A natural phenomena for conservation and invariance

[URAIN]

In physics forum's topic "drawback of conservation law?" we, the forum members were came to the conclusion that "By assumption we may say, this universe will be invariant. But now in science we are not able say 'this universe will always invariant" with a perfection.

 

Now I had posted a theory named Prem Parvathi principle theory, from this theory we can perfectly say that this universe will be invariant always without a small doubt. Theory posted on blog www.baseforreincarnation.wordpress.com

 

The main idea of this theory is, including living organism anything neither be created nor destroyed. Because the entities (living and non living) may exist at any time but we cant say these are not existed now. Because "not existing of anything is not possible" or "nothing has not existed in this universe"

 

From this theory we know all entities which were existed at past, they have existed now also.

 

In other side any new entity (living and non living) will not come to existence. This seems to be like law of conservation energy. But by law conservation energy, we can't say anything newly not created.

 

Because if we ask why anything newly not created? then we will not get satisfied answer. (for this invariance may be the answer but for unknown galaxies this invariance also remain as a assumption)

 

If members have any doubt and questions please post it. I will try to clear the doubt and questions.

 

 

 

 

[Schrödinger's hat]

Conservation laws usually come from some kind of symmetry.

Can you put a rigid definition on what life is and suggest some symmetry that may be satisfied by conservation of life?

[URAIN]

Conservation laws usually come from some kind of symmetry.

Can you put a rigid definition on what life is and suggest some symmetry that may be satisfied by conservation of life?

 

( I have searched "philosophy of science" section in this forum to start this topic. But I was not found. Topic is moved its ok.)

 

 

 

Dear friend,

 

 

 

This theory named as "Prem Parvathi principle theory". In this theory what I had said, that was on the basis of the principle (It is Metaphysics). I have not considered any entity (living or non living entity) as energy or matter or soul. I have considered these all as existences (which are being existed now).

 

 

 

If we consider a non living thing as existence, then that is ok. But we consider that as a life, then that will be incorrect.

 

The samething is not apply to living organism. If we consider a living organism as life then also, it will correct and if we consider life as existence then also it will be correct.

 

 

 

(Any one will not reject, if I consider him as an existence and any evidence or proof is not required to consider ourselves as existence. Because we know we have existed, now.)

 

I hope you had not read my theory. Therefore I am asking a question. I request you to try to answer as a response and please answer without reading my theory.

 

(Those who were read the theory please do not give the answer. Who had not read the theory may give answer.)

 

 

 

Conservation law says energy and matter changes from one form to another form. But total quantity of energy +matter is not changed.

 

 

 

If I consider whole universe, entities quantity as 'N' amount then, what will be remain outside universe?

 

 

 

(I will wait for some time. Any body may give answer. Actually it is my duty to answer your question but I am trying to know which answer will come from the person who had not read my theory.And it will be easy to explain you about conservation, if any one given answer.)

 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2011 by URAIN

[Pincho Paxton]

Ok, let's say for simplicity that we are 1 billion particles.. say atoms. We are 1 billion atoms for simplicity. When we die, we become dust.. 1 billion atoms of dust. Our electricity becomes static electricity. The total is what we were, nothing is lost. So conservation works no matter how you decide to propose it. I believe in the Aether, and we become Aether, still nothing lost. In fact, nearly any proposal you can make will work. It's very easy to attribute conservation of energy to most situations.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[URAIN]

Ok, let's say for simplicity that we are 1 billion particles.. say atoms. We are 1 billion atoms for simplicity. When we die, we become dust.. 1 billion atoms of dust. Our electricity becomes static electricity. The total is what we were, nothing is lost. So conservation works no matter how you decide to propose it. I believe in the Aether, and we become Aether, still nothing lost. In fact, nearly any proposal you can make will work. It's very easy to attribute conservation of energy to most situations.

 

You had not read the discussion topic "drawback of conservation energy?" fully. There mainly two question remained without getting satisfied answer.

 

1) "Why" conservation takes place?

 

 

 

2) Is there any rule exist in present science, from which we are able to say with "perfection" (by not an assumption) that "this universe will be invariant (and conserved) always" .

 

For first question swansont given answer as invariance rule. Second question is answered with "no". (You have to read this discussion once http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/58813-drawback-of-conservation-law/)

 

 

 

Starting of this topic I have said that by "assumption" we may say this universe will invariant (conserved). But for saying with "perfection" we are not able.

 

If you have positive answers for this question please give with reply.

 

(My theory give satisfied answers to both questions.)

 

Before I had planned that again I have to come here (sfn) for giving answer (what is exist outside universe?) for my above question. But I came here, I hope this will not divert the discussion and I request to the member again, for giving answer for my above question.

