The Nature of Reality

Will there ever be an explanation for dark energy that does not concede the universe is infinite?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3
Dec 14, 2021
27
0
50
Before the Big Bang, there is what can be described mathematically as a single point of infinite energy. To reach this "point" would require a journey back through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering higher and higher energy physics as you go. This "point" of infinite energy (+) is the source of all things. At the opposite end of the spectrum, is an infinite expanse void of energy (the vacuum). To reach this place, would require a journey forward through infinite space and time. No relativistic observer could ever make this journey. No matter how far you travel, you will remain infinitely far away, encountering lower and lower energy physics as you go (i.e., redshift). This "expanse" void of energy (-) is the backdrop against which relativity plays out. Dark energy, is the natural tension between the "point" of infinite energy, and the "expanse" void of energy. Each place exists permanently in its own right, without beginning or end, and can never be directly observed, because any observer will find themselves infinitely far away regardless of what they do. Dark Energy, is the tension between the state of infinite positive energy at the "beginning" of time and the infinite negative energy at the "end" of time. As we move away from infinitely positive energy density (infinite energy concentrated in a single mathematical "point") towards infinitely negative energy density (infinite energy spread out across infinite mathematical "points"), I.e. as time passes, in relative terms, the Universe expands. Because time is relative, this expansion occurs unevenly in accordance with localised time.The thermodynamic arrow of time, is a journey "away" from infinite light and "towards" infinite darkness. No matter what happens, all observers are caught in the balance. The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist.
 
Mar 4, 2020
548
73
1,980
I don't look at it that way at all. I believe our reality has two parts. A natural part and a super natural part. The natural part is the non-living and includes all the universe. The super natural part is the living part and only occurs here.


I don't believe that physical dynamics obey or follow mathematical dynamics. And that our basic concepts of the fundamentals are way off base.


For instance our concept of emission and absorption(light) is greatly mis-understood. And we base all our science on this.
 
Dec 14, 2021
27
0
50
I agree that our basic concept of the fundamentals are way off base. I believe human beings did not evolve to perceive objective reality, because objective reality is by its nature beyond our scope of understanding. I believe physical dynamics follow mathematical patterns, and this is what we call physics. But math itself is fundamentally misunderstood. Take our planet, Earth. To put my opinion simply, I contend that all physics is grounded ultimately in infinite progression. In other words, below sub-atomic scales there is an even "lower" level of physics, and another beyond that, on and on ad infinitum. So within the Earth, for example, is essentially an infinite universe composed of progressively smaller and smaller parts. The Earth in turn, is a bit like an atom in an infinite Universe. And intelligence exists on all scales. So there are relative life-forms who see a planet a bit like the way we see an atom. At our scale we perceive differences among different solar systems that at larger scales roughly even out. In the same way, intelligence on sub-atomic scales would perceive differences that for us roughly even out. So I essentially believe in panpsychism, and that the Singularity lies at the heart of all things. Not the best explanation ever, but hopefully that makes some sense.
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
For instance our concept of emission and absorption(light) is greatly mis-understood. And we base all our science on this.
Can you explain please.
I am trying to follow your logic ( I don't think I agree but am unsure of the points you are making)
 
Mar 4, 2020
548
73
1,980
The only thing that Maxwell came close to, with his EM equations, is absorption. Absorption has a wave like dynamic. It's easy to measure. UN-known to science, the absorber is reactive. It's has inertia. It will react to the stimulation with an equal and opposite reaction. Giving you an alternation.

And everyone.....thinks this means that the propagation.....has this alternation. Neither the emission dynamic or the propagation dynamic has alternation. An isolated monopole charge can emit. There is nothing there to alternate. One electric pole. An electron can not emit a positive field. And visa versa.

When the propagation passes you, it has a duration, or a length to it. This electrical disturbance lasts for 1/2 period, unless you are moving incident to it. This disturbance will induce two torques on the absorber, an electrical torque and a magnetic torque. When the disturbance passes, the absorber will reset these torques with the inertial reactance torque of the absorber. In layman's terms, it rings, it vibrates, it oscillates. Then there will be a duration of no disturbance at all.......it will also be 1/2 period, with no incident motion. This is the same time that the absorber is resetting. It's a 50% duty cycle, with no incident motion. EM radiation.........blinks. It strobes. It's intermittent. In 1/2 periods.(this is the only thing Einstein got right, even tho his math about it was wrong)

Emission is an instant event. It doesn't take any time. This is why, no matter the velocity of the emitter, the propagation has a constant length or duration. No matter the motion of the emitter.....the propagated length(or duration) remains the same. The spinning spoke on a moving hub does not change length.

I know that statement is hard to swallow. How can something happen in an instant? How would you define instant? How long does it take, to flip an electron? To flip a ring. It's not exactly the flip that does it......it's the stop of the flip, that can disassociate a charge from it's field. The field that is going to be emitted is already up to velocity, it is in rotation when attached to the charge. So, no acceleration time is needed. And the field is already at the proper length, so no field grow time is needed. All that is needed is the cut. Think of spokes spinning on a hub.(minus a rim) Already at speed and length. Just cut and release them. The spoke retains it's duration, induces it's duration, and is absorbed with a equal and opposite duration. 0,1/2,1 emission,propagation,absorption.

