[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.



142050,144594,

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.

 It's confusing but the concept it's quite simple.
 Particles cease to real while "occuring" in between a Planck.
A1 its the A side of the wire, while A2 it's the future exit of the wire.
 The particle it's real at A1 while "planking/traveling trough absence of time" the particle it's virtual all information being transported at C rate trough a sort of wormholing effect which we attribute as properties of the particles/spin, and becomes real while arriving at A2.

 Now the catch A2 and A1 are one and the same.
 But that can't be.
 Can if you introduce a direction anything bellow 45° from the real location would be impossible for light as it would represent being quantified backwards.

 How much energy one needs to make another current flow trough a wire in order to push backwards the incoming flow from the other side?

 If both meet at the needle you'd have "opositing forces", not different forces only opositing the arrow, guess that's represented by charge..

 Maybe the trick for matter is to "isolate" one section of the wire/tunneling effect, which it's indeed spherical and flat rather than tunnel like while on euclidian space.
 A star would be suitable for that.
 You can offer a center for it's potential, and as it starts to grow and spin it start to move all the gas particles which gives momentum to all matter nearby, and such momentum will be conserved in space.
 Meanwhile, sun now a real object(a reference of it's own still only for itself), starts to recieve the same mechanics that jumps light, but this time with a real object with mass, such object can indeed be said it's "moving with a speed".
 Suggesting the geometry of the planets and stars it's all but the electromagnetic force generated by that "section of the wire" isolated from the whole inside the innercore.
 You simple locked the low of electrons inside a single dot, and that was made by casualty and chance alone.

 So there's this gap, if light  it's not traveling with a C speed.
 But rather "occuring" from Planck to Planck with a absolute framerate C.

 First is physical, second it's mathematical/geometrical.
 First one moves, the second one pops in and out of existe.

 If A1 and A2 are but the same the initial state of light would be inevitable at C as it would be interference pattern.
 You don't need to move from A1 to A2 on a Planck volume, A1 its A2 and A2 it's A1, from there it's simple binary...1/0/1/0/1/0/1 each dash one single planck distance.

 If true, "nothing truly states" "objects made of matter" being unable to travel faster than C, for C would be no longer a limit speed for objects but a framerate for spectrum occuring "over the fabric".
 Matter doesn't need necessarily to care about space, it's it's own frame at all times.

 Just considering indeed the spin of the electron and the photon the source of everything.
 Perhaps even accounting how light and dense space/BigBang/innercores can turn space into matter.
 Trap it in there, let it's own electromagnetic field build the star and forge matter.

 Trapped "space seems weird" but it's just like the early universe, only that the reproduced one occurs isolated from the euclidian one, inside stars and planets.

 Sort of trapping space, isolate it from the exterior using matter, wonder that such portion of space inside planets and stars would make contact with the exterior.

 Five years, I mind till this part a picture it's forming but at this point the whole explanation it's a mess...🙄

 Photon gain mass and looses it cause it's restored at each Planck.
 Since A1 and A2 only distinction it's the arrow of time it's quite obvious that photons would simple occur at C and unable to stop, it's not a speed, it's a rate.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Alex, this shows a fair amount of imagination, which is fine/in line with my post history, if my self evaluation counts, lol.

I have to give it a rest until something applicable comes to mind.


,143157,143228,143427,143501,144594,144894,

[Yusef]

This clip is quoted from the ancient great scientists that confirm your theory

And says from this earth to the first object of the cosmos there are 26 objects that each one of them is huge/greater/larger/bigger than its own previous object like to comparison of a finger ring[5cm²] with a great desert like to the Sahara[10Billion KM²]

And only the Thora contains Billions of billions of billions of billions of BigBangs!

[puppypower]

If you plug in the speed of light into the three equations of special relativity; mass, distance and time, you will get discontinuities in time, distance and mass. We know mass cannot exist at the speed of light, since the math  becomes infinite, which cannot occur.

I would also expect a type of discontinuity in both space and time to complete the set. The easiest way to model this limit for space and time is that space-time will break down at the speed of light reference, into separated space and separated time that are not connected. By not being connected other options open up.

At the cross over point, mass and space-time would become massless without space-time. We would have only space that is not constrained by time and time that is not constrained by space.

If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space, matter and energy could not exist, since matter and energy are limited to space-time being connected. Moving in space, without the constraint of time, would make you omnipresent. The laws of physics are omnipresent, or they are the same in all references. This more like an information type realm instead of material based.

Energy could not exist where space and time are not connected,  since energy, such as photons requires time and space connected as  frequency and wavelength. Instead you could have something like frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency. These building blocks allows us to go back to before the BB and \ before any theory that has matter and energy already in place. Science stops are the wall, but the wall can be scaled.

[puppypower]

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

 I think I agree with that in a sense:

 Two neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x2 over one single frame (brain)
 One billion neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x 1b over one single frame (me)

 Abstract thinking it's like abstract exotic matter.
 I see something and I can transform that into wherever I want to.

 It's a complicated situation which compromises the whole understanding if there's any.

 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"

I think that the "Why question" is reduced to "not applicable" for anything infinite and eternal. It just is, always has been, will always be, and could be no other way, IMHO.