 

 

[Pincho Paxton]

You had not read the discussion topic "drawback of conservation energy?" fully. There mainly two question remained without getting satisfied answer.

 

1) "Why" conservation takes place?

 

 

 

2) Is there any rule exist in present science, from which we are able to say with "perfection" (by not an assumption) that "this universe will be invariant (and conserved) always" .

 

For first question swansont given answer as invariance rule. Second question is answered with "no". (You have to read this discussion once http://www.sciencefo...nservation-law/)

 

 

 

Starting of this topic I have said that by "assumption" we may say this universe will invariant (conserved). But for saying with "perfection" we are not able.

 

If you have positive answers for this question please give with reply.

 

(My theory give satisfied answers to both questions.)

 

Before I had planned that again I have to come here (sfn) for giving answer (what is exist outside universe?) for my above question. But I came here, I hope this will not divert the discussion and I request to the member again, for giving answer for my above question.

 

 

 

Yes I can answer the questions. currently mathematicians use high level maths to describe the universe, but you can break maths down to very simple forms like binary code. You can say that switches are either on, or off, or you could say that particles are either apart, or overlapping. You can break all of the Universe into a very simple mathematical formula...

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

+1 would be a particle membrane.

-1 would be the hole in the middle of the particle.

0 would be the vacuum that they are surrounded by.

 

From this particle you can create the entire universe, because the total of the membrane, the hole, and the vacuum will work together to create Trinary code results.

 

But not only that, but their average is zero.. and the average is therefore energy conservation.

[URAIN]

Yes I can answer the questions. currently mathematicians use high level maths to describe the universe, but you can break maths down to very simple forms like binary code. You can say that switches are either on, or off, or you could say that particles are either apart, or overlapping. You can break all of the Universe into a very simple mathematical formula...

 

+1 + -1 = 0.

 

+1 would be a particle membrane.

-1 would be the hole in the middle of the particle.

0 would be the vacuum that they are surrounded by.

 

From this particle you can create the entire universe, because the total of the membrane, the hole, and the vacuum will work together to create Trinary code results.

 

But not only that, but their average is zero.. and the average is therefore energy conservation.

 

Dear friend,

 

I hope you are telling that vacuum exist outside the 'N' amount (or outside universe). Is not it?

 

Please answer with yes or no

[Pincho Paxton]

Dear friend,

 

I hope you are telling that vacuum exist outside the 'N' amount (or outside universe). Is not it?

 

Please answer with yes or no

 

no.

[URAIN]

no.

 

If any one try to answer for the question, which is existed outside the 'N' amount? (or outside the universe) then it will easy to explain about my theories principle.

[Pincho Paxton]

If any one try to answer for the question, which is existed outside the 'N' amount? (or outside the universe) then it will easy to explain about my theories principle.

 

I have tried to break particles down to their simplest form. The creation of particles. And using my idea.. Outside the Universe is the same as inside the Universe apart from nothing has collided yet to fold into a black hole to create a Galaxy. So the rules are the same.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[URAIN]

Outside the Universe is the same as inside the Universe

 

Outside the Universeis the "same" as inside

Do you clear me the word 'same' ? what is 'same'? please say in particular.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Outside the Universeis the "same" as inside

Do you clear me the word 'same' ? what is 'same'? please say in particular.

 

 

It's only my own working out, based on some scientific experiments from the past. Many years ago science, and Einstein used a material called Aether. The Aether could not be found, so science decided that it didn't exist. But in science there are lots of things that can't be found.. Higgs Boson, Dark Matter, Space Time. So instead, I worked on why the Aether can't be found. And once I figured out why it couldn't be found, I figured out that it is everywhere, including outside the Universe. But it collides to create new particles, and black holes. Outside the Universe it just hasn't collided so much. But the rules are the same.

[URAIN]

It's only my own working out, based on some scientific experiments from the past. Many years ago science, and Einstein used a material called Aether. The Aether could not be found, so science decided that it didn't exist. But in science there are lots of things that can't be found.. Higgs Boson, Dark Matter, Space Time. So instead, I worked on why the Aether can't be found. And once I figured out why it couldn't be found, I figured out that it is everywhere, including outside the Universe. But it collides to create new particles, and black holes. Outside the Universe it just hasn't collided so much. But the rules are the same.

 

I wish best of luck for your assumptions or speculations. (science may consider it)

 

It was good (for discussion) if you had given reply from present science. Anyway you had said Aether is everywhere including outside the universe.

