Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

Thanks spy.

I guess we have a different understanding of why the "Planck constant" might be relevant here. So you are saying that there was a small amount of time that is beyond our observations, where we don't as yet know what happened only that everything that would form our universe and all of it's physical laws including time and space itself, came into being? No disagreement there.

What would your point be?

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thanks spy.

I guess we have a different understanding of why the "Planck constant" might be relevant here. So you are saying that there was a small amount of time that is beyond our observations, where we don't as yet know what happened only that everything that would form our universe and all of it's physical laws including time and space itself, came into being? No disagreement there.

What would your point be?

edit on 12-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

You prity much sum it up above.

Light is the fastest know subject to us. Thereby light becomes the best known factor to determine the closest time of the first cause that formed Our universe.

-Planck Time is not zero time. It is 10-44 seconds after light have been emitted from Source. That means light have traveled from Source for 10-44 Seconds. The light must travel this long to be measured by Planck.

Panck time tells you something else. It descibes light traveling in a vacuum. This tells us something about the Space surrounding the Source emitting light.

This means that the void surrounding the Source "singularity" emitting light is of a vacuum void different than Our known vacuums. Because we measure light within the void of matter in Our universe "within the singularity".

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thanks spy.

I guess we have a different understanding of why the "Planck constant" might be relevant here. So you are saying that there was a small amount of time that is beyond our observations, where we don't as yet know what happened only that everything that would form our universe and all of it's physical laws including time and space itself, came into being? No disagreement there.

What would your point be?

edit on 12-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

I have the feeling that a lot of People think that the singularity just formed Our stars, platets and galaxies and thats it.
People dont seam to think that the stars, planets and galaxies still exists within a inflating sigularity. And that the Space between all these bodies in Space actually exist within the inflating singularity.

The matter that make up the Space between stars, planets and galaxies is actually what is inflating Our universe.

reply to post by spy66


You think the idea of the singularity comes about because of this; Imagine a graphing of the universe or space, x,y,z axis (3 dimensions which go out in their resepctive directions to infinity). If we model our 3 dimensional space our universe exists in/as, then since time and space has passed, and energy has moved relative to energy, when we measure a value on this graph it is traveling on the axis through space and time towards infinity. Now we are at this point and we want to know what this value was before this, and before that, and before that, and before and before and before. And because of our methods of mathamatical number values and graphing, eventually it seems all the values go back in time and back in space, towards the center of the graph where all the axis' meet, at zero. Is this an appropriate way to visualize why physicists speak of the term singularity and laws breaking down?

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thanks spy.

I guess we have a different understanding of why the "Planck constant" might be relevant here. So you are saying that there was a small amount of time that is beyond our observations, where we don't as yet know what happened only that everything that would form our universe and all of it's physical laws including time and space itself, came into being? No disagreement there.

What would your point be?

edit on 12-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

I have the feeling that a lot of People think that the singularity just formed Our stars, platets and galaxies and thats it.
People dont seam to think that the stars, planets and galaxies still exists within a inflating sigularity. And that the Space between all these bodies in Space actually exist within the inflating singularity.

The matter that make up the Space between stars, planets and galaxies is actually what is inflating Our universe.

The act of inflation occurring destroys the singularity. Singularities are a single point where the curvature of space time is infinite. we are not in a singularity and trust me you wouldn't want to be in one. However the universe is still expandint space time is being created are universe is going to go from infinite density to none.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Thanks spy.

I guess we have a different understanding of why the "Planck constant" might be relevant here. So you are saying that there was a small amount of time that is beyond our observations, where we don't as yet know what happened only that everything that would form our universe and all of it's physical laws including time and space itself, came into being? No disagreement there.

What would your point be?

edit on 12-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)

I have the feeling that a lot of People think that the singularity just formed Our stars, platets and galaxies and thats it.
People dont seam to think that the stars, planets and galaxies still exists within a inflating sigularity. And that the Space between all these bodies in Space actually exist within the inflating singularity.

The matter that make up the Space between stars, planets and galaxies is actually what is inflating Our universe.

The act of inflation occurring destroys the singularity.

What do you mean by this?

Your insight into the impossibility of "nothing" is excellent. However, the logic that you use to justify it does not really get you where you went.

You'll notice that there is a relationship between the effort required to move your hand and what you move it through. It is easier to move through air than water; easier to move through water than a stiff mix of highway-grade cement. One would expect the ease of motion to increase as the viscosity of the medium through which your hand is moving decreases. For example, astronauts have no difficulty moving their hands in outer space, or in vacuum chambers--- except that which is caused by the protective suit they wear to stay alive.

Someone in space or in a vacuum chamber without a protective suit would be able to move his hands easily, but briefly.

Do you imagine that there is some mysterious barrier that might separate the vacuum of deep space, with perhaps a few atoms per cubic meter, and a vacuum with zero atoms per meter?

Or to put it differently, suppose that your hand is stuck immobile in a cubic football field of empty space. Would the introduction of a hydrogen molecule into that space, so that it is no longer empty (except for you and your hand) somehow make it possible for you to move your hand?

reply to post by Greylorn


The issue of space is complex. First of all it is theorized that space was created in the big bang.

If space is absolute nothing, then does that mean there is an infinite amount of absolute nothingness surrounding the somethingness of energy and matter? Or is the energy and matter all that exists, with a barrier and a different kind of absolute nothingness beyond the universes boundaries, and what you call space, is a specific quantity of absolute nothing?

If all that existed we infinite nothingness and then your body, What would be your reference frame of movement? sure you could move your hand back and forth because of the nature of your bones, muscles and joints. But would you be constantly falling? if you went 100 miles to the left of where you appeared, what could you compare this movement to, what would be the meaning of your movement, with only nothing in relation to your motion?

If there is not infinite nothing absolute space, that implies there is a finite (like your football example) in which it would imply there are boundaries, in which case motion would have meaning, for you could move in relation to the boundaries, and a finite space has a quantized area.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

The issue of space is complex. First of all it is theorized that space was created in the big bang.

If space is absolute nothing, then does that mean there is an infinite amount of absolute nothingness surrounding the somethingness of energy and matter? Or is the energy and matter all that exists, with a barrier and a different kind of absolute nothingness beyond the universes boundaries, and what you call space, is a specific quantity of absolute nothing?

If all that existed we infinite nothingness and then your body, What would be your reference frame of movement? sure you could move your hand back and forth because of the nature of your bones, muscles and joints. But would you be constantly falling? if you went 100 miles to the left of where you appeared, what could you compare this movement to, what would be the meaning of your movement, with only nothing in relation to your motion?

If there is not infinite nothing absolute space, that implies there is a finite (like your football example) in which it would imply there are boundaries, in which case motion would have meaning, for you could move in relation to the boundaries, and a finite space has a quantized area.

IMA,
Let's have some fun with this. Let me state straight-away that I am not fond of Big Bang theory. In fact, I regard it as the worst pseudo-scientific claptrap since phlogiston theory. Cosmologists befuddled by the expansion of the universe invented it as their own version of the equally illogical omnipotent God theories of religionists. I'll drop an OP on this if I am ever allowed to initiate a thread, but in the meantime, consider your own excellent questions.

I propose that the concept of space is actually rather simple. The apparent complexities that you note result from an incorrect understanding of space.

If space is nothing, how could nothing have been created in the Big Bang?

IMO a "space" must be defined by something. I have found plenty of reasons to adopt the notion that the mysterious, recently discovered, dark energy defines the space in which our universe exists, and that the structures which define our more or less observable universe (matter, e/m & gravitational fields, etc.) are time-dependent forms of dark energy.

Dark energy is, of course, the aether. I'll make a case for this later, but in the meantime, curious readers might want to reference an old paper by John Schulenberger, "Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether."

Your thoughts about reference points are important, and can only be resolved by imagining a space filled with something such as my favorite candidate, dark energy. Imagine such a space, unbounded and unstructured, and not necessarily infinite. If a Maxwellian demon were to show up and gather some of this energy into a form or structure of some sort, this would establish a reference point.

If the demon moved elsewhere and made another structure, the concept of distance is immediately defined. If dark energy follows the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, these structures may change their positions with respect to one another, creating motion. Yet a third structure could be used as a vantage point from which to observe the motion and define an arbitrary notion of time. A fourth structure would carve out a definable volume.

reply to post by Greylorn


Hm, can you write in bullet form the minimum definable (by word) aspects of this universe?

So far if I understand you your list would be;

- Dark Energy


?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Hm, can you write in bullet form the minimum definable (by word) aspects of this universe?

So far if I understand you your list would be;

- Dark Energy


?

