I was reading some theories about the workings of the universe scientists have come up with on this website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html Now I took what they said and formed my own theory. Keep in mind I am no scientist.
The two most powerful forces in nature are gravity and vacuums. Gravity is caused my dense matter, vacuums caused by no matter. I believe these two forces have caused an infinte number of "Big Bangs" through out eternity. Lets start off at the bang: Imagine all matter in the universe compressed as tightly as possible, surrounded my the infinite vacuum of space. This would be when the two forces are each at their strongest.
Now I'm going to assume that when every single element of matter in the universe combines, its going to cause some reaction and expansion. As the matter expands, this gives non-matter its chance to strike. Using its powerful vacuum to explode all the matter out into space. Now matter is shooting out into the infiniteness of space heated and expanded.
Eventually things are going to cool down, collapse and start clumping back together again. As this starts happening, the gravity of these extremely dense objects begins to pull things back to the center again. Now as I said earlier, my guess is that once gravity pulls all matter back to the center of the universe again, it starts heating up. Which in turn gives non-matter's its chance, once again, to force matter to explode out into its vacuum again.
The cycle of the universe, a constant battle between matter and non-matter, gravity and vacuums.
Universal Cycle
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Universal Cycle
That's not true, we just don't have the technology to create machines capable of creating a perfect vacuum. Even the space outside of our solar system isn't a perfect vacuum. I believe atomic particles are about 10 meters apart on average at that point.Matt Gregory wrote:I'm pretty sure the only reason vacuums appear to have any force is because gravity pulls on everything. The only reason it's difficult to create a vacuum within the earth's atmosphere is because the earth's gravity is pulling downward on the air.
Vacuum forces try to keep matter spread out as evenly as possible. While gravity likes to gather all matter together as tightly as possible. Either way, one cannot be without the other on a universal scale. If there is no matter then what is non-matter, and if there is no non-matter then what is matter.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
That's interesting. I didn't know that.
Edit: But still, I would think a vacuum is just a lack of gravity rather than a force in itself. Just like darkness is a lack of light, not a different type of light. Coldness is a lack of heat. Maybe even electrical charges are like that rather than two separate forces. Maybe it's one force and a law that creates the illusion of two opposing forces.
Edit: But still, I would think a vacuum is just a lack of gravity rather than a force in itself. Just like darkness is a lack of light, not a different type of light. Coldness is a lack of heat. Maybe even electrical charges are like that rather than two separate forces. Maybe it's one force and a law that creates the illusion of two opposing forces.
Universal Cycle
I tried do describe that in the second paragraph of my previous post. You are right a vacuum is caused by lack of gravity but at the same time gravity is caused by lack of a vacuum. We experience gravity because we don't live in a vacuum. You question whether a vacuum would be a force without gravity but its just as valid to ask if gravity would be a force without a vacuum.Matt Gregory wrote:That's interesting. I didn't know that.
Edit: But still, I would think a vacuum is just a lack of gravity rather than a force in itself. Just like darkness is a lack of light, not a different type of light. Coldness is a lack of heat. Maybe even electrical charges are like that rather than two separate forces. Maybe it's one force and a law that creates the illusion of two opposing forces.
So what is one without the other, the truth is they are completely reliant on eachother. Cause and effect is displayed here perfectly. The reason I posted this was not to argue about whether there are individual forces, it was just to discuss the actual process. In order to discuss something like this without getting caught up in the intricacies we have to keep in mind that it's all infinite in nature and nothing is anything without something else. Am I making any sense?
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Re: Universal Cycle
Nick,
Well, with gravity we can point to specific objects that are causing the force of gravity, but a vacuum seems to be caused by a lack of these objects, so although I take your point, I think in a way it's more valid to call the force with the identifiable causes the "force", and the lack of it some "law" that exists throughout the whole universe. Masculine/feminine type of thing.I tried do describe that in the second paragraph of my previous post. You are right a vacuum is caused by lack of gravity but at the same time gravity is caused by lack of a vacuum. We experience gravity because we don't live in a vacuum. You question whether a vacuum would be a force without gravity but its just as valid to ask if gravity would be a force without a vacuum.
Yeah. I don't know anything about the process. According to that Nova article, the current theory is that the known universe is going to expand and evaporate. No end to the expansion. That seems just as plausible to me as the expanding/contracting universe theory.So what is one without the other, the truth is they are completely reliant on eachother. Cause and effect is displayed here perfectly. The reason I posted this was not to argue about whether there are individual forces, it was just to discuss the actual process. In order to discuss something like this without getting caught up in the intricacies we have to keep in mind that it's all infinite in nature and nothing is anything without something else. Am I making any sense?
Re: Universal Cycle
You identified the causes for each of these forces yourself by stating that, "with gravity we can point to specific objects that are causing the force of gravity, but a vacuum seems to be caused by a lack of these objects". What makes one more prominent than the other? Matter can't exist without non-matter, and vice versa.Well, with gravity we can point to specific objects that are causing the force of gravity, but a vacuum seems to be caused by a lack of these objects, so although I take your point, I think in a way it's more valid to call the force with the identifiable causes the "force", and the lack of it some "law" that exists throughout the whole universe. Masculine/feminine type of thing.
-
Matt Gregory
- Posts: 1537
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
- Location: United States
Universal Cycle
Good question, maybe they do though.
Nick, you may be interested in this email I am about to send.
I was reading the philosophy on this website http://www.shantaram.com/
and thought I send the guy an email.
Hi Greg,
I came across your website, because of a reference, in an online newspaper, about Johnny Deep playing the lead role in the movie version of your book. I had not heard of your book, but noticed you were an Aussie so I though I'd check it out. The reviews on Amazon are outstanding so I will read it at some stage.
I enjoyed reading your philosophy and agreed with the bulk of it, but just wanted to give you a rundown of my views on some of the things you said. My response is quite long and very difficult to grasp, my ideas are still developing and still contains inconsistencies. I use writing to think, so this response is as much for me as it is for you.
When I talk about what we know, or when I call some piece of data a fact, I’m proceeding from the point of view that nothing in the universe is absolutely true, and I’m then making a distinction between what is merely believed to be true (without some supporting data) or what simply might be true, on one hand, and what has a high order of probability of being true, on the other hand.
It is not so much that nothing in the universe is absolutely true, but that things/events can be viewed in multiple ways by a conscious entity. It is the conscious entity that determines the truth and to that conscious entity it can be absolutely true, in all circumstances that the entity can experience. The dichotomously variable continuum (thanks for pointing out this term, I had come to a similar conclusion by other means), does not apply in an ultimate sense to the two most basic ways we can view a thing or event. The two ways in which a conscious entity can understand an experience (I like to use the word experience to describe things, and the interaction of things), relates to the poles of perspective. Firstly, and most instinctively, there is the Outside view, the wide angle view that narrows something down and makes it a thing, for example it makes all the sum of a cars parts and processes, a car. This is the viewpoint to create the finite, it is A=A, the total of a thing, its Effect. The second and opposite viewpoint is the Inside one, it is the viewpoint from a point outwards, from inside a thing. It is a holistic perspective of a experience. It is the examination and defining of the parts of things, and the parts of those parts, together with the way those parts interact with each other. In essence it is the examination of causes, which are infinite. If one examines a thing (or experience) then at no point will there be an end to the stream of causes. It is like perspective being like an unbounded aura. It is the perspective from the point of view of the infinite, rather than the finite.
Due to life and death our consciousness forces us to treat ourselves as finite beings, though we can imagine ourselves not being finite hence our concepts of God and afterlife, reincarnation etc.
It is natural for us to treat all things as being finite, because we each are the centre of our own universe, and being a centre BUT requiring definition in order to utilise things, in order to survive, we are unable to think truly holistically. We have to think in singular concepts, and we must define everything that comes into us using the Outside perspective in order for our senses and brain to work. We might think we can think holistically, but we always do so in terms of the addition of finite things. Nonetheless we can abstract and categorise and come up with "ultimate truths" that can be applied in a holistic form.
The main tools in my book to aid thinking holistically are the concepts
1) everything is caused
2) everything is interconnected
3) everything lacks self-caused existence
4) because things can be infinitely dissected they are in one sense real and another not real
The above concepts have lead me to the following beliefs:
5) there are no physical base units of existence, but there are base forces of existence
6) All things are caused by a combination of the two basic forces of existence
7) Physical infinity is an impossibility. Only forces can be infinite. Forces are flows of existence
8) The two infinite forces of the Totality are the Expansionary force and Contracting Force, and when 'combined' these allow for the spatial dimensions of Width and Length and concepts like distance, up, down.
