[Vern (OP)]

I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

[Kiran The King Kai]

I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

I have a theory that can explain cause of Bang !

[Don_1]

I have some ideas about what is the true nature of the universe. Others here have other notions. I wonder if we can start with a few postulates and create a new vision of reality. Can we find that principal that John Wheeler talked about when he said, "Some principle uniquely right and uniquely simple must, when one knows it, be also so obvious that it is clear that the universe is built, and must be built, in such and such a way and that it could not possibly be otherwise."

As a first postulate I suggest Maxwell's idea.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

I have a theory that can explain cause of Bang !

So have I, Lino Lil at No. 18!!!

[Kiran The King Kai]

What do you mean Mr.don_1_2_page no.18 ??

[Kiran The King Kai]

R u making fun of me ?
When I will publish than I need to look at your face LOL.

[Mr. Scientist]

Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.

[Kiran The King Kai]

Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.

sir, why don't you use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/

[Mr. Scientist]

Let me attempt this on a logical path.

Vern and myself a photon-theory only enthusiasts. Many have been following luxon theory and how Verns vision incurs with mine very admirably, after all that complicated imaginary stuff to reconcile within my cranium.

He has shown that the irreducible singularity is an electromagnetic force. I agree.

He believe there is no Higgs Boson. I set it down to an energy gradient in the potential gravitational vector, whilst vern internally and forensically illustrates a geometry-occurrance within the structure of a photon.

Then i had to involve vortex's in my math as to ''compress'' all the essential ingredients together, so i was trying to answer verns qoutation ''it all happens by magic,'' but obviously not so

So let's debate this stuff first.

Myself and Vern are considering in writing a thesis between us on a new reality proposal, and a whole new ensemble of math to decribe it. By removing the gravitational singularity, many current quantum problems can inexorably be solved.

 [8D] 777th post. Two days ago i had 666 and freaked out a little. No girly screams though... []

[Mr. Scientist]

Now boys; behave. Let's be diplmatic and reasnable within ourselves when considering each others theories.

sir, why don't you use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/

Simply down to money.

[Mr. Scientist]

By your theory vern magnetic charge inside a photon i effected by a curvature, or it dissipated until it follows a linear path again. The is a prediction well-worth noting.

[Vern (OP)]

May be we can begin with the one reality we have postulated. That only photons comprise the universe. We can see how far we can get with that notion and still remain self consistent.

Given the postulate, we might wonder why the electromagnetic field always presents itself in quantum chunks. I have proposed that it is because empty space can support only so much electric and magnetic amplitude. I suspect that is true because electric and magnetic amplitude is not part of the equation for quantum energy.

hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.

Now, is that reasoning valid?

[Vern (OP)]

By your theory vern magnetic charge inside a photon i effected by a curvature, or it dissipated until it follows a linear path again. The is a prediction well-worth noting.

In the hypothetical universe under consideration nothing exists except electric and magnetic amplitude change. This change is equal and opposite in a photon, so a photon is charge neutral.

However when the path of a photon is bent, the electric and magnetic change can not be equal and opposite on both sides of the path. There is less area on the inside of the curve. This imbalance shows up as charge and mass.

When there is no entrapment mechanism to hold the bent path, the path straightens and continues on as a massless photon.

[Vern (OP)]

hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.

Now, is that reasoning valid?

If that reasoning is valid, we immediately see that there are some obvious realities that have not yet been stated in physics. The numerical value of the electric and magnetic amplitude limit that empty space can sustain is one.  This number should be significant. It would be a primary constant from which Planck's constant derives. It would be the primary cause of the quantum nature of the universe. It would be the originating factor in the mental affliction we call Quantamania.(newly coined word) It should free us from the need to identify everything in terms of quanta.

[Mr. Scientist]

May be we can begin with the one reality we have postulated. That only photons comprise the universe. We can see how far we can get with that notion and still remain self consistent.

Given the postulate, we might wonder why the electromagnetic field always presents itself in quantum chunks. I have proposed that it is because empty space can support only so much electric and magnetic amplitude. I suspect that is true because electric and magnetic amplitude is not part of the equation for quantum energy.

hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.

Now, is that reasoning valid?