Three spaces of at least three dimensions each, and each space defined by a single unstructured "substance" with distinct properties.

1. Dark energy, the time-independent precursor to known forms of energy.

2. Aeon, the time-independent precursor to entities that act (or have the potential to act) as Maxwellian demons with respect to D.E. (i.e. they can exert a counterforce to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

3. A space at least one dimension higher than both of these, that contained them and supported a nasty collision between the two.

These are the minimum requirements for the universe we have heretofore discovered, and all empirical aspects of that universe, including conscious intelligence. "Minimum" because I must have missed something.

Originally posted by Greylorn


Three spaces of at least three dimensions each, and each space defined by a single unstructured "substance" with distinct properties.

1. Dark energy, the time-independent precursor to known forms of energy.

2. Aeon, the time-independent precursor to entities that act (or have the potential to act) as Maxwellian demons with respect to D.E. (i.e. they can exert a counterforce to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

3. A space at least one dimension higher than both of these, that contained them and supported a nasty collision between the two.

These are the minimum requirements for the universe we have heretofore discovered, and all empirical aspects of that universe, including conscious intelligence. "Minimum" because I must have missed something.

Im sorry but in my opinion your theory is absurd. How did you come to this conclusion? where did you get the 3 spaces from? How are they separated? How do they remain separate? Why only 3? Why not 2 or 1? Those spaces have limits, boundaries, and they are all full with dark energy? Where did the dark energy come from? just one type of dark energy in all 3? You seem to be quite obsessed with the concept of those Maxwell demons, so much so you now take them to be a very real feature of reality, how charming. Where did they come from, how did they become more real then the thought experiment that created them? Aeon is your term for time? imo time does not exist, time is the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it changes forms, thus, time.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Greylorn


Three spaces of at least three dimensions each, and each space defined by a single unstructured "substance" with distinct properties.

1. Dark energy, the time-independent precursor to known forms of energy.

2. Aeon, the time-independent precursor to entities that act (or have the potential to act) as Maxwellian demons with respect to D.E. (i.e. they can exert a counterforce to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

3. A space at least one dimension higher than both of these, that contained them and supported a nasty collision between the two.

These are the minimum requirements for the universe we have heretofore discovered, and all empirical aspects of that universe, including conscious intelligence. "Minimum" because I must have missed something.

Im sorry but in my opinion your theory is absurd. How did you come to this conclusion? where did you get the 3 spaces from? How are they separated? How do they remain separate? Why only 3? Why not 2 or 1? Those spaces have limits, boundaries, and they are all full with dark energy? Where did the dark energy come from? just one type of dark energy in all 3? You seem to be quite obsessed with the concept of those Maxwell demons, so much so you now take them to be a very real feature of reality, how charming. Where did they come from, how did they become more real then the thought experiment that created them? Aeon is your term for time? imo time does not exist, time is the 1st law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it changes forms, thus, time.

Ima,

I apologize, but only for replying to you.

In an eyes-on conversation I can usually assess a person's potential for understanding, but that is more difficult here. I assumed that someone who could ask your questions was also intelligent enough to consider (i.e. STUDY) their answers. I use the term "consider" rather than "react to."

Your questions are marginally legitimate, but reactive. I spent ten years writing a book which, if read, would answer your questions. Not meaning to hawk the book, you could find every bit of its contents on the internet. Judging by the time differential between my reply and your reaction , you spent ten minutes on research or ten minutes on the potty.

You had requested snippets of information from me. It is not fair to react, thoughtlessly, as if these snippets could describe my complete idea-set.

They could, if you first understood the preceding idea-set. This is analogous to the Hamiltonian transformation, which encapsulates Newtonian physics. It does not explain the physics. It provides a simple model for the physics to those who have first taken the trouble to understand Newtonian physics. It is of no value to those fools who expect an explanation of how things work in 25 words or less.

reply to post by Greylorn


Hm, im sorry you feel that way. I gave your reply an honest reply and responded with questions to the best of my ability. I meant no offense, and your offense meant or otherwise is not insulting, if you had answered my questions we could further discussion for I am interesting in intelligent peoples thoughts. What is the nature of dark energy, why and how does it allow non dark energy to exist? What created dark energy or has it always existed? Why are there 3 separate spaces? What do you mean by maxwells demon and why did you feel the need to bring it up? Is there a finite quantity of dark energy, and finite quantity of space/spaces with infinite nothing surrounding, or no such thing as anything surrounding? Is there such thing as absolute empty space in the universe, or the space between planets where there are no atoms or radiation is dark energy, and the space where there are no atoms or radiation in the atmosphere is dark energy, and the space in a molecule where there are no atoms or electrons or radiation is dark energy, and the space in an atom where there are no subatomic quanta and radiation is dark energy? All honest questions, balls in your court.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Hm, im sorry you feel that way. I gave your reply an honest reply and responded with questions to the best of my ability. I meant no offense, and your offense meant or otherwise is not insulting, if you had answered my questions we could further discussion for I am interesting in intelligent peoples thoughts. What is the nature of dark energy, why and how does it allow non dark energy to exist? What created dark energy or has it always existed? Why are there 3 separate spaces? What do you mean by maxwells demon and why did you feel the need to bring it up? Is there a finite quantity of dark energy, and finite quantity of space/spaces with infinite nothing surrounding, or no such thing as anything surrounding? Is there such thing as absolute empty space in the universe, or the space between planets where there are no atoms or radiation is dark energy, and the space where there are no atoms or radiation in the atmosphere is dark energy, and the space in a molecule where there are no atoms or electrons or radiation is dark energy, and the space in an atom where there are no subatomic quanta and radiation is dark energy? All honest questions, balls in your court.

No need to be "sorry." My comments were not about my feelings. Feelings have no place in an objective conversation at the level of metaphysics. I'm not the least bit offended. However, my interest in communicating with you further is diminishing with each exchange.

Universities have a tiered approach to courses that involves prerequisites, the successful completion of lower level courses. For example, freshmen are not allowed to take a course in Quantum Mechanics. If those who neglected to take a basic 12-credits in General Physics for wanna-be scientists and engineers, plus another 12 in Calculus, but who had merely watched a few TV documentaries and maybe read a few issues of Discover by way of preparation, were allowed into advanced classes, they would drive the professor nuts with ignorant questions.

Perhaps that does not matter if the professor is well paid, but it certainly matters to the conscientious students who have completed their prerequisites and are in the classroom to find answers, not to listen to someone whose prerequisites consist of TV documentaries and his/hers/its personal opinions about the nature of reality.

I invite you to spend at the very minimum, one year researching the answers to your own questions. Take copious notes. Write essays about your thoughts w/o regard to readership. Stay off blogs in the meantime, for they only further your desire to be right about something that you might, in the future, be qualified to be right about.

Blogs like this, for human be-right machines, are analogous to taverns for alcoholics. Now, an alkie cannot stop drinking, but he/she/it can choose drinking companions. A peaceable neighborhood tavern is good, but one can get just as drunk at a wine tasting, while meeting a different class of drinkers.

I'll be interested to see where you've gotten to after a year of honest internet research. Good research would include my book, but as I noted, the same information is available elsewhere, for free if you discount the value of your time. Let's communicate again after a year of study and research on your part, not a second before.

There are thousands of people who are paid to teach the physics knowledge that you have yet to appreciate. I'm not one of them.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

reply to post by Greylorn


I cant believe how much nonsense you just wrote instead of actually taking the time to further discussion. It has distracted and deflected my attention from the many questions I asked which you struggle to answer so you have that going for you, I can see how that justifies your smugness. I come to this site to discuss ideas, not to do homework. I can understand everything you think you know and it can all be generalized and simplified, if you think it cant, you dont know it well enough.

You said this in I believe your first response to me:

"I propose that the concept of space is actually rather simple. The apparent complexities that you note result from an incorrect understanding of space."

I dont know why you say this then go onto state you believe space to not be nothingness, but something, for I have never claimed I believed space was nothing.


"IMO a "space" must be defined by something. I have found plenty of reasons to adopt the notion that the mysterious, recently discovered, dark energy defines the space in which our universe exists, and that the structures which define our more or less observable universe (matter, e/m & gravitational fields, etc.) are time-dependent forms of dark energy.

Dark energy is, of course, the aether"

You say space is defined by dark energy, may I asked what dark energy is defined by?

In physics, dark energy is thought to be an inherent quality of space which causes 'space' or the distance between galaxies to generally increase over time and increase at an increasing rate of time. Also potentially known or referred to as the cosmological constant. So science doesnt seem to disagree with your theory here, its actually theirs.