9) As they are infinite, these forces are uncaused, or more accurately, not caused by 'things'.
10) To be infinite these forces must be causes that are outside of spatial dimensions and time. That we cannot even begin to imagine anything that lacks spatial dimensions is not surprising because of the way our consciousness works to identify things, it would be formless and we require form for identification.
11) In their non spatial form, these forces cause each other non-linearly, ie instantly and totally, so do not require a first cause, however this constant casual process creates spatial dimensions, and within the spatial domain they also are the cause of each other in a linear fashion, meaning their effects on each other are limited to that spatial domain and occur over time. Importantly, in the process of being the alternative cause of each other, they do not uncause each other but they cause more of each other, because they create space - unlike things that require the destruction of other things for their creation. They could not be infinite if they were not continually creating more of themselves, which is why the universe is expanding. In terms of the totality, you would think that two infinites would immediately balance each other out, but the reason they cannot do this is because they are a duality that cannot mix their natures, they cannot change into something else or be other than what they are. As they cannot mix they still must be in some form of "contact" with each other because there is nothing else that could be in-between them. They cannot have nothingness between them because "nothingness" is a logical impossibility, within all that exists, be it things, space or forces, there is no nothingness. Therefore the two forces are permanently in contact, and where they are in contact space and form must arise.
The mistaken view we have of nothingness being like the blank, blackness of empty space is erroneous, empty space has dimensions and gravity, light, radiation flowing through it. It is certainly not nothingness, in fact what we do is mistake the two forces as nothingness, particularly the expansionary force as noted above. Because they are infinite they are invisible to us. Science will never find them because science looks down into things, however if one generalises what is the SAME IN EVERYTHING to a yin/yang duality then their existence becomes obvious.
12) To exist all things must constantly be in motion.
13) Things are effects, they are events that contain static elements.
14) The static elements that allow for the existence of things are caused by a temporary balancing or equalisation of the two basic forces of The Totality within a spatial area.
15) Spatial dimensions are caused by the interaction of the two forces of infinity, space in the finite meeting place in between two opposing infinites
16) Because the two infinite forces are in competition for absolute infinity, the two forces of infinity create the law of the path of least resistance, which allows for movement 'where' the two infinities are in combat (note though that 'where' only exists where the are in contact, as the infinities in 'pure form' are not subject to spatial boundaries)
17) The measurement of movement is one form of time and the other form of time is the actual 'energy' that drives the universe, it is the force behind movement.
18) The Contracting force is inwards flowing existence, a form of negative existence. The Expansionary force is Outwards flowing existence, a form of positive existence.
19) Any thing with any discernable physical property should be regarded as matter. Gravity is a ratio effect. Mass and the resulting gravity or weight effect is caused where there is a greater degree of Contracting Infinity contained within a finite spatial area compared to the sum of the Expansionary force AND the combination of these two forces in balance. It is where the universe has a greater force of inward pulling existence.
20) The only way in which a spatial area can have a higher ration of one of the two forces is by an overlapping process. The two forces of infinity, by their very nature of their infinity, cannot truly merge into a permanent base unit of existence (although atoms can last for billions of years, so even smaller QM units could last even longer, and it does at the level of the Totality). Apart from each other, infinite forces can have no other boundary, this means they are 100% liquid existence, and like liquid they can flow both as a whole and can be separated by some obstruction (each other). Their infinity can be separated into smaller infinities, when in opposition they can become "finite infinities". Such separation means they remain infinite in the sense that they will continue to expand or contract, but finite in the sense that their force potential is lessened by that ratios of Expansion/Contraction that surrounds the "finite infinities".
21) While things are finite time-wise, as all things are interconnected they are also infinite, they have no "real" separation from the rest of the universe, although the pattern of their flow can give the appearance of separation to observers who are limited by finite senses.
22) The many and varied properties of things occur as a result of this spatial overlapping, which can consist of an immense number of layers of semi-balanced existence.
23) No balance between Expansion and Contraction can be permanent, as the centre of balance within the combination is at all times altered by the flowing centres of balances of all surrounding things.
24) Universal Constants are the cause of the existence layers. Constants form where like spatial balances congregate. Where they have similar power and speed existence flows, then the gravitational relativities will create a higher level flow, from seeming chaos uniformity will occur and this uniformity of synergy of flow enables groupings of like. Over time existence flow constants form, as the balanced units of Expansion/Contraction are broken into smaller and smaller pieces, by imbalances in surrounding things.
25) While a thing is never any more than the sum of its parts, it does have layers that flow in different manners to its dominant flow, and can thus have a number of different aspects that make it appear that a thing is more than the sum of its parts. The 'more' is merely just different perspectives, because consciousness is unable to sense and "think" of the thing in a non-linear fashion at any one instant.
26) Empty space consists mainly of the Expansionary force and thus gives the appearance of immense distances. Things are held in position and can travel through this so called emptiness without any resistance, because of the greater degree of contractive force contained within things. Things like planets are like oil droplets in a water ether, their inwards pulling tension allows them to flow through the pushing out force.
I am still developing the above theories/truths. I am fairly certain though that if I had scholarly discipline and a far better knowledge of science and maths, that I could tie all current science theories in my own theory. I believe most theories that abound today contain a great deal of accuracy, even sometimes when they appear to conflict (as per your Combinance Theory).
Everything can be seen to fall somewhere on a dichotomously variable continuum.
Nothing in that spectrum, or at either end of it, will be perfect or absolute.
Everything in the finite, physical universe is a mix of opposites, within a given dichotomy.
I think these comments are accurate, except I would remove this bit “or at either end of itâ€. In my opinion the two poles must be absolutely irreducible, thus perfect and absolute. But this is a moot point as that which is at either end of the spectrum are not things as such.
It's my hope that in this search for meaning, we can build a community of the mind, which will allow us to open our hearts to one another with the love inspired by the discovery that we really are very special beings, in a universe that has the special function of bringing beings like us into existence.
Let's be clear about that point right now. I hold that there's a purpose to existence, and that consequently there's a meaning and purpose to life. I believe that when we've examined all of the data we can accumulate about the nature of the universe, from Big Bang to the present, the only rational and reasonable conclusion to draw is that there's a meaning and purpose to life.
I have to inform that Nothing is "special" within the universe, including humanity as nothing has inherent or godly caused/designed purpose. There is no universal consciousness, because to be conscious of something you have to be outside of it, and nothing is outside the totality. There is however a form of universal action which could be interpreted as a "function", it is the action of the infinite forces within things. I believe it is the infinity within us that drives our Will to Power, our will be become more and more.
As indicated earlier things at their most basic level have a greater ratio of the Contracting Force. As humans this "greater ratio" can be demonstrated by our need to eat drink and breath and our senses work by taking into ourselves patterns of flow from outside. As things with mass we also have gravity. Our force is one that wishes to take more into us, we always want to have more, we are never really 100% satisfied.
Now you'd think that we, as a thing with a Contracting force as it's dominant underlying cause, would desire to get smaller, not to get larger - yet everything we strive for seems to be the reverse of this. What you need to do here is realise that for a force to be a force it must act on something. Although things are caused by a higher Contracting Force ratio, all causes are also effects and all things are both caused and the causes of other effects, everything has an equal and opposite reaction, the effect is the opposite of the cause, the Contracting force is the cause of the Expansionary force. Therefore the manner in which our physical Contracting infinity is "made real" in us is that we use other things to expand for the purpose of becoming more infinite (although seeing as we are just part of the casual chain, such endeavours can only ever actually result in "less finiteness", not infinity).
We use Love and seemingly compassionate or altruistic actions to make ourselves less finite. Love is a coordinating force, it is a glue that binds the competing selfishness of individuals into grouped existence patterns that have the same dominant purpose.
Consciousness is (illusionary) separation from the universe, from the environment, from others. When one looks at the causes that occurred in order for us to be here today, and if one uses the concept of evolution to all these causes, then one can see there is a direct link back to the infinite forces. Both what you are made of and all the things your body and mind does, come from outside of you. Logically, one can trace a ancestral path back to a simple starting life form which will be the same for all of us. This actually means that that particular life form has not actually ceased to exist. At all times something from a prior instance of the being must have transferred part of itself to a new form of that being. Natural selection made sure that the process resulted in increased ability to self-adapt to changing circumstances. Life exists because a particular complex pattern of materials was altered by that surrounding it, and this alteration or combining process made it able to self-direct its growth to some tiny degree. The complexity of the material that formed the life form, itself was formed by evolutionary processes. Even natural selection can be accommodated by thinking of the strength, flexibility and tolerances of the balances within the layers of structural patterns relative to the causes within the materials environment, as being the equivalent of natural selection within life evolution.