 

Up-to where you consider Universe is exist and where outside of universe will start. (I mean boundary of universe)

 

 

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I wish best of luck for your assumptions or speculations. (science may consider it)

 

It was good (for discussion) if you had given reply from present science. Anyway you had said Aether is everywhere including outside the universe.

 

Up-to where you consider Universe is exist and where outside of universe will start. (I mean boundary of universe)

 

 

 

 

When you blow a bubble you have air going in, and air pressure on the outside. The Universe has gravity going in, and magnetism coming out. So the Universe would have a bubble around it. Outside the bubble, there can be new bubbles.

[URAIN]

When you blow a bubble you have air going in, and air pressure on the outside. The Universe has gravity going in, and magnetism coming out. So the Universe would have a bubble around it. Outside the bubble, there can be new bubbles.

 

I think you hadn't given importance to the words 'whole' (all) and 'existences' (entities) which are in my question.

 

My question was,

 

If I consider whole universe existences as N amount then, what remain outside N amount?

 

I will wait for once then after I will answer it and explain the base for conservation and invariance.

 

 

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I think you hadn't given importance to the words 'whole' (all) and 'existences' (entities) which are in my question.

 

My question was,

 

If I consider whole universe existences as N amount then, what remain outside N amount?

 

I will wait for once then after I will answer it and explain the base for conservation and invariance.

 

 

 

 

Outside N amount is +1 + -1 = 0. A total of zero, made from an invisible structure +1 and -1. That structure is infinite. It's easy to get confused and think that nothing is just 0. But nothing is made from +1 and -1 combined, else the universe wouldn't exist at all.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Pincho Paxton

[URAIN]

Outside N amount is +1 + -1 = 0. A total of zero, made from an invisible structure +1 and -1. That structure is infinite. It's easy to get confused and think that nothing is just 0. But nothing is made from +1 and -1 combined, else the universe wouldn't exist at all.

 

 

 

 

Some part of your answer tally with my answer but some difference is also there.

 

Already I had said, my all statements are depending on the Prem Parvathi principle. Again I will say that, "In my answer, what I will say that is also on the base of Prem Parvathi principle". Therefore before anyone comment on my answer, please you have to see the principle once or check the correctness of principle then after you can comment on my answer.

 

First I focus on, what is same in your and my answer.

 

If I am not wrong, I think, you had tried to say that '0' is also part of this universe. This is tally with my answer.

 

Differences

 

Difference is you had considered '0' outside of the universe. I will not consider 0 outside of universe.

 

You had not considered 'nothing' in existences or in N amount. You considered 'nothing' in out off N amount.

 

But I consider 'nothing' also in existences or N amount. Nothing is in N amount.

 

My answer fallows for the question 'what has existed outside N amount?'

 

Answer : The question of outside of the universe only arise, when this universe has the boundaries or when this universe has limitations. In my opinion this universe has not any boundaries or any limitations. This universe is unlimited or infinite.

 

(Therefore actual wisdom is that If we will not go to the outside of universe.

 

Although if anyone asks that "what has existed outside universe"

 

Then answer will be "our ignorance has existed outside of the universe".)

 

You had tried to say "nothing" is also part of universe. But you are not considering that is in the existences. My question is, If nothing has not existed then, how it will become part of universe?

 

I think you had said nothing only comes when we calculate the total N amount. But I say nothing has existed after calculation and it is existed prior of calculation also. Space or vacuum is nothing.

 

I would like to use this science forum as a stage to announce that space or vacuum is also an existence.

 

I am saying this because Prem Parvathi principle says that "nothing has not existed in this universe, at anytime, at anywhere. only existence has existed" and to which you are saying 'nothing' that is not nothing but something.

 

Once again we see principle "Nothing has not existed".

 

Which has not existed at past, at present and in future also, that is real not existence. And we will not able to know this not existence at any time and at anywhere. Apart of this not existence all are existences.

 

If we know anything has existed at anytime, anywhere then that will be the existence. We know space or vacuum existed in this universe. Therefore this nothing also an existence. The actual 'nothing' or 'not existence' is only that which has not existed at past at present and in future or which is unknown at all times.

 

(I think immediately you will not understand it. If anyone raised the doubts and questions, I will go next. For logic you notice that this 'not existence' or 'nothing' word also has existed. OR 'not existence'/ 'nothing' word also an existence. Therefore nothing has not existed at anytime and at anywhere. It is only understandable, verbally by words, it is not possible to say this principle.)

 

Therefore if we consider all universe existences as N amount then, (how much time may moved in this universe,) any alteration will not come in N amount, it will remain always same as N amount. Hence we can say with perfection that this universe conserved and invariant always (with perfection).