Mm... deep. Too early in the morning. I will think about this hard though.

Thnks Vern

[Mr. Scientist]

hv describes quantum energy. It contains only a constant and the rate of electromagnetic change over time. If the electric and magnetic amplitude reached during the change were variable it would need be in the equation.

Now, is that reasoning valid?

If that reasoning is valid, we immediately see that there are some obvious realities that have not yet been stated in physics. The numerical value of the electric and magnetic amplitude limit that empty space can sustain is one.  This number should be significant. It would be a primary constant from which Planck's constant derives. It would be the primary cause of the quantum nature of the universe. It would be the originating factor in the mental affliction we call Quantamania.(newly coined word) It should free us from the need to identify everything in terms of quanta.

my thoughts ineditely after reading the post above

[Dimi]

Let me start by saying,

Perhaps there was no such thing as big-bang, that life itself existed FOREVER, we are applying Human concepts that something MUST start from somewhere, by implying it starts - gives it an implication it must end, life starts and ends. But the universe never started, it was just THERE to begin with (Or rather to not-begin with...), perhaps the earth was made via big-bang, but not the universe. Could be just a giant contradiction

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?

This being said, reality is such a bore I have discovered my truth, I make my reality the way I want it - and to me, existance is just is. (Intened wording)

Everything is just in a state of energy, it is knowlegde that shapes what our perspective of things are.

Though, I seem to be lacking energy to go on my ramble Back to violin practice.

[Vern (OP)]

Then maybe we can add another postulate, since we forbid the magic that could have produced a Big Bang.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

Postulate: Space and time are invariable. Space is empty nothingness. Time marches on from past to future and does not vary the rate of its progress.



Now with just these two postulates, we already see that any universe that can exist within that scenario will exhibit relativity phenomena. And if we were as mathematically adapt as Henri Poincare, we could create the equations that describe how any object existing there must distort in order to gain spatial movement. We would be able to write out the Lorentz Transforms just as Poincare and Lorentz did.

[Mr. Scientist]

Let me start by saying,

Perhaps there was no such thing as big-bang, that life itself existed FOREVER, we are applying Human concepts that something MUST start from somewhere, by implying it starts - gives it an implication it must end, life starts and ends. But the universe never started, it was just THERE to begin with (Or rather to not-begin with...), perhaps the earth was made via big-bang, but not the universe. Could be just a giant contradiction

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth? ***

This being said, reality is such a bore I have discovered my truth, I make my reality the way I want it - and to me, existance is just is. (Intened wording)

Everything is just in a state of energy, it is knowlegde that shapes what our perspective of things are.

Though, I seem to be lacking energy to go on my ramble Back to violin practice.

Indeed there are many other contending theories. One off the top of my head is the Ekpyrotic Theory or Steady state, but i would almost hunch there was almost certainly a beginning of time, and therefor space as well, and since math is very strict, it seems the most plausible theory to entertain for many reasons.

Very true. I once made a similar verbal deduction of logic that something cannot simply come from nothing, which possibly means this ''nothingness'' was actually the ''everything-ness'' that was ever really required.

So what was it? A potential sea of information, because i myself would tend towards this.

Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''

Actually, the universe is what is called ''self-contained'' and since the universe encompasses everything then earth itself is also an ingredient of the big bang, no matter how miniscule

[Vern (OP)]

Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''

When the Catholic Priest first proposed The Primevial Atom the idea was that the material universe sprang from one point and swelled into empty space. Now, the notion seems to have developed to have space and time being created in the event. It takes a magical religious mind to conceive a nothingness even more void of stuff than empty space. Yet, that is what is advocated; astonishingly some folks actually believe that.

[Kiran The King Kai]

Edit: *** ANSWER: ''Correct me if I am wrong, but the Big Bang is about the creation of the UNIVERSE - not the earth?''

When the Catholic Priest first proposed The Primevial Atom the idea was that the material universe sprang from one point and swelled into empty space. Now, the notion seems to have developed to have space and time being created in the event. It takes a magical religious mind to conceive a nothingness even more void of stuff than empty space. Yet, that is what is advocated; astonishingly some folks actually believe that.

why don't people use physics Journals to publish ??
http://journals.aip.org/