"time dependent forms of dark energy", is there non time dependent forms of dark energy? Which is the most fundamental field which all other fields exist on or within? Dark energy is the aether, but you pretty much defined everything (matter, em field, gravity field) as dark energy, so 'everything is the aether'? What then is the meaning or value of the term or concept aether? You may say matter and em field and gravity field is aether as well. Can I ask how dark energy, formed into various forms of varying qualities? How it formed into different fields and matter?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I cant believe how much nonsense you just wrote instead of actually taking the time to further discussion. It has distracted and deflected my attention from the many questions I asked which you struggle to answer so you have that going for you, I can see how that justifies your smugness. I come to this site to discuss ideas, not to do homework. I can understand everything you think you know and it can all be generalized and simplified, if you think it cant, you dont know it well enough.

You said this in I believe your first response to me:

"I propose that the concept of space is actually rather simple. The apparent complexities that you note result from an incorrect understanding of space."

I dont know why you say this then go onto state you believe space to not be nothingness, but something, for I have never claimed I believed space was nothing.


"IMO a "space" must be defined by something. I have found plenty of reasons to adopt the notion that the mysterious, recently discovered, dark energy defines the space in which our universe exists, and that the structures which define our more or less observable universe (matter, e/m & gravitational fields, etc.) are time-dependent forms of dark energy.

Dark energy is, of course, the aether"

You say space is defined by dark energy, may I asked what dark energy is defined by?

In physics, dark energy is thought to be an inherent quality of space which causes 'space' or the distance between galaxies to generally increase over time and increase at an increasing rate of time. Also potentially known or referred to as the cosmological constant. So science doesnt seem to disagree with your theory here, its actually theirs.

"time dependent forms of dark energy", is there non time dependent forms of dark energy? Which is the most fundamental field which all other fields exist on or within? Dark energy is the aether, but you pretty much defined everything (matter, em field, gravity field) as dark energy, so 'everything is the aether'? What then is the meaning or value of the term or concept aether? You may say matter and em field and gravity field is aether as well. Can I ask how dark energy, formed into various forms of varying qualities? How it formed into different fields and matter?

edit on 12-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

You are persistent indeed, but in a kind of positive way. I meant what I wrote earlier to you about prerequisites. You will need them to understand my ideas, unless you read my book slowly and carefully enough to understand it. The prerequisites are included there.

Since you admit to being distracted by my previous reply, why not peruse it this time? First, look up "peruse." If it distracted you from questions regarding which you are not quite ready to comprehend the answers, then I've served you well.

Your persistence suggests that you are anxious to learn the answers to some high level questions. However, your style tells me that you are too anxious, and not a conscientious student. If I am to be of any assistance in your learning process, it would be helpful to know your educational background. Experience in the sciences is also educational.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd consider looking up Maxwell's Demon on Wikipedia, and following all the links. Let me know what you learn that interests you.

Originally posted by Greylorn


Since you admit to being distracted by my previous reply, why not peruse it this time? First, look up "peruse." If it distracted you from questions regarding which you are not quite ready to comprehend the answers, then I've served you well.

Your persistence suggests that you are anxious to learn the answers to some high level questions. However, your style tells me that you are too anxious, and not a conscientious student. If I am to be of any assistance in your learning process, it would be helpful to know your educational background. Experience in the sciences is also educational.

In the meantime, perhaps you'd consider looking up Maxwell's Demon on Wikipedia, and following all the links. Let me know what you learn that interests you.

You are a strange and silly monkey. Once again did not attempt to answer my question, instead pretended to be of the stature to belittle me, you fool. I used the term distraction sarcastically, as one distracts and deflects from an argument with anything other then an on topic continuation of discussion. Why are you obsessed with Maxwells demon, and what is its relevance to any personal theories and ideas you may, somehow, have?

reply to post by jiggerj

NOTHING has no qualities.

Without something there cannot be nothing. What kind of nothingness are you talking about.. An empty 3d space that you can move you hand through. To perceive this nothingness a sense of time must past and it must contain all the parameters to allow you to observe it. So it would have qualities.

Or are you talking about a nothing that cannot be imagined because if you are we cannot even talk about it because it would have no definition.....

reply to post by purplemer


The only kind of literal nothing I am aware of exists in two places - a vacuum, and inside a black hole. Even a black hole is iffy, given that both matter and light are in a constant state of being sucked in.