A non reactive detector will allow us to measure these blinks. And I do believe that the measurement and the displacement of that duty cycle, could lead to some very interesting enlightenment about space and time.
 
Dec 14, 2021
27
0
50
The only thing that Maxwell came close to, with his EM equations, is absorption. Absorption has a wave like dynamic. It's easy to measure. UN-known to science, the absorber is reactive. It's has inertia. It will react to the stimulation with an equal and opposite reaction. Giving you an alternation.

And everyone.....thinks this means that the propagation.....has this alternation. Neither the emission dynamic or the propagation dynamic has alternation. An isolated monopole charge can emit. There is nothing there to alternate. One electric pole. An electron can not emit a positive field. And visa versa.

When the propagation passes you, it has a duration, or a length to it. This electrical disturbance lasts for 1/2 period, unless you are moving incident to it. This disturbance will induce two torques on the absorber, an electrical torque and a magnetic torque. When the disturbance passes, the absorber will reset these torques with the inertial reactance torque of the absorber. In layman's terms, it rings, it vibrates, it oscillates. Then there will be a duration of no disturbance at all.......it will also be 1/2 period, with no incident motion. This is the same time that the absorber is resetting. It's a 50% duty cycle, with no incident motion. EM radiation.........blinks. It strobes. It's intermittent. In 1/2 periods.(this is the only thing Einstein got right, even tho his math about it was wrong)

Emission is an instant event. It doesn't take any time. This is why, no matter the velocity of the emitter, the propagation has a constant length or duration. No matter the motion of the emitter.....the propagated length(or duration) remains the same. The spinning spoke on a moving hub does not change length.

I know that statement is hard to swallow. How can something happen in an instant? How would you define instant? How long does it take, to flip an electron? To flip a ring. It's not exactly the flip that does it......it's the stop of the flip, that can disassociate a charge from it's field. The field that is going to be emitted is already up to velocity, it is in rotation when attached to the charge. So, no acceleration time is needed. And the field is already at the proper length, so no field grow time is needed. All that is needed is the cut. Think of spokes spinning on a hub.(minus a rim) Already at speed and length. Just cut and release them. The spoke retains it's duration, induces it's duration, and is absorbed with a equal and opposite duration. 0,1/2,1 emission,propagation,absorption.

A non reactive detector will allow us to measure these blinks. And I do believe that the measurement and the displacement of that duty cycle, could lead to some very interesting enlightenment about space and time.
My understanding of Relativity (which is not a highly technical understanding, I essentially see it as a theory based on the premise that observational reality exists relative to the speed of light in a vacuum) leads me to a bit of a different conclusion than most. Relativity is mostly solid, absent a single fundamental insight. Einstein viewed the Singularity as a mathematical curiosity, and believed black holes would not exist in nature...
The Singularity is the fundamental unifying force. This understanding is what renders quantum mechanics comprehensible in the context of relativity, and explains dark matter and dark energy. What is "the speed of light in a vacuum?" It is the speed of light relative to the Singularity. In objective reality, nothing is time dependant, it only appears to be because the speed of light relative to the Singularity is objectively unquantifiable, as all relative units of speed are infinitely divisible. So we make *subjective* measurements of reality in terms of fitness (significant digits) and intellectual heritage (base ten mathematics, limited, relatively primitive language). The more advanced and efficient our systems for processing, compressing, storing, and transmitting information become, the closer we get to understanding objective reality in *relative* terms. However, our understanding is only improved *relative* to prior experience, and remains infinitely short of *objective* understanding regardless of what we do.
Dark energy is the tension between what can be described as a single mathematical point of infinite energy, and infinite mathematical points of zero energy. The single "point" of energy exists beyond the dawn of time as we understand it, infinitely far away. The infinite points of zero energy exist beyond the end of time as we comprehend it, infinitely far away. In relative terms, the thermodynamic arrow of time can be described as the relative motion of matter and energy away from infinite energy and towards zero energy. As we move from the high energy end of the eternal spectrum (+) towards the low energy end (-) the universe appears to expand, because we are essentially moving away from infinite density towards an infinite expanse, remaining forever suspended infinitely far away from each. In other words, the Universe never began and never ends. While we view reality in terms of finite cause and effect (if,then...) objectively, all effect exists relative to infinite cause and vice versa.
Now, imagine a coffee cup orbiting Saturn. The gravitational impact of that coffee cup exists, but at humanity's present level of mathematical precision, would be unmeasurable in the context of the entire Solar System (now, imagine infinite coffee cups at a *relatively* low frequency scattered across an infinite universe). Imagine a brown dwarf existing 1 trillion lightyears away. The gravitational effect on its surroundings is persistent, relative to scale. It will be impossible to quantify directly from our perspective given our current level of precision in calculating gravity, but the effect will exist nonetheless (now, imagine infinite brown dwarfs at a *relatively* low frequency scattered across an infinite universe). Dark matter, is the cumulative effect of things that seem individually insignificant *relative* to our perspective.
As far as quantum mechanics goes, I am often reminded of a quote attributed I believe to Richard Feynman: "All the mystery of quantum mechanics is contained within the double slit experiment." My understanding of the wave of probability derives directly from my understanding of the double slit experiment. Until it is measured, light passes through both slits simultaneously. To me, this is what I would describe as a "hint" at objective reality. In the experiment, we are controlling the circumstances so we can mathematically quantify an event with two possible outcomes. But in reality, that event is part of a chain of events with infinite actual outcomes. Observation imposes a perceived outcome (i.e., measurement forces the light to choose one slit or the other) but in reality, the outcomes are infinite. The nature of the light lies with the Singularity, where all realities exist simultaneously.
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
Now, imagine a coffee cup orbiting Saturn. The gravitational impact of that coffee cup exists, but at humanity's present level of mathematical precision, would be unmeasurable in the context of the entire Solar System (now, imagine infinite coffee cups at a *relatively* low frequency scattered across an infinite universe). Imagine a brown dwarf existing 1 trillion lightyears away. The gravitational effect on its surroundings is persistent, relative to scale. It will be impossible to quantify directly from our perspective given our current level of precision in calculating gravity, but the effect will exist nonetheless
The proposed substitution of a coffee cup for butterfly wings in a weather scenario but applied to a brown dwarf "a trillion light years away" is ok except that gravity transmits at the speed of light and the Universe is proposed at about 13.8 billion years i.e. Not enough time. Just nit picking :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Onemetertwometer
Dec 14, 2021
27
0
50
The proposed substitution of a coffee cup for butterfly wings in a weather scenario but applied to a brown dwarf "a trillion light years away" is ok except that gravity transmits at the speed of light and the Universe is proposed at about 13.8 billion years i.e. Not enough time. Just nit picking :)
Gravity is persistent relative to scale. It is not "transmitted".
Think of the example of a wave in a pool. You stimulate a wave on one side of the pool, and moments later, it crashes on the other side. However, the moment the wave forms, the distribution of water throughout the pool is affected. So although the impact of the wave is felt relative to a perceived delay in time, the effect is actually immediate.
Furthermore, the Universe is not "13.8 billion years old". Time is objectively unquantifiable, because the speed of light in a vacuum is an objectively unquantifiable measurement. For example, 299,752,458 meters/second is the generally accepted measurement for the speed of light. But what happens when you measure the speed of light to the nearest nanometer per nanosecond? Your results may not be consistent. Carry on this process ad infinitum, and you will find your measurements can not be consistent. The Universal constants used to construct physics are useful at a particular level of precision, i.e. a particular scale, but they are absolutely and unequivocally not objectively valid in the grand scheme of things.
 