 

(For discussion purpose we have to consider your nothing or 0 zero as something else we and readers will get confused. Because I am saying nothing has not existed anywhere and at anytime. You are saying that nothing has existed outside of universe)

Edited September 21, 2011 by URAIN

[Pincho Paxton]

We are energy vessels. You fill a glass with water, it is a vessel, a container. You tip the water out, it is on the floor, but in the glass it had form, and shape. It was maybe a cylinder of water, it had a cylindrical shape, and shape is mathematical. the water in the glass had mathematical qualities that were lost when you tipped it on the floor. We are containers, and we shape our minds with energy that fills up vessels. When we die, the energy exists, but the mathematical shapes are lost. Shapes are not a part of energy conservation. Entropy only likes spherical shapes.. they are free somehow of mathematical construction. Some shapes are mathematical.. the Universe to create squares would require logic.. a construction system, and if you look deeply at a square, it is made up from sphere.. atoms. Each person is a mathematical construction.. the Universal law of conservation actually means that re-incarnation has to disobey those laws. Humans, just by standing upright under Gravity are constantly trying to break the laws of the Universe. We evolve to break the laws of the Universe. You theory is fine, but not under the term energy conservation. Your theory works under the term EVOLUTION.

[URAIN]

We are energy vessels. You fill a glass with water, it is a vessel, a container. You tip the water out, it is on the floor, but in the glass it had form, and shape. It was maybe a cylinder of water, it had a cylindrical shape, and shape is mathematical. the water in the glass had mathematical qualities that were lost when you tipped it on the floor. We are containers, and we shape our minds with energy that fills up vessels. When we die, the energy exists, but the mathematical shapes are lost. Shapes are not a part of energy conservation. Entropy only likes spherical shapes.. they are free somehow of mathematical construction. Some shapes are mathematical.. the Universe to create squares would require logic.. a construction system, and if you look deeply at a square, it is made up from sphere.. atoms. Each person is a mathematical construction.. the Universal law of conservation actually means that re-incarnation has to disobey those laws. Humans, just by standing upright under Gravity are constantly trying to break the laws of the Universe. We evolve to break the laws of the Universe. You theory is fine, but not under the term energy conservation. Your theory works under the term EVOLUTION.

 

Do you will not give, your valuable time for reading my theory?

[Pincho Paxton]

Do you will not give, your valuable time for reading my theory?

 

I read it. In fact I already use some of it.. like the part where we were not around before we were born, and are not around after we die. I have posted that a few times. But.. it doesn't work without applying hope, and faith. You have to assume that we can keep our minds in one piece. There is a scientific way...

 

Electrons store information in holes, so those holes could hold our information together. We could re-incarnate. But that is still an evolved state of matter.

[URAIN]

I read it. In fact I already use some of it.. like the part where we were not around before we were born, and are not around after we die. I have posted that a few times. But.. it doesn't work without applying hope, and faith. You have to assume that we can keep our minds in one piece. There is a scientific way...

 

Electrons store information in holes, so those holes could hold our information together. We could re-incarnate. But that is still an evolved state of matter.

 

If you read the theory you have noticed that about 30% part of reincarnation related theory is pending to be write. In theory I have only said that before birth also you had existed, after death also you will have existed. No doubt who read the theory they accept it and you have to keep it in mind that it is metaphysics related theory.

 

But I have not started this topic in the name of reincarnation. I would like to discuss it in another thread.

 

You said that your theory comes under term EVOLUTION. what I have to make to this come in the knowledge of scientists. Do you share your own ideas. I would like some science magazines or newspaper discuss about it.

 

What I have to do, to get acceptance from science world for my theory?

Edited September 22, 2011 by URAIN

[Pincho Paxton]

If you read the theory you have noticed that about 30% part of reincarnation related theory is pending to be write. In theory I have only said that before birth also you had existed, after death also you will have existed. No doubt who read the theory they accept it and you have to keep it in mind that it is metaphysics related theory.

 

But I have not started this topic in the name of reincarnation. I would like to discuss it in another thread.

 

You said that your theory comes under term EVOLUTION. what I have to make to this come in the knowledge of scientists. Do you share your own ideas. I would like some science magazines or newspaper discuss about it.

 

What I have to do, to get acceptance from science world for my theory?

 

You can't, your theory is a religious theory based on philosophy. You can only make a web page, and send people to it.

[URAIN]

You can't, your theory is a religious theory based on philosophy. You can only make a web page, and send people to it.

 

I not deny or reject, what you are saying. I had said this point when I have given my first response to schrodinger (you may see).

 

You have used the word EVOLUTION, therefore I asked.

 

But I am confident, science will not neglect my theory for more days ( You may note this) and I have not said fully what I knew.

Edited September 22, 2011 by URAIN