Love cannot be other than something that was caused to exist by the gradual adaptation of life to the environment. The notable thing though is that is exists today so we can know that it has been a successful adaptation, it has a proven track record and thus could be considered good. We may however be caused to become unloving if we continue to exceed the tolerances of the environment in which animals like us can live. One of the problems with love is that it enhances the destructive greed of personal ownership, in that relationships makes owning things more important, the couple or the group must use resources to obtain their combined desires, while still retaining some personal desires. Sexual love results in the greed of propagation, and with 6 billion people on the rapidly negatively changing earth, that would appear to be risky. As technology is allowing us to live longer, it would seem time to let love EVOLVE into a more holistic love, a love of a sustainable environment, an environment with lower levels of material greed for petty things. To do so however we may need to become rational about how we supply compassion and resources to persons whose actions will lead to further damage of the environment. Massive changes of attitude would be required and I can’t see this eventuating in a living structure in which business has the controlling hand. It will not initially be the richest countries who control the world resources, that suffer the greatest harm, so they will feel the results less and adapt last. At the same time the poorer nations will be causes to desire more and more resources in order to cope. A clash is bound to occur, unless tire of materialism and progress so fast that science and technology provides the means to produce without pollution, cheap products that do not harm the environment.
Everything in the universe – and indeed, the whole universe itself – is involved in the flow of time, when looked at from our human perspective.
I believe that Time is an effect of the expanding force. I regard time as being that part of the Expanding force that is not in a dualistic balance with the Contracting force. It is the excess of expansion over contraction within the spatial domain. This “excess†is what creates the movement that is essential for the existence of things, as it means that things are forced to change and it means that the universe is expanding.
Moreover, the latest discoveries from the research into sub-atomic particles, using particle accelerators and super-colliders, suggest that the sub-atomic particle called a Proton has a finite “life-spanâ€. The fact of the proton’s demise, known as proton-decay, sets an upper limit, as it were, on the existence of matter.
I do not see this at all. Proton-decay may make ‘matter disappear’, but it does not make causes disappear, and if such matter disappears it can only either be a) a problem with our ability to observe where the parts of the proton have gone to (nothing can disappear, that’s magic), or b) proton decay signifies the unmerging of the two infinities.
These two facts (remember, facts are things that have a high probability of being true, based on what we currently know) about the flow of time, and proton-decay - among many other facts that will be discussed later in this series of seminars – leads me to the overwhelming conclusion that the universe as we know it is physical and finite, rather than absolute and infinite.
I am not so sure about this, I think the answer is undetermined. I lean towards the universe not being finite sizewise, because of the problem that nothing can be outside of a finite universe. As stated earlier, nothingness just does not make sense.
As a process, the universe is absolute and infinite. Size wise is another matter, it depends on how the two infinites interact. If the universe is expanding, as it appears to be, it must also be contracting at the same time in some other manner. This is true because of the manner in which things eventually contract into black holes or the like, within the universe there is a contraction, a concentration of the contracting force.
The trouble am having with a finite physical world relates to the nature of infinity. Under my theory two holistic, aura type infinites cannot create other than an infinite physical infinity. If they combine at all then they must combine in an infinite fashion, unless in the act of combining they somehow limit each other. They do limit each other, but only where they act to block each other, however being infinite where they are in opposition must be infinite sizewise. I think the answer lies in the fact that these infinite forces must be the cause of each other, some form of non-linear casual leapfrogging must happen. In addition our whole interpretation of the spatial dimensions are likely to be erroneous, in the end like everything else, they are completely relative and co-dependent. The actual concept of size and the concept of finite versus infinite size might turn out to be a furphy. The limited tools that life evolved to view and manipulate the universe, all work on a relative basis and make us think that what we see as reality is what it is. Regardless of such limitations there are definitely two dimensions in everything we observe or sense and my Expanding and Contracting forces are indicative of these two dimensions. The expanding force has no end to its bigness, it is infinitely big and thus like an aura, and the Contracting force is infinitely small, and thus like a point. Visually, it is a bit like how the closer one gets to an object the bigger it is, and the further away the smaller it becomes – now imagine this same scenario with unlimited vision.
So, nothing is absolute and nothing is perfect. So, nothing is absolutely true.
In reality nothing physical is either perfect* or flawed as those are words relating only to human values, which are irrelevant. All things are subject to change by other things and for other things to be able to change the thing in question must have structural flaws or weaknesses that allows other patterns to mix in with and change the things natural flow.
*except they are perfect in the sense that everything is determined so they must be perfect, that is they are perfectly formed from past causes. At the same time they are not 100% perfect because they are not permanent or infinite in themselves (and if one brings into the equation their interconnectedness with everything else and their need to flow, to move, to change to even appear to exist, then one could even say they are not even really temporary).
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (which we will discuss later) assures us that there is a rare but not impossible chance that we will not fall, if we jump off the building.
I think Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle needs to be treated with care. While it may be accurate it leads people to believe in a form of magic, the magic of chaos. I think its intention has been misinterpreted. I object to the Copenhagen interpretation of this principle. People tend to read it as saying that things are uncaused, but to me this is a false interpretation, what it means is that we can never observe with 100% precision.
Where the two infinities merge there is certainly chaos or randomness, but it is the chaos caused by two perfectly liquid entities seeking the path of least resistance, so it cannot actually be random. String theory recognises this illusionary randomness (the chaotic vibrating strings must be caused to vibrate and they are caused to vibrate by a continual changing configuration of competing forces, which themselves change due to relativities). String theory tends to isolate this action to the QM world. I believe that this same competing expansion/contraction action occurs at all levels of existence – quarks, atoms, things, galaxies, and works in a dual top down and bottom up manner.
Combinance Theory: in any apparent contradiction of opposites, each of which purports to explain a given phenomenon, a combination of the two opposites has a higher order of probability of being an accurate explanation of the phenomenon, than any one of the explanations on its own.
Yes, totally agree. When people say things like “the US invaded Iraq for oilâ€, I see that they are not using your combinance theory, they don’t really understand causes (who does!). They are not taking into account the multiplicity of causes.
Causes themselves are both linear (which is the perspective of the Outside viewpoint, the dominant trend or change as effects only are noted) and non-linear (which is from the perspective of the holistic Inside viewpoint). “Everything has an Equal and opposite reaction†as demonstrated by say a game of snooker is a linear viewpoint, but causes when examined in detail are not like this, it does not really explain the why of why this occurs, it merely notes the effect. The inside viewpoint is far more difficult. Lets say that one atom strikes another, then what actually causes them to go in different directions? I am not aware of science ever explaining this. Imagine (falsely) that there was a base unit of matter and it was 100% solid (as it would have to be), and that these two base units come in contact. How could something that was 100% solid be altered in any fashion, it would have no give and no power. It would have no parts that could cause energy, therefore it would have no push or pull ability, so it could not cause reactions in other things. Taking into account that everything is interconnected, this ‘problem with solidity’ then indicates both that causes act in a holistic aura form and that the base unit of matter is not physical at all, but must be forces that never change their nature.
As an example of what we mean, let's look at what seems to be the dual nature of light.
a) Interference phenomena suggest that light is made up of waves
b) photoelectric effect, light would appear to be composed of particles
Light is fascinating. Although all things have some amount of light, light can be created in massive amounts by nuclear reactions in stars. There is a relationship between heat (an illusion – heat is just volatility) and light. Light travels at the speed of light.
If light comes from atoms in the sun and travels and the speed of light this means that a) Some internal parts of an atom must be travelling at the speed of light prior to leaving the atom or the atom breaking apart – how could this be!!!, or b) light is not matter and not a wave (the whole concept of light being a non-mass wave is ridiculous in any case). In my opinion light and other things in the electromagnetic spectrum must be matter (they have definable properties), this being the case it would mean that a) there is a speed greater than the speed of light. In terms of things there must be a speed limit, but outside of things and in the realms of the two basic forces ‘infinite positive speed’ and ‘infinite negative speed’ may exist. Only when these infinite speeds are obstructed by the opposing force do speed limits come in to play, due to the boundaries these forces create in each other. Under my universe scenario this would mean that light is merely a form of thing in partial balance, but where the Contracting Force has only a very slight margin over the Expansionary force. Nothing truly travels in a straight line, light would be no different, so the idea of light being of the nature of a wave comes from the path it travels, not the light particle itself. If light particles travel in a zigzag path this would mean that the particle is travelling at greater than the recognised speed of light. I believe in the ether and I think the ether is where the Expansionary force is just slightly dominant. I believe the path of least resistance forces light particles to travel in a crisscross fashion through this ether. What I think might occur is that light is pushed forward by the accumulation of light particles behind the travelling light particle, but as the speed of atomic reactions are slower than the actual speed of the light particles there is a slow-fast effect. An atom explodes and pushes light away, this atomic force ceases in the gap between the next atom exploding. The light as it is travelling through the ether finds a different path of least resistance than a direct line forward, it runs into light coming from the opposite direction (from light coming from atoms on the earth say), which means the path of lesser resistance is at a sideways angle not directly ahead, so the light travels in this direction. It still always travels forward because there is more ‘light pressure’ coming from the sun than the earth, but the stop-start atomic explosions cause alterations in pressure causing it to zigzag.
OK that’s enough for now. Cheers.
I was reading the philosophy on this website http://www.shantaram.com/
and thought I send the guy an email.
Hi Greg,
I came across your website, because of a reference, in an online newspaper, about Johnny Deep playing the lead role in the movie version of your book. I had not heard of your book, but noticed you were an Aussie so I though I'd check it out. The reviews on Amazon are outstanding so I will read it at some stage.
I enjoyed reading your philosophy and agreed with the bulk of it, but just wanted to give you a rundown of my views on some of the things you said. My response is quite long and very difficult to grasp, my ideas are still developing and still contains inconsistencies. I use writing to think, so this response is as much for me as it is for you.
When I talk about what we know, or when I call some piece of data a fact, I’m proceeding from the point of view that nothing in the universe is absolutely true, and I’m then making a distinction between what is merely believed to be true (without some supporting data) or what simply might be true, on one hand, and what has a high order of probability of being true, on the other hand.
It is not so much that nothing in the universe is absolutely true, but that things/events can be viewed in multiple ways by a conscious entity. It is the conscious entity that determines the truth and to that conscious entity it can be absolutely true, in all circumstances that the entity can experience. The dichotomously variable continuum (thanks for pointing out this term, I had come to a similar conclusion by other means), does not apply in an ultimate sense to the two most basic ways we can view a thing or event. The two ways in which a conscious entity can understand an experience (I like to use the word experience to describe things, and the interaction of things), relates to the poles of perspective. Firstly, and most instinctively, there is the Outside view, the wide angle view that narrows something down and makes it a thing, for example it makes all the sum of a cars parts and processes, a car. This is the viewpoint to create the finite, it is A=A, the total of a thing, its Effect. The second and opposite viewpoint is the Inside one, it is the viewpoint from a point outwards, from inside a thing. It is a holistic perspective of a experience. It is the examination and defining of the parts of things, and the parts of those parts, together with the way those parts interact with each other. In essence it is the examination of causes, which are infinite. If one examines a thing (or experience) then at no point will there be an end to the stream of causes. It is like perspective being like an unbounded aura. It is the perspective from the point of view of the infinite, rather than the finite.
Due to life and death our consciousness forces us to treat ourselves as finite beings, though we can imagine ourselves not being finite hence our concepts of God and afterlife, reincarnation etc.
It is natural for us to treat all things as being finite, because we each are the centre of our own universe, and being a centre BUT requiring definition in order to utilise things, in order to survive, we are unable to think truly holistically. We have to think in singular concepts, and we must define everything that comes into us using the Outside perspective in order for our senses and brain to work. We might think we can think holistically, but we always do so in terms of the addition of finite things. Nonetheless we can abstract and categorise and come up with "ultimate truths" that can be applied in a holistic form.
The main tools in my book to aid thinking holistically are the concepts
1) everything is caused
2) everything is interconnected
3) everything lacks self-caused existence
4) because things can be infinitely dissected they are in one sense real and another not real
The above concepts have lead me to the following beliefs:
5) there are no physical base units of existence, but there are base forces of existence
6) All things are caused by a combination of the two basic forces of existence
7) Physical infinity is an impossibility. Only forces can be infinite. Forces are flows of existence
8) The two infinite forces of the Totality are the Expansionary force and Contracting Force, and when 'combined' these allow for the spatial dimensions of Width and Length and concepts like distance, up, down.
9) As they are infinite, these forces are uncaused, or more accurately, not caused by 'things'.
10) To be infinite these forces must be causes that are outside of spatial dimensions and time. That we cannot even begin to imagine anything that lacks spatial dimensions is not surprising because of the way our consciousness works to identify things, it would be formless and we require form for identification.
11) In their non spatial form, these forces cause each other non-linearly, ie instantly and totally, so do not require a first cause, however this constant casual process creates spatial dimensions, and within the spatial domain they also are the cause of each other in a linear fashion, meaning their effects on each other are limited to that spatial domain and occur over time. Importantly, in the process of being the alternative cause of each other, they do not uncause each other but they cause more of each other, because they create space - unlike things that require the destruction of other things for their creation. They could not be infinite if they were not continually creating more of themselves, which is why the universe is expanding. In terms of the totality, you would think that two infinites would immediately balance each other out, but the reason they cannot do this is because they are a duality that cannot mix their natures, they cannot change into something else or be other than what they are. As they cannot mix they still must be in some form of "contact" with each other because there is nothing else that could be in-between them. They cannot have nothingness between them because "nothingness" is a logical impossibility, within all that exists, be it things, space or forces, there is no nothingness. Therefore the two forces are permanently in contact, and where they are in contact space and form must arise.
The mistaken view we have of nothingness being like the blank, blackness of empty space is erroneous, empty space has dimensions and gravity, light, radiation flowing through it. It is certainly not nothingness, in fact what we do is mistake the two forces as nothingness, particularly the expansionary force as noted above. Because they are infinite they are invisible to us. Science will never find them because science looks down into things, however if one generalises what is the SAME IN EVERYTHING to a yin/yang duality then their existence becomes obvious.
12) To exist all things must constantly be in motion.
13) Things are effects, they are events that contain static elements.
14) The static elements that allow for the existence of things are caused by a temporary balancing or equalisation of the two basic forces of The Totality within a spatial area.
15) Spatial dimensions are caused by the interaction of the two forces of infinity, space in the finite meeting place in between two opposing infinites
16) Because the two infinite forces are in competition for absolute infinity, the two forces of infinity create the law of the path of least resistance, which allows for movement 'where' the two infinities are in combat (note though that 'where' only exists where the are in contact, as the infinities in 'pure form' are not subject to spatial boundaries)
17) The measurement of movement is one form of time and the other form of time is the actual 'energy' that drives the universe, it is the force behind movement.
18) The Contracting force is inwards flowing existence, a form of negative existence. The Expansionary force is Outwards flowing existence, a form of positive existence.
19) Any thing with any discernable physical property should be regarded as matter. Gravity is a ratio effect. Mass and the resulting gravity or weight effect is caused where there is a greater degree of Contracting Infinity contained within a finite spatial area compared to the sum of the Expansionary force AND the combination of these two forces in balance. It is where the universe has a greater force of inward pulling existence.
20) The only way in which a spatial area can have a higher ration of one of the two forces is by an overlapping process. The two forces of infinity, by their very nature of their infinity, cannot truly merge into a permanent base unit of existence (although atoms can last for billions of years, so even smaller QM units could last even longer, and it does at the level of the Totality). Apart from each other, infinite forces can have no other boundary, this means they are 100% liquid existence, and like liquid they can flow both as a whole and can be separated by some obstruction (each other). Their infinity can be separated into smaller infinities, when in opposition they can become "finite infinities". Such separation means they remain infinite in the sense that they will continue to expand or contract, but finite in the sense that their force potential is lessened by that ratios of Expansion/Contraction that surrounds the "finite infinities".
21) While things are finite time-wise, as all things are interconnected they are also infinite, they have no "real" separation from the rest of the universe, although the pattern of their flow can give the appearance of separation to observers who are limited by finite senses.
22) The many and varied properties of things occur as a result of this spatial overlapping, which can consist of an immense number of layers of semi-balanced existence.
23) No balance between Expansion and Contraction can be permanent, as the centre of balance within the combination is at all times altered by the flowing centres of balances of all surrounding things.
24) Universal Constants are the cause of the existence layers. Constants form where like spatial balances congregate. Where they have similar power and speed existence flows, then the gravitational relativities will create a higher level flow, from seeming chaos uniformity will occur and this uniformity of synergy of flow enables groupings of like. Over time existence flow constants form, as the balanced units of Expansion/Contraction are broken into smaller and smaller pieces, by imbalances in surrounding things.
25) While a thing is never any more than the sum of its parts, it does have layers that flow in different manners to its dominant flow, and can thus have a number of different aspects that make it appear that a thing is more than the sum of its parts. The 'more' is merely just different perspectives, because consciousness is unable to sense and "think" of the thing in a non-linear fashion at any one instant.
26) Empty space consists mainly of the Expansionary force and thus gives the appearance of immense distances. Things are held in position and can travel through this so called emptiness without any resistance, because of the greater degree of contractive force contained within things. Things like planets are like oil droplets in a water ether, their inwards pulling tension allows them to flow through the pushing out force.
I am still developing the above theories/truths. I am fairly certain though that if I had scholarly discipline and a far better knowledge of science and maths, that I could tie all current science theories in my own theory. I believe most theories that abound today contain a great deal of accuracy, even sometimes when they appear to conflict (as per your Combinance Theory).
Everything can be seen to fall somewhere on a dichotomously variable continuum.
Nothing in that spectrum, or at either end of it, will be perfect or absolute.
Everything in the finite, physical universe is a mix of opposites, within a given dichotomy.
I think these comments are accurate, except I would remove this bit “or at either end of itâ€. In my opinion the two poles must be absolutely irreducible, thus perfect and absolute. But this is a moot point as that which is at either end of the spectrum are not things as such.
It's my hope that in this search for meaning, we can build a community of the mind, which will allow us to open our hearts to one another with the love inspired by the discovery that we really are very special beings, in a universe that has the special function of bringing beings like us into existence.
Let's be clear about that point right now. I hold that there's a purpose to existence, and that consequently there's a meaning and purpose to life. I believe that when we've examined all of the data we can accumulate about the nature of the universe, from Big Bang to the present, the only rational and reasonable conclusion to draw is that there's a meaning and purpose to life.
I have to inform that Nothing is "special" within the universe, including humanity as nothing has inherent or godly caused/designed purpose. There is no universal consciousness, because to be conscious of something you have to be outside of it, and nothing is outside the totality. There is however a form of universal action which could be interpreted as a "function", it is the action of the infinite forces within things. I believe it is the infinity within us that drives our Will to Power, our will be become more and more.
As indicated earlier things at their most basic level have a greater ratio of the Contracting Force. As humans this "greater ratio" can be demonstrated by our need to eat drink and breath and our senses work by taking into ourselves patterns of flow from outside. As things with mass we also have gravity. Our force is one that wishes to take more into us, we always want to have more, we are never really 100% satisfied.
Now you'd think that we, as a thing with a Contracting force as it's dominant underlying cause, would desire to get smaller, not to get larger - yet everything we strive for seems to be the reverse of this. What you need to do here is realise that for a force to be a force it must act on something. Although things are caused by a higher Contracting Force ratio, all causes are also effects and all things are both caused and the causes of other effects, everything has an equal and opposite reaction, the effect is the opposite of the cause, the Contracting force is the cause of the Expansionary force. Therefore the manner in which our physical Contracting infinity is "made real" in us is that we use other things to expand for the purpose of becoming more infinite (although seeing as we are just part of the casual chain, such endeavours can only ever actually result in "less finiteness", not infinity).
We use Love and seemingly compassionate or altruistic actions to make ourselves less finite. Love is a coordinating force, it is a glue that binds the competing selfishness of individuals into grouped existence patterns that have the same dominant purpose.
Consciousness is (illusionary) separation from the universe, from the environment, from others. When one looks at the causes that occurred in order for us to be here today, and if one uses the concept of evolution to all these causes, then one can see there is a direct link back to the infinite forces. Both what you are made of and all the things your body and mind does, come from outside of you. Logically, one can trace a ancestral path back to a simple starting life form which will be the same for all of us. This actually means that that particular life form has not actually ceased to exist. At all times something from a prior instance of the being must have transferred part of itself to a new form of that being. Natural selection made sure that the process resulted in increased ability to self-adapt to changing circumstances. Life exists because a particular complex pattern of materials was altered by that surrounding it, and this alteration or combining process made it able to self-direct its growth to some tiny degree. The complexity of the material that formed the life form, itself was formed by evolutionary processes. Even natural selection can be accommodated by thinking of the strength, flexibility and tolerances of the balances within the layers of structural patterns relative to the causes within the materials environment, as being the equivalent of natural selection within life evolution.
Love cannot be other than something that was caused to exist by the gradual adaptation of life to the environment. The notable thing though is that is exists today so we can know that it has been a successful adaptation, it has a proven track record and thus could be considered good. We may however be caused to become unloving if we continue to exceed the tolerances of the environment in which animals like us can live. One of the problems with love is that it enhances the destructive greed of personal ownership, in that relationships makes owning things more important, the couple or the group must use resources to obtain their combined desires, while still retaining some personal desires. Sexual love results in the greed of propagation, and with 6 billion people on the rapidly negatively changing earth, that would appear to be risky. As technology is allowing us to live longer, it would seem time to let love EVOLVE into a more holistic love, a love of a sustainable environment, an environment with lower levels of material greed for petty things. To do so however we may need to become rational about how we supply compassion and resources to persons whose actions will lead to further damage of the environment. Massive changes of attitude would be required and I can’t see this eventuating in a living structure in which business has the controlling hand. It will not initially be the richest countries who control the world resources, that suffer the greatest harm, so they will feel the results less and adapt last. At the same time the poorer nations will be causes to desire more and more resources in order to cope. A clash is bound to occur, unless tire of materialism and progress so fast that science and technology provides the means to produce without pollution, cheap products that do not harm the environment.
Everything in the universe – and indeed, the whole universe itself – is involved in the flow of time, when looked at from our human perspective.
I believe that Time is an effect of the expanding force. I regard time as being that part of the Expanding force that is not in a dualistic balance with the Contracting force. It is the excess of expansion over contraction within the spatial domain. This “excess†is what creates the movement that is essential for the existence of things, as it means that things are forced to change and it means that the universe is expanding.
Moreover, the latest discoveries from the research into sub-atomic particles, using particle accelerators and super-colliders, suggest that the sub-atomic particle called a Proton has a finite “life-spanâ€. The fact of the proton’s demise, known as proton-decay, sets an upper limit, as it were, on the existence of matter.
I do not see this at all. Proton-decay may make ‘matter disappear’, but it does not make causes disappear, and if such matter disappears it can only either be a) a problem with our ability to observe where the parts of the proton have gone to (nothing can disappear, that’s magic), or b) proton decay signifies the unmerging of the two infinities.
These two facts (remember, facts are things that have a high probability of being true, based on what we currently know) about the flow of time, and proton-decay - among many other facts that will be discussed later in this series of seminars – leads me to the overwhelming conclusion that the universe as we know it is physical and finite, rather than absolute and infinite.
I am not so sure about this, I think the answer is undetermined. I lean towards the universe not being finite sizewise, because of the problem that nothing can be outside of a finite universe. As stated earlier, nothingness just does not make sense.
As a process, the universe is absolute and infinite. Size wise is another matter, it depends on how the two infinites interact. If the universe is expanding, as it appears to be, it must also be contracting at the same time in some other manner. This is true because of the manner in which things eventually contract into black holes or the like, within the universe there is a contraction, a concentration of the contracting force.
The trouble am having with a finite physical world relates to the nature of infinity. Under my theory two holistic, aura type infinites cannot create other than an infinite physical infinity. If they combine at all then they must combine in an infinite fashion, unless in the act of combining they somehow limit each other. They do limit each other, but only where they act to block each other, however being infinite where they are in opposition must be infinite sizewise. I think the answer lies in the fact that these infinite forces must be the cause of each other, some form of non-linear casual leapfrogging must happen. In addition our whole interpretation of the spatial dimensions are likely to be erroneous, in the end like everything else, they are completely relative and co-dependent. The actual concept of size and the concept of finite versus infinite size might turn out to be a furphy. The limited tools that life evolved to view and manipulate the universe, all work on a relative basis and make us think that what we see as reality is what it is. Regardless of such limitations there are definitely two dimensions in everything we observe or sense and my Expanding and Contracting forces are indicative of these two dimensions. The expanding force has no end to its bigness, it is infinitely big and thus like an aura, and the Contracting force is infinitely small, and thus like a point. Visually, it is a bit like how the closer one gets to an object the bigger it is, and the further away the smaller it becomes – now imagine this same scenario with unlimited vision.
So, nothing is absolute and nothing is perfect. So, nothing is absolutely true.
In reality nothing physical is either perfect* or flawed as those are words relating only to human values, which are irrelevant. All things are subject to change by other things and for other things to be able to change the thing in question must have structural flaws or weaknesses that allows other patterns to mix in with and change the things natural flow.
*except they are perfect in the sense that everything is determined so they must be perfect, that is they are perfectly formed from past causes. At the same time they are not 100% perfect because they are not permanent or infinite in themselves (and if one brings into the equation their interconnectedness with everything else and their need to flow, to move, to change to even appear to exist, then one could even say they are not even really temporary).
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (which we will discuss later) assures us that there is a rare but not impossible chance that we will not fall, if we jump off the building.
I think Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle needs to be treated with care. While it may be accurate it leads people to believe in a form of magic, the magic of chaos. I think its intention has been misinterpreted. I object to the Copenhagen interpretation of this principle. People tend to read it as saying that things are uncaused, but to me this is a false interpretation, what it means is that we can never observe with 100% precision.
Where the two infinities merge there is certainly chaos or randomness, but it is the chaos caused by two perfectly liquid entities seeking the path of least resistance, so it cannot actually be random. String theory recognises this illusionary randomness (the chaotic vibrating strings must be caused to vibrate and they are caused to vibrate by a continual changing configuration of competing forces, which themselves change due to relativities). String theory tends to isolate this action to the QM world. I believe that this same competing expansion/contraction action occurs at all levels of existence – quarks, atoms, things, galaxies, and works in a dual top down and bottom up manner.
Combinance Theory: in any apparent contradiction of opposites, each of which purports to explain a given phenomenon, a combination of the two opposites has a higher order of probability of being an accurate explanation of the phenomenon, than any one of the explanations on its own.
Yes, totally agree. When people say things like “the US invaded Iraq for oilâ€, I see that they are not using your combinance theory, they don’t really understand causes (who does!). They are not taking into account the multiplicity of causes.
Causes themselves are both linear (which is the perspective of the Outside viewpoint, the dominant trend or change as effects only are noted) and non-linear (which is from the perspective of the holistic Inside viewpoint). “Everything has an Equal and opposite reaction†as demonstrated by say a game of snooker is a linear viewpoint, but causes when examined in detail are not like this, it does not really explain the why of why this occurs, it merely notes the effect. The inside viewpoint is far more difficult. Lets say that one atom strikes another, then what actually causes them to go in different directions? I am not aware of science ever explaining this. Imagine (falsely) that there was a base unit of matter and it was 100% solid (as it would have to be), and that these two base units come in contact. How could something that was 100% solid be altered in any fashion, it would have no give and no power. It would have no parts that could cause energy, therefore it would have no push or pull ability, so it could not cause reactions in other things. Taking into account that everything is interconnected, this ‘problem with solidity’ then indicates both that causes act in a holistic aura form and that the base unit of matter is not physical at all, but must be forces that never change their nature.
As an example of what we mean, let's look at what seems to be the dual nature of light.
a) Interference phenomena suggest that light is made up of waves
b) photoelectric effect, light would appear to be composed of particles
Light is fascinating. Although all things have some amount of light, light can be created in massive amounts by nuclear reactions in stars. There is a relationship between heat (an illusion – heat is just volatility) and light. Light travels at the speed of light.
If light comes from atoms in the sun and travels and the speed of light this means that a) Some internal parts of an atom must be travelling at the speed of light prior to leaving the atom or the atom breaking apart – how could this be!!!, or b) light is not matter and not a wave (the whole concept of light being a non-mass wave is ridiculous in any case). In my opinion light and other things in the electromagnetic spectrum must be matter (they have definable properties), this being the case it would mean that a) there is a speed greater than the speed of light. In terms of things there must be a speed limit, but outside of things and in the realms of the two basic forces ‘infinite positive speed’ and ‘infinite negative speed’ may exist. Only when these infinite speeds are obstructed by the opposing force do speed limits come in to play, due to the boundaries these forces create in each other. Under my universe scenario this would mean that light is merely a form of thing in partial balance, but where the Contracting Force has only a very slight margin over the Expansionary force. Nothing truly travels in a straight line, light would be no different, so the idea of light being of the nature of a wave comes from the path it travels, not the light particle itself. If light particles travel in a zigzag path this would mean that the particle is travelling at greater than the recognised speed of light. I believe in the ether and I think the ether is where the Expansionary force is just slightly dominant. I believe the path of least resistance forces light particles to travel in a crisscross fashion through this ether. What I think might occur is that light is pushed forward by the accumulation of light particles behind the travelling light particle, but as the speed of atomic reactions are slower than the actual speed of the light particles there is a slow-fast effect. An atom explodes and pushes light away, this atomic force ceases in the gap between the next atom exploding. The light as it is travelling through the ether finds a different path of least resistance than a direct line forward, it runs into light coming from the opposite direction (from light coming from atoms on the earth say), which means the path of lesser resistance is at a sideways angle not directly ahead, so the light travels in this direction. It still always travels forward because there is more ‘light pressure’ coming from the sun than the earth, but the stop-start atomic explosions cause alterations in pressure causing it to zigzag.
OK that’s enough for now. Cheers.
Universal Cycle
Some good insight about expansion and contraction, I appreciate you sharing the email with me. I found the points about consciousness and light to be most interesting. I'm going to elaborate more about consciousness with this.
First would you think it possible for consciousness to come about in other ways besides our own? Our consciousness is the result of certain atoms contracting to form our body where chemical and electric reactions take place, but is this the only way consciousness can exist? Naturally we are a contracting being, would it be possible for an expanding being to come about? Would this be what an enlightened person is essentially? I think there is a connection between being enlightened and the expansive force. There's more I want to say about this but I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Secondly I would just like to ask your opinion on this question. Would it be possible for two identical conscious beings to exist in the universe at the same time? I think that it would be impossible, knowing that everything is connected and reliant on eachother to exist at all. With that said all scenarios of this happening would need to be independent of eachother. Since everything is dependent, nothing could have gone through the same exact series of events in order to end up where it is, at the present.
Now on to what you said about light, I think I grasped some of what you were saying, but not all. You said that there must be some form of speed greater than light, which I agree with. Please elaborate on your reasoning for this, it might connect with mine. My reasoning is because no matter where you are at in the universe you can only see things within a diamater of an estimated 28 billion light years. This is because things beyond 14 billion light years away were not yet in that specific spot 14 billion years ago. I can't elaborate much further on it but this idea leads me to believe there must be some thing superior to the speed of light.
First would you think it possible for consciousness to come about in other ways besides our own? Our consciousness is the result of certain atoms contracting to form our body where chemical and electric reactions take place, but is this the only way consciousness can exist? Naturally we are a contracting being, would it be possible for an expanding being to come about? Would this be what an enlightened person is essentially? I think there is a connection between being enlightened and the expansive force. There's more I want to say about this but I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Secondly I would just like to ask your opinion on this question. Would it be possible for two identical conscious beings to exist in the universe at the same time? I think that it would be impossible, knowing that everything is connected and reliant on eachother to exist at all. With that said all scenarios of this happening would need to be independent of eachother. Since everything is dependent, nothing could have gone through the same exact series of events in order to end up where it is, at the present.
Now on to what you said about light, I think I grasped some of what you were saying, but not all. You said that there must be some form of speed greater than light, which I agree with. Please elaborate on your reasoning for this, it might connect with mine. My reasoning is because no matter where you are at in the universe you can only see things within a diamater of an estimated 28 billion light years. This is because things beyond 14 billion light years away were not yet in that specific spot 14 billion years ago. I can't elaborate much further on it but this idea leads me to believe there must be some thing superior to the speed of light.
First would you think it possible for consciousness to come about in other ways besides our own?
Our consciousness is the result of certain atoms contracting to form our body where chemical and electric reactions take place, but is this the only way consciousness can exist?
I can’t really answer this question. I think it would be possible, but as I can only really know my our consciousness it isn't something I can say for sure. I view consciousness as matter of very speedy data processing with a feedback loop that creates an awareness of self and as there are many forms of being here on earth, I imagine it would be possible to occur elsewhere, or for us to create such a thing in the future. I view consciousness as a focal point, a mental centre that has an awareness of calculations to be made and actions to be performed, so under this scenario it is possible a very simplified form of "conscious" life occurs even within bacteria.
A little bit of fantasy for a bit of fun…. If one were to treat the universes solar systems as atoms, then I guess some form of galactic level consciousness could not be 100% written off, but if one looks at how life was formed on earth, at the shear number of requirements for simple life to exist, and an even greater set for human life, then one would have to imagine the chances are so low that it is just about exactly 100% improbable. I cant look outside to see if billions of stars make up a being, and in any case the thoughts of such a being would take billions of years.
I am very much inclined to think that evolution is the same everywhere. Different forms of gravitational pressure may exist in other parts of the universe due to different sets of large scale Expansionary/Contraction ratios, which would cause different types of beings, but the same set of evolutionary processes would occur. I doubt the beings would be markedly different from the general range we have seen of earth. Firstly, the complex set of materials must form, then the materials have to mix in complex ways, then they most become so complex that life can form and the environment must be similar over billions of years (the heat from one large asteroid crash could set a planet back billions of years, in which time the sun has grown too large for life to form). There is only a very limited range of temperatures and gravitational relativities in which this can occur.
Looking at the other planets in our solar system we can see that some are just far too volatile for life and some are not volatile enough. Material complexity just does not have a chance to form or stay formed for any period of time. As solar systems form, I would say that gravitational forces make the right materials form in one or two planets only. The heaviest material is drawn into or forms the sun and medium density material forms into a planet or two where life is possible, the outer planets are made of gas or liquid elements, of which there are less variety than the range available in close-to-the-sun planets like earth.
Naturally we are a contracting being, would it be possible for an expanding being to come about? Would this be what an enlightened person is essentially? I think there is a connection between being enlightened and the expansive force. There's more I want to say about this but I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Very good question - I didn't think of that. Don't pay that much attention to what I said about humans being Contracting beings, that was kind of just a simple example, in reality it would be a multi-layered Contracting Expanding set of equalities and inequalities and very difficult to determine what was what. However, you know I think you are right. An enlightened person's focal point is far more holistic than an ordinary persons - just as the average male does far more so than the average woman - they do not cognitively place the inside self as being as much of a centre of the universe and can thus look at realities in a freer, less constrained fashion.
Secondly I would just like to ask your opinion on this question. Would it be possible for two identical conscious beings to exist in the universe at the same time? I think that it would be impossible, knowing that everything is connected and reliant on each other to exist at all. With that said all scenarios of this happening would need to be independent of eachother. Since everything is dependent, nothing could have gone through the same exact series of events in order to end up where it is, at the present.
I agree, for the same reason as you.
Now on to what you said about light, I think I grasped some of what you were saying, but not all. You said that there must be some form of speed greater than light, which I agree with. Please elaborate on your reasoning for this, it might connect with mine.
It is just the equal and opposite thing. If light is matter, which I strongly believe it is, then only something faster than what it is can cause light to move at the speed of light, something must hit it at a greater speed to make it move the speed it does. I just can't see how it is possible to accelerate the particle to the maximum possible speed in the universe. When something hits something both the thing being hit and the thing hitting take the force, which means something else must slow down when it hits a light particle.
Because rays have a spectrum and light is a defined area within the total range of wavelengths and frequencies, I get the impression that other things can travel at faster speeds. It depends on how complex the light particle is. Alternatively rays may all consist of the same particle and it is merely a matter of the degree and frequency of pressure behind the particle that creates the different wavelengths - but this doesn't ring as true to me.
I could be wrong. It might be that E=MC2 because the speed of light is approximately halfway between the infinite positive speed of the Expansionary force and the infinite negative speed of the Contracting Force (why does the formula require the speed of light to be squared, because two photons come from every light particle perhaps?). If it was exactly halfway there would be no light or other forms of rays as the two forces would be imperfect balance, if it there just slightly more Contracting force then light could be the simplest form of this, whereas if there was more Expansionary force then other types of radiation might occur (there is hell of a lot more black in the universe than white!).
Our consciousness is the result of certain atoms contracting to form our body where chemical and electric reactions take place, but is this the only way consciousness can exist?
I can’t really answer this question. I think it would be possible, but as I can only really know my our consciousness it isn't something I can say for sure. I view consciousness as matter of very speedy data processing with a feedback loop that creates an awareness of self and as there are many forms of being here on earth, I imagine it would be possible to occur elsewhere, or for us to create such a thing in the future. I view consciousness as a focal point, a mental centre that has an awareness of calculations to be made and actions to be performed, so under this scenario it is possible a very simplified form of "conscious" life occurs even within bacteria.
A little bit of fantasy for a bit of fun…. If one were to treat the universes solar systems as atoms, then I guess some form of galactic level consciousness could not be 100% written off, but if one looks at how life was formed on earth, at the shear number of requirements for simple life to exist, and an even greater set for human life, then one would have to imagine the chances are so low that it is just about exactly 100% improbable. I cant look outside to see if billions of stars make up a being, and in any case the thoughts of such a being would take billions of years.
I am very much inclined to think that evolution is the same everywhere. Different forms of gravitational pressure may exist in other parts of the universe due to different sets of large scale Expansionary/Contraction ratios, which would cause different types of beings, but the same set of evolutionary processes would occur. I doubt the beings would be markedly different from the general range we have seen of earth. Firstly, the complex set of materials must form, then the materials have to mix in complex ways, then they most become so complex that life can form and the environment must be similar over billions of years (the heat from one large asteroid crash could set a planet back billions of years, in which time the sun has grown too large for life to form). There is only a very limited range of temperatures and gravitational relativities in which this can occur.
Looking at the other planets in our solar system we can see that some are just far too volatile for life and some are not volatile enough. Material complexity just does not have a chance to form or stay formed for any period of time. As solar systems form, I would say that gravitational forces make the right materials form in one or two planets only. The heaviest material is drawn into or forms the sun and medium density material forms into a planet or two where life is possible, the outer planets are made of gas or liquid elements, of which there are less variety than the range available in close-to-the-sun planets like earth.
Naturally we are a contracting being, would it be possible for an expanding being to come about? Would this be what an enlightened person is essentially? I think there is a connection between being enlightened and the expansive force. There's more I want to say about this but I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Very good question - I didn't think of that. Don't pay that much attention to what I said about humans being Contracting beings, that was kind of just a simple example, in reality it would be a multi-layered Contracting Expanding set of equalities and inequalities and very difficult to determine what was what. However, you know I think you are right. An enlightened person's focal point is far more holistic than an ordinary persons - just as the average male does far more so than the average woman - they do not cognitively place the inside self as being as much of a centre of the universe and can thus look at realities in a freer, less constrained fashion.
Secondly I would just like to ask your opinion on this question. Would it be possible for two identical conscious beings to exist in the universe at the same time? I think that it would be impossible, knowing that everything is connected and reliant on each other to exist at all. With that said all scenarios of this happening would need to be independent of eachother. Since everything is dependent, nothing could have gone through the same exact series of events in order to end up where it is, at the present.
I agree, for the same reason as you.
Now on to what you said about light, I think I grasped some of what you were saying, but not all. You said that there must be some form of speed greater than light, which I agree with. Please elaborate on your reasoning for this, it might connect with mine.
It is just the equal and opposite thing. If light is matter, which I strongly believe it is, then only something faster than what it is can cause light to move at the speed of light, something must hit it at a greater speed to make it move the speed it does. I just can't see how it is possible to accelerate the particle to the maximum possible speed in the universe. When something hits something both the thing being hit and the thing hitting take the force, which means something else must slow down when it hits a light particle.
Because rays have a spectrum and light is a defined area within the total range of wavelengths and frequencies, I get the impression that other things can travel at faster speeds. It depends on how complex the light particle is. Alternatively rays may all consist of the same particle and it is merely a matter of the degree and frequency of pressure behind the particle that creates the different wavelengths - but this doesn't ring as true to me.