Nov 19, 2021
41
5
55
Gravity is persistent relative to scale. It is not "transmitted".
Think of the example of a wave in a pool. You stimulate a wave on one side of the pool, and moments later, it crashes on the other side. However, the moment the wave forms, the distribution of water throughout the pool is affected. So although the impact of the wave is felt relative to a perceived delay in time, the effect is actually immediate.
Hi, sorry to disagree but the effect travels at the speed of light. It is not immediate. But you correct me; yes I should have made myself clearer. Gravity waves travels at "c". The effect of gravity variation e.g. an object in orbit or a hypothetical sudden disappearance of say, the sun - in these cases "C" transmits the effects.

You also mention the speed of light and then proceed to reduce the scale into the world of Quantum Mechanics where there is "uncertainty" and wave function collapse (where a decision, for example, that a wave becomes a particle in its effects). A crazy world of QM indeed but one of realism that can and is used in everyday calculation. Not to mention the Macro world of relativity where predictive calculation enables you to have a Sat Nav.
Maybe I have the wrong idea but you seem to say our supposed knowledge is, well, er, pretty much misleading as to reality. This could be true but in the absence of an advanced Alien teacher we just have to do our best. Maybe I misunderstand.
 
Dec 14, 2021
27
0
50
Hi, sorry to disagree but the effect travels at the speed of light. It is not immediate. But you correct me; yes I should have made myself clearer. Gravity waves travels at "c". The effect of gravity variation e.g. an object in orbit or a hypothetical sudden disappearance of say, the sun - in these cases "C" transmits the effects.

You also mention the speed of light and then proceed to reduce the scale into the world of Quantum Mechanics where there is "uncertainty" and wave function collapse (where a decision, for example, that a wave becomes a particle in its effects). A crazy world of QM indeed but one of realism that can and is used in everyday calculation. Not to mention the Macro world of relativity where predictive calculation enables you to have a Sat Nav.
Maybe I have the wrong idea but you seem to say our supposed knowledge is, well, er, pretty much misleading as to reality. This could be true but in the absence of an advanced Alien teacher we just have to do our best. Maybe I misunderstand.
The exact moment the Sun hypothetically disappears, the Earth will be orbiting nothing. Nothing, by definition, does not exist.
After the perceived passage of some time, its trajectory through space will alter course... Relative to what?
What I am attempting to convey, is not that knowledge is misleading as to reality. It is that reality exists relative to observation, and observation can not be objectively quantified in terms of mathematics or language because it is beyond the scope of our comprehension.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS