speed of light (c/s) who is the principal quantity of all, and since it is a limited factor of c/s, consequently all other quantities are directly proportional to it. which includes; mass its density radius and force. Hence the maximum density of a particle can not exceed E=mc2, because if the radius of a particle is supposedly infinite then the density of the mass would surpass E=mc2 which is impossible,. Because if that was the case then the particle's energy would surpass E=mc2. Which would mean that such particle would release more energy than E=mc2. And that would put Einstein in trouble, because his famous formula would no longer apply to his theory of mass=energy by c2. What this clearly suggests is that everything in the universe is limited in accordance of light speed (c/s), which includes even the universe itself. And from this point of perception I determined the limits of the universe, and the amount of energy it consists of. Which is very close to the actual observation and estimates of the universe at the present. And the same apply to all particles of matter, which means that they are all limited. But to describe everything in details is impossible to do so in only a few sentences. And if and whenever I try to do so, I have to use new words whereby my writing becomes unconventional, but scientifically correct.

So I hope that my explanation will gives you a clear insight about the volume of a particle and its density.