145130,145254,145430,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Get yourself settled comfortably, relax, and let your thoughts flow freely as you contemplate the "as yet" unknown, and you might surprise yourself with how the imagination quickly goes into action to transport your consciousness to interesting venues within the imagination. This does not imply the use of any mind alteration; to the contrary, instead it suggests the clearest and healthiest of risk free mind states necessary to support visualizations born within the mind. Maybe you can reach your own subconscious, which might offer other interesting ways to problem solve or to explore the unknown within.


Then open your eyes; no aftereffects, and probably no one notices you have even had the experience.



,147925,148052,148093,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Regardless of how many or how frequent Big Bang events might occur throughout the universe, the answer is a matter of speculation. Maybe there has only ever been just one, or maybe, as I posit in my rhetoric, they have been occurring forever. My argument for eternity and multiple big bangs can be examined in my posts, but I am not trying to convince anyone, I am opening my threads to an exchange of ideas.


In that vain, I'd like to offer a distinction between concentration and meditation, because both practices have benefits that can be useful in increasing your appreciation of how your mind works.


An example of a concentration exercise might be to focus on something pre selected, like the tip of a pencil, and let the mind dwell on it until you begin to notice the mind wandering off. Each time the mind begins to wander, be prepared for that mind wandering, and immediately refocus on the target.  When the wandering starts, try to let it go until it takes you back to the present, and then get back to contemplation of the pencil tip, .


This part of the discussion encourages a "visit to your own subconscious" and so just clear the conscious mind. As soon as you notice conscious thoughts creeping in, allow/encourage the return to a simple blank mind, like a clear or clean slate, to see what appears.


148248,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Just a suggestion; when you are use to achieving this "fresh mind" state, try to pose a question to the subconscious, and see if you get an answer. You may get a flash response, or you might have to sleep on it, but once the question has been posed, be alert to the "appearance" of an answer.


For example, one of my favorites ... has the universe always existed, or was there a beginning.


The "answer" I seem to get is that the universe has always existed, so there was no beginning (and presumably, no end).


Right along with that speculation about the infinity of time is the question of space; is space infinite too. I see no logical alternative to the infinity of space.


If we arrive at a conviction that both time and space are infinite and eternal, then the question that remains to my feeble thinking is the infinity of matter and energy. Infinite too, yes? Yes, yes!




148282,148387,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

What, if any, are the paradoxes of infinite space and time?


Olbers's paradox, also known as the dark night sky paradox, is an argument in astrophysics and physical cosmology that says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Olbers'_paradox

148390,148420,148641, 148790,

[Halc]

Olbers's paradox ... says that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of a ... static universe.

Well, thermodynamic law also conflicts with the same thing. I don't think this qualifies as a paradox, it is a mere falsification of this 'static universe' suggestion, something that was presumed right through the 18th century.  You sort of propose one yourself, and thus contradict these observations.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Agreed. Falsification of the static universe concept is right in line with my premise that the universe is infinite and eternal. It really seems that paradoxes don't last too long because science is always on the move, and one fertile ground for that movement is around solving anything that seems paradoxical.


149450,149519,149585,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

My problem with the thinking that there may have been only a single Big Bang event, which does seem consistent with the consensus of cosmological thinking, is that backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.


The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creation and to an active thinking God. I prefer to stick with my choices of an eternal and infinite universe, probably teaming with life, much of which is very distant, and receding from our ability to detect it.


149682,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So I move on to conclude that there may have been multiple big bangs across infinite time, and each Big Bang is simply the result of the accumulation of a large but finite amount of matter and energy accumulating around a center of gravity. When that accumulation of mass has become so large that it collapses under its own gravity, it causes nature's greatest implosion, and immediately bursts in expansion, ... there you have it ... a Big Bang.

As the title of the thread says, "why not multiple big bangs" as a common feature of the natural universe; an infinitely recurring event here and there forever across infinite space and time; gosh.


149733,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

When a "Big Crunch" collapses under it own weight and expresses as a Big Bang somewhere/sometime in the vastness of space, matter is converted to energy, energy takes the form of expansion, and by the time the aftermath of a Big Bang calms down, there is a swirling ramification imprinted on a patch of space which might be a detectible disturbance observable for billions of years into the future and across large sections of space.

But it will fade into the greater universe to be recycled in some future Big Bang like the one we so thankfully enjoy.


149766,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

One thing that is notable about each Big Bang event is that there are various invariant laws of nature at work to orchestrate each one. This set of laws applies everywhere in the universe, if my speculation is right, and therefore, in an infinite universe, with an infinite number of Big Bang arenas actively playing out, you have an infinite number of everything, .


150279,150404,150796,

[Halc]

backtracking such a singular event too easily lends itself to the conclusion of a beginning.

A bound to time is allowed by relativity theory. There are examples.
The big bang does not suggest a beginning. It does not posit an 'origin' of the universe, nor the lack of anything on the other side of 'time zero' so to speak. It's just a point beyond which we cannot look.

If you want a universe model without time bounds, there is something like the Schmelzer model which denies all the premises of relativity theory and comes up with different ones. There are no temporal bounds, and thus no big bang, black holes, worm holes, etc.  The universe extends infinitely into the past, and there is a big bounce, but not a compression of material in otherwise empty space, which (as I've pointed out repeatedly) cannot evolve forward.

The problem with a "beginning" is that it is closely attributed to an act of creation

Yes, that's a problem, at least with a model with a universe as something contained by time. The Schmelzer model does this, necessitating the lack of a beginning. Einstein's model does not do this, so isn't something in need of creation.