I could be wrong. It might be that E=MC2 because the speed of light is approximately halfway between the infinite positive speed of the Expansionary force and the infinite negative speed of the Contracting Force (why does the formula require the speed of light to be squared, because two photons come from every light particle perhaps?). If it was exactly halfway there would be no light or other forms of rays as the two forces would be imperfect balance, if it there just slightly more Contracting force then light could be the simplest form of this, whereas if there was more Expansionary force then other types of radiation might occur (there is hell of a lot more black in the universe than white!).
Universal Cycle
Maybe light is the third force in the universe, the "neutral force". (The triangle is the strongest of structures) It would also be the force which allows us to even percieve the other two forces. As I see it light can only be maniuplated be either the contractive or expansive force. Examples: It can be bent by a black hole or pulled in all together, this happens because of the contractive force. The expansive force can manipulate light too. I explained how this happens in my previous post:It is just the equal and opposite thing. If light is matter, which I strongly believe it is, then only something faster than what it is can cause light to move at the speed of light, something must hit it at a greater speed to make it move the speed it does. I just can't see how it is possible to accelerate the particle to the maximum possible speed in the universe. When something hits something both the thing being hit and the thing hitting take the force, which means something else must slow down when it hits a light particle.
Because rays have a spectrum and light is a defined area within the total range of wavelengths and frequencies, I get the impression that other things can travel at faster speeds. It depends on how complex the light particle is. Alternatively rays may all consist of the same particle and it is merely a matter of the degree and frequency of pressure behind the particle that creates the different wavelengths - but this doesn't ring as true to me.
I could be wrong. It might be that E=MC2 because the speed of light is approximately halfway between the infinite positive speed of the Expansionary force and the infinite negative speed of the Contracting Force (why does the formula require the speed of light to be squared, because two photons come from every light particle perhaps?). If it was exactly halfway there would be no light or other forms of rays as the two forces would be imperfect balance, if it there just slightly more Contracting force then light could be the simplest form of this, whereas if there was more Expansionary force then other types of radiation might occur (there is hell of a lot more black in the universe than white!).
No matter where you are at in the universe you can only see things within a diamater of an estimated 28 billion light years. This is because things beyond 14 billion light years away were not yet in that specific spot 14 billion years ago. This essentially happens because of the vast expansive force in the universe.
Both of those forces can create the illusion there is no light. I also think light is the third part to the equation of the contractive and expansive forces. (We know that when light hits an object it is absorbed by it. In effect, the actual mass of the object stays the same, but the object may heat up and expand though.)
I have devised some what of a formula for this. L=Light force, E=Expansive force, C=Contractive Force. It goes in this order for infinite: C=L=E=C=L=E=C=L=E... infinitely. Ex: Universe contracts, which causes light to emerge through chemical reaction, light causes things to heat up, then things start to expand reducing density allowing the expansive force to take over, which in turn contracts again after reactability ceases. Matter could be considered the glue which binds these forces together.
Both of those forces can create the illusion there is no light. I also think light is the third part to the equation of the contractive and expansive forces. (We know that when light hits an object it is absorbed by it. In effect, the actual mass of the object stays the same, but the object may heat up and expand though.)
I do not believe that the actual mass of an object stays the same when light hits it (providing the light hitting the object is greater than the light coming from the object). If it heats up that signifies that the light is changing the object and heat is the effect of increased atomic volatility within the object. With increased volatility the atoms and QM stuff in the object has more opportunity to break established balances and material will shoot off form the object. In my opinion objects are constantly changing mass, except perhaps objects in deep space, where gravitational pulls are weak and temperatures are low making atomic volatility low. Very low light levels may mean that little atomic material is lost, but sub-atomic material is not lost. I see atomic structures as being continually changing entities, I see quarks and other shit being captured and lost from atoms all the time.
From a sort of mystical viewpoint, light and other rays is the most efficient method of transferring matter in energy form from one place to another. Rays are what is needed to counteract the force of gravity. If there was just gravity and no light the universe would end up as a solid block. The gravity/light combo allows the universe to be an infinite process. Matter is collected together by gravity, and the collection of matter in a small spatial area causes a lot of atomic collisions, and when matter collects in a large enough heap, gravitational forces will be stronger and cause atomic fusion, breaking apart atoms and releasing light and other particles, which we call energy, which is travelling so fast that when released from it orbital path shoots out into space at massive speeds. Light however is on a curved path so eventually it crashes into other light particles travelling along different curves and the collision causes them to slow down and become other electromagnetic forms, which also crash and slow down further and become matter. It is an endless stream of crashes that successively causes energy to slow down.
This would signify that sub-atomic particles could not be travelling at the speed of light within an atom – unless something in the atom causes the particles to speed up over time. Looks like I might have been wrong about something within atoms travelling at faster than the speed of light.
Note however that collision after collision would cause the smallest matter particles to spin faster and faster, up to near the speed of light, because they are always being bombarded by light particles travelling at the speed of light and the light is likely to come more from one side than another (ie from a nearby star). The faster they spin the more mass the basic matter particles will have and the more gravitational pull they will have, so the more of other particles they will collect. This explains why strong and weak nuclear forces exist, gravity is relative to speed.
I do not believe that the actual mass of an object stays the same when light hits it (providing the light hitting the object is greater than the light coming from the object). If it heats up that signifies that the light is changing the object and heat is the effect of increased atomic volatility within the object. With increased volatility the atoms and QM stuff in the object has more opportunity to break established balances and material will shoot off form the object. In my opinion objects are constantly changing mass, except perhaps objects in deep space, where gravitational pulls are weak and temperatures are low making atomic volatility low. Very low light levels may mean that little atomic material is lost, but sub-atomic material is not lost. I see atomic structures as being continually changing entities, I see quarks and other shit being captured and lost from atoms all the time.
From a sort of mystical viewpoint, light and other rays is the most efficient method of transferring matter in energy form from one place to another. Rays are what is needed to counteract the force of gravity. If there was just gravity and no light the universe would end up as a solid block. The gravity/light combo allows the universe to be an infinite process. Matter is collected together by gravity, and the collection of matter in a small spatial area causes a lot of atomic collisions, and when matter collects in a large enough heap, gravitational forces will be stronger and cause atomic fusion, breaking apart atoms and releasing light and other particles, which we call energy, which is travelling so fast that when released from it orbital path shoots out into space at massive speeds. Light however is on a curved path so eventually it crashes into other light particles travelling along different curves and the collision causes them to slow down and become other electromagnetic forms, which also crash and slow down further and become matter. It is an endless stream of crashes that successively causes energy to slow down.
This would signify that sub-atomic particles could not be travelling at the speed of light within an atom – unless something in the atom causes the particles to speed up over time. Looks like I might have been wrong about something within atoms travelling at faster than the speed of light.
Note however that collision after collision would cause the smallest matter particles to spin faster and faster, up to near the speed of light, because they are always being bombarded by light particles travelling at the speed of light and the light is likely to come more from one side than another (ie from a nearby star). The faster they spin the more mass the basic matter particles will have and the more gravitational pull they will have, so the more of other particles they will collect. This explains why strong and weak nuclear forces exist, gravity is relative to speed.
Light still only affects matter, it doesn't actually add or subtract to it, just like expansive or contractive forces do. Depending on the matter it could have any number of effect on it, but it can never add itself to become part of the mass of the object itself. We can't take light and capture it in a bottle, in the same we can't capture gravity and put it in a bottle. Therefore it couldn't possibly be made of matter.I do not believe that the actual mass of an object stays the same when light hits it (providing the light hitting the object is greater than the light coming from the object). If it heats up that signifies that the light is changing the object and heat is the effect of increased atomic volatility within the object. With increased volatility the atoms and QM stuff in the object has more opportunity to break established balances and material will shoot off form the object.
I never heard that light travels on a curve. Can you be sure of this?Light however is on a curved path so eventually it crashes into other light particles travelling along different curves and the collision causes them to slow down and become other electromagnetic forms, which also crash and slow down further and become matter.
Natural Philosophy
Light travels on a geodesic. Whether you want to think of that as a curve or a straight line is again a matter of perspective. If you include a straight line in your idea of "curve" (it is a path with a fixed curvature of zero; a straight line is a special case of a curve), then the problem goes away.Nick wrote:Whether you call light matter or not is purely a matter of convenience. The distinction between matter and energy is arbitrary, or a matter of perspective (frame of reference).We can't take light and capture it in a bottle, in the same we can't capture gravity and put it in a bottle. Therefore it couldn't possibly be made of matter.
I never heard that light travels on a curve. Can you be sure of this?