too-open-minded Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 My idea - For something to have mass it must be in motion. More motion shows more energy. More mass is more energy. Everything is energy just on a different frequency. Everything is in motion and nothing is at a halt. The universe like a photon, always in motion. For something to not be in motion means it would have no mass and no energy. Could the universe always be in motion and never at a standstill? The universe has always been and hopefully always will be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 What do you mean by "in motion?" You can always boost to a reference frame where something is at rest, with the exception of luxons which travel at the speed of light in all reference frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 More to the point any such theory not only has to work with our universe as it is it also has to work with a less complicated model. The simplest non empty model is a universe with only one particle. For a universe with only one particle, motion is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Why would this make 0 impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 Your taking me too literal, I mean 0 as in 0 energy. Basically the universe has always been in motion to have energy. The universe has always been and didn't come up from nothing. It didn't come from nothing and will never become nothing, I hope lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Literally, 0 is not determinedly possible. Its a mere human concept, as are all numbers. For example, "69" is impossible, at least around here. See what I did there (probably not)? That was more than a joke. Edited August 14, 2012 by Ben Bowen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Your taking me too literal, I mean 0 as in 0 energy. Basically the universe has always been in motion to have energy. The universe has always been and didn't come up from nothing. It didn't come from nothing and will never become nothing, I hope lol. This just seems like a bunch of nonsense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 ! Moderator Note moved to speculations. please take a moment to read the rules that apply to that forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The 'energy' of a single particle in an otherwise empty universe is indeterminate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Nero Samuel Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Zero, as we see it, and as manupulated by mathematics is universally impossible. This shud be the bases of this speculation. By universally impossible, I mean that all zeros relative to earth's frame are non-zeros relative to some other frame. Another way of looking at it is this; there is nothing as zero energy, as long as there is motion. And I'm sure you'd agree that there would always be motion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 26, 2012 Author Share Posted August 26, 2012 YES, omfg thankyou finally someone that understand what i'm trying to say!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Another way of looking at it is this; there is nothing as zero energy, as long as there is motion. And I'm sure you'd agree that there would always be motion. Well I didn't agree with you either in post #10 or here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68393-what-is-motion/page__p__697494__fromsearch__1#entry697494 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 26, 2012 Author Share Posted August 26, 2012 Actually it sounds like you agree with me I just wasn't really sure. O'nero just made it very obvious and the thing about motion. Its just I get shot down so much and told i'm crazy or have no clue what i'm talking about. To actually have someone not disagree with me or even acknowledge what I have to say as legitimate is very reassuring psychologically for me. Thankyou, i'm so used to people not understanding me its hard to tell when someone is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) What I said was the concepts of motion and energy are indeterminate and meaningless in certain theoretical universes. That does not mean they do not apply to our universe. In our universe it is unknown whether there are any points or particles at zero energy or zero motion. If our universe is infinite then it a zero of either is impossible. If our universe is finite than it is conceivable that somewhere every effect could 'cancel out' instantaneously. But since our universe is in constant motion that event would only occur instantaneously. Edited August 26, 2012 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Nero Samuel Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Whether you agree with me or not is of no consequence. I'm working on this idea already, i call it THE ZERO THEOREM. Its speculative nature, and its logical distance from experienced reality would not allow me make an argument for now. Its big, its deep and it would change everything. Too opened minded, if you are working on it continue, you re on the right track. Every of our zeros, whether of energy, space or time, are arbitrary, and are well define in some other frame of reference compared to our frame where they are undefined. I call this the zero function. Zero functions are unique mathematical variables, as though they are undefined in our frame, their combination can make functions that transform back into our "defined domain. This might sound like total nonsense, because it, but its final manifestation would suprise the world, and change our concept4ons of the term ENERGY. Edited August 26, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 This might sound like total nonsense, because it............. " is " was the word you missed out. And it certainly is nonsense. Whether you agree with me or not is of no consequence. Perhaps when you are in the mood for polite and rational discussion we can engage in one. go well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 26, 2012 Author Share Posted August 26, 2012 No I think I see what he is trying to say, unless i'm just insane and have found another person just as crazy as I am. He is being very broad so maybe i'm interpreting what he is saying the way I want to. Otherwise its a rather large concept and trying to write it out would just make it sound more complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Would those of you who don't believe in zero please let me know how many unicorns there are in the room with you at the moment? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 26, 2012 Author Share Posted August 26, 2012 The concept of zero and nothing is real. We are not arguing that. If you go bankrupt you have 0 moneys left. We are talking about something incremental dealing with the size of our universe and energy of it. If you find the mass of our universe then go to zero. It might look like zero to us, but its not. Think of it like on a number line, you imagine all the negatives but are they really negative? Apply that to what I just said. Just remember that people who made large steps for science at one point in the distant past were executed or recently were ridiculed and laughed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Just remember that people who made large steps for science at one point in the distant past were executed or recently were ridiculed and laughed at. MOST ideas don't work, so this isn't a rational argument. You HAVE to do better than this in explaining your concepts, because "People laughed at Galileo" is the crackpot motto. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 lol yeah I guess your right. I'm well aware that I may be a crackpot and these things only make sense to me because they don't to anybody else. I'm also open to the fact I might be on to something. Can you guys atleast ask me what i'm talking about that you don't understand or point out flaws in my argument instead of asking me "how many unicorns are in my room?" I'm not going to do anything irrational even if people keep it up but it is kind of depressing to be belittled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 I'm not going to do anything irrational even if people keep it up but it is kind of depressing to be belittled. I'm not calling you a crackpot, and I'm not belittling you. I'm saying you have to figure out how to make your arguments more cogent. You can't fall back on crackpot arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted August 27, 2012 Author Share Posted August 27, 2012 Not you so much as people making remarks about things like unicorns... To be honest if I went deeper into my hypotheses you really would think I was a crackpot if you don't already. I would rather just throw some concepts out and ask weird questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Nero Samuel Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Studiot, sorry if I didn't sound polite earlier. One gets easily irrasible when his believes, no matter how stupid they may seem; maybe more so when they are stupid, is put to the mud. Because this theory really is when contrasted with what we know as rational. But it is real. The fault is mine, I haven't discovered a "simple and apparent way" to bring it to the mainstream ways of refined thought; thats my job, and I'm working on it. "How many unicorns I see in my room? ... About six. Actually it was nine, but I sent the purple ones away. Why? I don't like purple so much. I'd be glad if you could tell me how many unicorns I have sent away so far? On a serious note, Too-open-minded, it surprises me that someones' thought is also delving into this madness. I would have ask for us to share notes, but I think it would be too early. When I have more grounds I'd contact you. Your analogy with number line was okay, but it still doesn't portray the depth of this theory. But going with that same analogy, its like multiplying two very negative numbers and having a very positive number; far more involved than that though. Edited August 27, 2012 by O'Nero Samuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now